Proper Cause Unconstitutional!

[Tennessee Gentleman]

The SCOTUS has ruled in York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc.
v. Bruen that New York’s “proper-cause” requirement to obtain a concealed-carry license “violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense,” Majority written by Justice Thomas. I'm looking for the opinion on line.

[Metal god]

Link to Ruling
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...0-843_7j80.pdf

since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is
broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in
the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on
constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test
such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any
interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny.

Holy cow did we just get the clarification we've all been wanting ?

[Zhe Wiz]

Awesome. About time! That stupid “Target Shooting and Hunting Only” stamp on my Tompkins county pistol permit is meaningless! Not that I l do anything other than target shooting and hunting.

[Metal god]

Does this legally effect state legislatures or can states like CA keep making new laws that they NOW KNOW would be unconstitutional ? If so would/is there now a quicker way to appeal such laws or would it still be the same common 5 year process ?

[Spats McGee]

I'm reading it now and my first impression is this: This is big. The Heller Two-Step has been scrapped, as has NY's "proper cause" requirement. We all know that the antis have already started trying to find their way around it, but this is a win for us.

[Pahoo]

Holy cow did we just get the clarification we've all been wanting ?

The "Bill or Rights" should not need any clarification. for now, anyway, it is what it says it is. Iin short, it is absolute. It's like trying to change the Ten-Commandments. Lots of luck with that one. Oh, NY knew they were going to lose this one, as they had a prepared response to this ruling. Evil never sleeps, Now the real fun begins as a number of Liberal states will begin their pointless juggling acts ...

Be free and be safe !!!

[mack59]

Huge, although Justices Alito and Kavanaugh wrote that the decision addresses the may issue or good cause and is not a decision on other firearm related issues and that the decision does not strike down ccw licensing laws that are shall issue as in 43 states.

However, it is hard to see how Thomas decision which states that both intermediate and strict scrutiny are off the table and that there can be no means testing or balancing and that the only deciding factor is the amendment itself and its historical context - with Barrett adding that the length that laws have been in effect do not make them automatically part of the historical understanding as that must be derived from the intent of the founders and not just laws that have been in effect in the 18th or 19th century - does not open the door for challenges to many firearm laws.

[seanc]

This case was addressing "may issue", but given the absolutist language used by the majority opinion, can this also apply the right to bear arms the same broad recognition of our other constitutional rights and eliminate the state-to-state boundaries that exist as well in future court battles? I.E. Your right to free speech isn't limited to your home state and does not require a permit.

The 2nd Amendment is no longer a second class right! Justice Thomas is my hero!

[raimius]

I'm glad they threw out the "special need" requirements and the 2A Two-step. Although, I suspect courts will now dive into cherry-picked histories to justify any and every new restriction. Still a win...

[44 AMP]

I'll let Spats chew through the details, for some odd reason I trust his summaries...

HOWEVER, its not quite dancing in the streets with joy time, yet, I think.

As I currently understand it (and the details might change that) the ruling doesn't require NY to get rid of its permit system. It doesn't even necessarily mean that NY will have to change their forms.

They can still require you to give a reason for requesting the permit. IF I'm understanding this ruling correctly from the headlines, what it does is declare NY arbitrarily deciding what is, and is not a valid reason to be unconstitutional.

I grew up in NY, left there for good in 79. Back then, permit was required to OWN and possess, and only open carry for ordinary folks. Permits required 5 sets of fingerprints, 4 photographs, 3 (non family) character references, and investigatioin by about every LEO that NY had...or at least two or three...and THEN it was up to the judge to sign it, or not, at his discretion (aka personal whim).

You had to "know" the judge you were dealing with. I don't mean personally(though if you did, it went a long way) but know what they would, or would not approve. At the time I got my permit, the judge in Saratoga county would only approve "Hunting and Sporting" use. Any thing else and he wouldn't issue.

The judge in Albany county would only approve permits for "Self Protection" and nothing else. And that was the LEGAL system then.

The new Supreme Court ruling appears to be a big win for our side, in principle, but might not change things in practice as much as we expect (or as soon). That will depend on what the people running the state of NY do...

[Japle]

I'm wondering how long it will be before the requirement to pay a fee to exercise a Constitutional right is challenged.

[mack59]

Looks like all 6 justices joined in the Thomas opinion, so my understanding is that opinions stated in the concurring opinions of Kavanaugh, Alito, and Barrett have no legal standing or limitation on the Thomas opinion as such. So the Thomas opinion is the sole legally binding opinion.

[Spats McGee]

I've done a quick read, and here are my (initial) takeaway points:
1. NY's proper cause requirement is gone.
2. The 43 states that are shall issue, are untouched.
3. States can still require a permit, but they'll have to go to objective standards* going forward.
4. (And perhaps the biggest point of all) SCOTUS has now recognized a Constitutional right to keep and bear a firearm in public for the purpose of self-defense.

*= Here's one point of wiggle room, right here. I expect that The Usual Suspect States (NY, CT, IL, CA, etc.) will create "objective" standards for issuing licenses, but those standards will be so stringent as to put them out of reach for a lot of people. For example, if NY sets an 80-hour training regimen as part of its standards, there are going to be a lot of poor people (who may work multiple jobs) who have neither the time nor the money necessary to get that training.

[mack59]

"*= Here's one point of wiggle room, right here. I expect that The Usual Suspect States (NY, CT, IL, CA, etc.) will create "objective" standards for issuing licenses, but those standards will be so stringent as to put them out of reach for a lot of people. For example, if NY sets an 80-hour training regimen as part of its standards, there are going to be a lot of poor people (who may work multiple jobs) who have neither the time nor the money necessary to get that training."

Given Thomas opinion and even the concurring opinions it looks like that has been addressed and considered such that excessive fees, restrictions, training requirements are per the court in violation of the right. Edit to add, IL has a shall issue law already.

[Spats McGee]

Doesn't mean the anti-gunners won't try. If memory serves, when IL was forced to allow concealed carry, it set a training requirement . . . and then Chicago tried to ban all shooting ranges in the city limits.

[Pahoo]

HOWEVER, its not quite dancing in the streets with joy time, yet, I think

True but I do hear music that will not be sinlenced !!!!!

Be Safe !!!

[Metal god]

Doesn't mean the anti-gunners won't try.

Agreed , just look at Hawaii . It would seem they were reading the tea leaves and have already made new requirements before this ruling was out . Like renewals every 6 months , you must use none lethal force first before using a firearm in self defense and I think there's more .

since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many.

I like this wording because it does not say carry out side the home . It is saying the courts have been getting all 2nd amendment challenges wrong with the two step approach . This ruling seems to me to go far beyond NY or a simple carry outside the home ruling ?

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by Spats McGee
*= Here's one point of wiggle room, right here. I expect that The Usual Suspect States (NY, CT, IL, CA, etc.) will create "objective" standards for issuing licenses, but those standards will be so stringent as to put them out of reach for a lot of people. For example, if NY sets an 80-hour training regimen as part of its standards, there are going to be a lot of poor people (who may work multiple jobs) who have neither the time nor the money necessary to get that training.

I'm sure you're correct that they will try. I foresee schemes involving arduous training requirements and excessive fees. That being said, can we not take from the rebuke of the "two step" approach as well as the determination that the petitioners' Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by New York law make such onerous restrictions ripe for challenge and likely rebuke from the court? I would think that the court would likely view imposition of excessive fees or arduous training requirements as being inconsistent with the equal protections clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Would not there be some precedent here from Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections? After all, if a $1.50 ($13.53 if you adjust for inflation) poll tax can be viewed as discriminatory could we not have a convincing argument about hundreds or thousands of dollars in licensing and training fees?

[turkeestalker]

None the less, we are seeing the results of a more 2A friendly Supreme Court, thank God, and that bad orange man.

[Quigs37]

Does this decision mean you still need a permit in NYS?

[Spats McGee]

There's nothing in the ruling that disturbs NYS's requirement of a permit.

[Quigs37]

Thank you.

[TDL]

Doesn't mean the anti-gunners won't try. If memory serves, when IL was forced to allow concealed carry, it set a training requirement . . . and then Chicago tried to ban all shooting ranges in the city limits.

You are more of an expert. But I should think it will be like DC where attempts to load on a bunch of nonsense failed since we had gone from no issue to may to shall, and had an existing may issue form. They did not change anything on the application between the may to the shall regimes, except we just all wrote
"the US Constitution" in the good cause box.

NJ, Maryland, Del, NY already have a form and criteria for the application.

So DC's CCPL revised application just deleted cause, and used all the same criteria as may issue.

Now to be sure the may issue states may add legitimation on number of rounds carried (in DC it is 20, less for a revolver) , no ccw on premises signage, force of law, prohibition on public transport, prohibitions on public parks (not prohibited in DC), requirement to get permission to enter someone else's residence when carrying (DC and Oklahoma require this) and other controls while carrying. But I don't see them getting away with adding much for the application itself.

FYI I have DC res as well as as Pa and Va non res.

For DC under may issue and continued under shall were the following:
1) Two year validity period.
2) $75 fee for appl and renewal
3) a) two day safety and gun and self defense law course and b) range course (says several hours, but 95% of instructors consider it qualification and will pass you if you put two mags in a target at 20'. Cost for both $225-$350
4) Mental health record release. I don't think they do to much with this.
5) they run you criminal and domestic order/civil order record deeper than NICS. This is usually instant, but if you have hits-- including hits that are criminal arrests with zero convictions -- you can be denied.
6) Non-resident allowed.
7)gun(s) you will be carrying have to already be DC registered, if not you have to register them

As I noted they did add legislation on where you can carry, storage in car if you are going into prohibited place, etc, but they did not change actual permit application criteria as they went from may to shall except they now ignore good cause.

Should be interesting to see if NY, NJ, Md, Del etc actually add to application requirements, and if they do, if they get away with it, since they already do have existing applications they were using for may issue

[TDL]

There's nothing in the ruling that disturbs NYS's requirement of a permit.

You should see twitter etc, even the mainstream news is running around saying tomorrow everyone will be carrying a gun everywhere. I get "march for our lives" members and some of the other antis material and they are going bonkers and spouting nonsense. as you noted the ruling specifically allows states to require permits, to require training, to require background checks.

[TDL]

I'm sure you're correct that they will try. I foresee schemes involving arduous training requirements and excessive fees.

As all the jurisdictions in question already have a regime for their may issue, I should think that they will have a hard time trying that.

In terms of fees, there are currently fees in all the affected states with their may issue applications. it is the may issue that manifestly requires more government employee time since they, until today had investigate and confirm the good cause itself. I should think they would have difficulty raising fees for objectively less processing man hours.

In terms of training, since there are states with serious training requirements (several with two days, plus range, and little if any able to be substituted with prior training) I would think that is max without being dragged into court.