SCOTUS hearing of New York gun control?

[Otis Mayfield]

The justices on Nov. 3 will hear arguments over a New York gun control measure that challengers say infringes on their Second Amendment right to bear arms outside the home.

The New York law at issue gives discretion to licensing officials over whether to approve concealed carry permits. The lawsuit arose after an official denied two New York residents’ requests for unrestricted carry licenses, saying the applicants had not demonstrated a “proper cause” to carry handguns at all times.

The Biden administration has thrown its weight behind New York and urged the court to defer to the longstanding practice of allowing legislatures to place reasonable limits on firearms to protect public safety.

The case has drawn considerable outside interest, both from firearms advocates who want to see the justices use the case to expand gun rights and from states and gun control groups who warn that public safety could be imperiled if regulatory authority is rolled back.

Five issues to watch as new Supreme Court term unfolds

The Supreme Court term that opens Monday may reveal just how far the 6-3 conservative court is willing to go to reshape American life.The upcoming term could see abortion access dramatically narrow…

thehill.com

Supreme Court will hear on New York's tough gun control measures.

Do you think they will allow New York to keep the gun control measures?

Or do you think they will throw out New York's laws?

What do you think will happen?

 

[Abatis]

I predict a true splitting the baby situation, I predict SCOTUS will enforce an individual, private citizen's right to bear arms in public for self-defense and all states will be forced to recognize it. But, dictating as to the actual manner of carriage, will remain in the state's prerogative.

Historically and legally, the setting of the rules for the carriage of arms has always been a state issue and the 2nd Amendment was never examined for guidance or thought to speak on any aspect of gun carry. This is especially true for concealed carry, primarily and simply because the 2nd Amendment was not applicable to the states.

SCOTUS always examines past practice and the concealing of a weapon was always considered dishonorable by the citizenry and authorities and the indefensible action of a ruffian or criminal and as such was fully in the domain of state criminal law. People on both sides need to understand that going back into the early 1800's, state laws forbidding the concealing of a gun were not percieved as an attack on the underlying right to be armed for self-defense (unless you were Black of course).

The recognition of any "right" of the private citizen to carry concealed is a recent development and entirely a creation of the state governments under their state constitutions. Looking at that history, I doubt SCOTUS will hold that a right to carry concealed is a right secured by the 2nd Amendment.

 

[2aguy]

I predict a true splitting the baby situation, I predict SCOTUS will enforce an individual, private citizen's right to bear arms in public for self-defense and all states will be forced to recognize it. But, dictating as to the actual manner of carriage, will remain in the state's prerogative.

Historically and legally, the setting of the rules for the carriage of arms has always been a state issue and the 2nd Amendment was never examined for guidance or thought to speak on any aspect of gun carry. This is especially true for concealed carry, primarily and simply because the 2nd Amendment was not applicable to the states.

SCOTUS always examines past practice and the concealing of a weapon was always considered dishonorable by the citizenry and authorities and the indefensible action of a ruffian or criminal and as such was fully in the domain of state criminal law. People on both sides need to understand that going back into the early 1800's, state laws forbidding the concealing of a gun were not percieved as an attack on the underlying right to be armed for self-defense (unless you were Black of course).

The recognition of any "right" of the private citizen to carry concealed is a recent development and entirely a creation of the state governments under their state constitutions. Looking at that history, I doubt SCOTUS will hold that a right to carry concealed is a right secured by the 2nd Amendment.

SCOTUS always examines past practice and the concealing of a weapon was always considered dishonorable by the citizenry and authorities and the indefensible action of a ruffian or criminal and as such was fully in the domain of state criminal law.

Sorry.....but the belief that only criminals would carry a gun concealed is an old fashioned way of seeing this issue. It came from a time when everyone was able to openly carry a gun on their hip, or on the saddle of their horse...

Today, concealed carry is considered the practical norm, not an aberration.

Whether the court understands this is doubtful.....but jim crow laws used to be the domain of the states as well....

 

[2aguy]

I predict a true splitting the baby situation, I predict SCOTUS will enforce an individual, private citizen's right to bear arms in public for self-defense and all states will be forced to recognize it. But, dictating as to the actual manner of carriage, will remain in the state's prerogative.

Historically and legally, the setting of the rules for the carriage of arms has always been a state issue and the 2nd Amendment was never examined for guidance or thought to speak on any aspect of gun carry. This is especially true for concealed carry, primarily and simply because the 2nd Amendment was not applicable to the states.

SCOTUS always examines past practice and the concealing of a weapon was always considered dishonorable by the citizenry and authorities and the indefensible action of a ruffian or criminal and as such was fully in the domain of state criminal law. People on both sides need to understand that going back into the early 1800's, state laws forbidding the concealing of a gun were not percieved as an attack on the underlying right to be armed for self-defense (unless you were Black of course).

The recognition of any "right" of the private citizen to carry concealed is a recent development and entirely a creation of the state governments under their state constitutions. Looking at that history, I doubt SCOTUS will hold that a right to carry concealed is a right secured by the 2nd Amendment.

state laws forbidding the concealing of a gun were not percieved as an attack on the underlying right to be armed for self-defense (unless you were Black of course).

This was due to the fact that "open" carry of guns was the norm.....for everyone........today, left wing/democrat party anti-gun extremists are banning open carry, yet also denying the ability to concealed carry a gun......you can't ban concealed carry and open carry and still be in the realm of Constitutionality...

 

[Otis Mayfield]

I predict a true splitting the baby situation, I predict SCOTUS will enforce an individual, private citizen's right to bear arms in public for self-defense and all states will be forced to recognize it. But, dictating as to the actual manner of carriage, will remain in the state's prerogative.

Historically and legally, the setting of the rules for the carriage of arms has always been a state issue and the 2nd Amendment was never examined for guidance or thought to speak on any aspect of gun carry. This is especially true for concealed carry, primarily and simply because the 2nd Amendment was not applicable to the states.

SCOTUS always examines past practice and the concealing of a weapon was always considered dishonorable by the citizenry and authorities and the indefensible action of a ruffian or criminal and as such was fully in the domain of state criminal law. People on both sides need to understand that going back into the early 1800's, state laws forbidding the concealing of a gun were not percieved as an attack on the underlying right to be armed for self-defense (unless you were Black of course).

The recognition of any "right" of the private citizen to carry concealed is a recent development and entirely a creation of the state governments under their state constitutions. Looking at that history, I doubt SCOTUS will hold that a right to carry concealed is a right secured by the 2nd Amendment.

Normally, I would agree, but with 6 of the 9 justices to the far right, I'm not sure what will happen.

Look at what they did to abortion in Texas. Nobody thought that would happen in our life times.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Do you think they will allow New York to keep the gun control measures?

The states cannot demand that a person -- to ANY standard, let along some unspecified subjective standard -- demonstrate a 'good reason' to exercise their rights.
NY will either replace its law, or the USSC will strike it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Normally, I would agree, but with 6 of the 9 justices to the far right, I'm not sure what will happen.
Look at what they did to abortion in Texas. Nobody thought that would happen in our life times.

The USSC has not heard an appeal re: the TX abortion law, and thus, have done nothing in that regard.

 

[Abatis]

Sorry.....but the belief that only criminals would carry a gun concealed is an old fashioned way of seeing this issue. It came from a time when everyone was able to openly carry a gun on their hip, or on the saddle of their horse...

Today, concealed carry is considered the practical norm, not an aberration.

Whether the court understands this is doubtful.....but jim crow laws used to be the domain of the states as well....

I'm not saying that the sentiment against concealed carry is the current condition, I'm saying that sentiment was the force behind state prohibitions on concealed carry . . . Then in the late 20th Century, that sentiment shifted; one, then a few states, now many states decided to recognize concealed carry as the manner of carry under their state constitutions. The enforcement of the 2nd Amendment has never had anything to do with that; concealed carry is entirely a creation of the states. SCOTUS will examine that underlying situation and law in the NYSRPA case.

This is where it gets interesting; that development, that recognition of concealed carry, only happened in states with a RKBA provision in their state constitutions. States like NY, NJ, CA and MD have enjoyed essentially limitless power to restrict the right to arms of their citizens because they have no RKBA recognition and protection in their constitutions.

This has created a huge legal problem for SCOTUS to settle.

The legal justification in NY, NJ, CA and MD for their state courts sustaining various state gun control schemes (not just for concealed carry, we are looking back 100+ years of gun laws) was not built upon any interest in what a "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is, and how that constrains legislative action. In fact, that lack of a RKBA provision was taken by those states to mean anything goes.

There was never any sophisticated testing of state laws being challenged against a state RKBA provision and certainly no consideration of the 2nd Amendment as an impediment. Those states sustained their laws by lazily relying on 20th Century (post 1942) lower federal court decisions pushing now invalid "collective" and/or "state's right" theories and the legal fact that before 2010, the 2ndA did not apply to state action.

This has led to much real or purposeful ignorance regarding what the right to arms is in those states and has polluted their state court decisions which establish the underlying law for the federal districts and circuit courts to examine. It is a mess because decades of those state and lower federal court case law is actually abrogated and invalid and of zero use after Heller and McDonald and Ceatano.

With SCOTUS taking a hiatus from addressing the RKBA and the 2nd Amendment, judges (state and lower federal ones) have been allowed to just make it up as they needed and ignore (or misrepresent) what the 2nd is and what it does -- all in an attempt to avoid enforcing Heller and delay enforcing McDonald and the application of the 2ndA under the 14thAagainst the states.

This NY case will either be a dud where the Court declines to settle these questions or it will be Earth shaking and we will see the Court do for the 2nd Amendment in one decision, what it took 70+ years to do with the 1st Amendment.

To your latter point, I think that this -concealed- vs -open- question is a good candidate for the Courts to apply the "modern condition" to the law we so often hear leftists whine about. Without question the sentiment regarding concealed arms has reversed. The modern, enlightened public and many arms bearers, reject open carry and now consider concealed carry to be the responsible and more respectful manner of carry, to the tender sensibilities of the public.

To recap, I think the 2ndA (as applied under the 14thA) does secure a right to bear arms in public for self-defense that SCOTUS will force all states to recognize. But, dictating as to the actual manner of carriage will remain in the state's prerogative.

IOW, discretionary (discriminatory) "pressing need" hurdles are unconstitutional, states must have a system to allow law-abiding citizens to carry for self defense.

States will be allowed to require citizens not otherwise barred from owning a gun, to obtain a permit to carry, or not, recognizing so-called constitutional, permitless carry either open or concealed.

 

[Abatis]

anti-gun extremists are banning open carry, yet also denying the ability to concealed carry a gun......you can't ban concealed carry and open carry and still be in the realm of Constitutionality...

True, if the right secured by the 2ndA is a right to bear a gun for self defense in public in case of confrontation (as Heller has said) and the 2ndA is incorporated against the states, then the states will be forced to recognize that right and their arbitrary and discriminatory criteria to exercise the right will be extinguished.

I do predict setting the manner of carry will remain in the state's domain.

 

[Abatis]

So, there have been developments in this case, biggest one is the Biden administration had asked the Court to extend the time of oral argument and grant the US government time at oral argument. Well, the Court granted the request, giving each side 35 minutes.

The Court divided the defendant's time, 20 minutes for the City and 15 minutes for the US government; note that at face value this means the US government will be arguing a parallel argument with NY, against applying the 2nd Amendment as protecting bearing arms in public for self defense being recognized.

The other developments happened behind the scenes and whether they are newsworthy depends on how into the details of the process you are.

I am into the that stuff so I'll offer my thoughts on what has happened. I will say, my earlier pessimism about the case after reading the petitioner's merits brief has swung to the positive.

As screwed-up as the petitioner's merits brief was, and with all the unnecessary crap they threw at the Court that the Court said it has no interest in, I thought the gun rights case was handicapped, if not completely lost . . . Well, NY's AG has thrown the case a life-line in her response to the gun association's terrible merits brief.

NY could have completely ignored the disjointed gun assoc. merits brief and just focused on defending the restrictive permit, staying within the context of the Court's question. But no, they chose to answer the petitioner's brief and in doing so they made statements detrimental to their case, including a huge concession.

The NY AG concedes that a right to arms, even outside the home, exists in NY state, but inside NY City the city can limit it with its more restrictive than the state permit system (and remember, the first tier of the NY City permit is a residence permit that you need to obtain simply to just to own a gun "legally").

That essentially has expanded what the Court can address, it goes from being "limited" to the question the Court composed it wanted to be briefed and argued . . .

"Petition GRANTED limited to the following question: Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment."​

. . . to deciding a wider rights question. Because the NY AG admits that a right to bear arms outside the home exists, the Court must decide if the city should be allowed to violate a right that the state admits exists.

The gun assoc. lawyers have taken advantage of the state's mistakes and filed a response that gives the Court a lot of info to decide all aspects of this case.

I still think the Court will decline enforcing a blanket right to carry concealed, but it will force states to recognize the right to bear arms in public for self defense. Whether a state or city decides that the right shall be exercised through concealed or open carry, will be up to them. I believe most jurisdictions that currently restrict carry, will choose concealed as the preferred manner of carry so rather than a direct win, it will be a victory that is backed into.

Again, oral argument is set for Wednesday, Nov 3rd . . .

 

[2aguy]

I predict a true splitting the baby situation, I predict SCOTUS will enforce an individual, private citizen's right to bear arms in public for self-defense and all states will be forced to recognize it. But, dictating as to the actual manner of carriage, will remain in the state's prerogative.

Historically and legally, the setting of the rules for the carriage of arms has always been a state issue and the 2nd Amendment was never examined for guidance or thought to speak on any aspect of gun carry. This is especially true for concealed carry, primarily and simply because the 2nd Amendment was not applicable to the states.

SCOTUS always examines past practice and the concealing of a weapon was always considered dishonorable by the citizenry and authorities and the indefensible action of a ruffian or criminal and as such was fully in the domain of state criminal law. People on both sides need to understand that going back into the early 1800's, state laws forbidding the concealing of a gun were not percieved as an attack on the underlying right to be armed for self-defense (unless you were Black of course).

The recognition of any "right" of the private citizen to carry concealed is a recent development and entirely a creation of the state governments under their state constitutions. Looking at that history, I doubt SCOTUS will hold that a right to carry concealed is a right secured by the 2nd Amendment.

state laws forbidding the concealing of a gun were not percieved as an attack on the underlying right to be armed for self-defense (unless you were Black of course).


As you know, the Courts just accepted the ability to open carry a pistol, by citizens without any permit to do so.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What do you think will happen?

The one thing we know for certain is that we’ll see another example of rightwing hypocrisy.

If conservatives were true advocates of “states’ rights” they would oppose the Court striking down the may-issue provision of the law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Or do you think they will throw out New York's laws?

Yes – the may-issue provision will be invalidated.

The only question will be how expansive the ruling will be concerning the carrying of firearms outside of the home.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Normally, I would agree, but with 6 of the 9 justices to the far right, I'm not sure what will happen.

With six of the nine justices far-right ideologues, we know the may-issue provision will be invalidated.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The one thing we know for certain is that we’ll see another example of rightwing hypocrisy.

Says the known liar,

If conservatives w true advocates of “states’ rights” they would oppose the Court striking down the may-issue provision of the law.

As you fully understand that nowhere in the "states' rights" argument is there the premise that states have the right to infringe upon the rights of the people, your statement, above. is just another example of you posting a lie.

 

[M14 Shooter]

With six of the nine justices far-right ideologues, we know the may-issue provision will be invalidated.

If the other three justices were anything othe than partisan bigots, the ruling wold go 9-0.

 

[2aguy]

The one thing we know for certain is that we’ll see another example of rightwing hypocrisy.

If conservatives were true advocates of “states’ rights” they would oppose the Court striking down the may-issue provision of the law.

Moron….states dont get to violate the Constitution……that is why poll taxes
and literacy tests at the state level are not Constitutional.

 

[Abatis]

Moron….states dont get to violate the Constitution……that is why poll taxes
and literacy tests at the state level are not Constitutional.

I think of it more like, the poster you quoted (and any other "anti-gunner") has to accept that the feds should have the constitutional force of law to crush states that make racially discriminatory laws, like a law that says Blacks should not be allowed to own guns . . . This NY case is going to answer the question; should states have the ability to create work-arounds, and make laws that are 'just' geographically discriminatory, wink, wink.

We know whether this question can be framed in the context of "state's rights" was answered in the negative in 1868 and confirmed in 2010.

Why so many people --like the person you quoted-- refuse to accept that, is puzzling, except if they are servicing an anti-American, anti-Constitution agenda and not at all interested in understanding.

.

 

[2aguy]

I think of it more like, the poster you quoted (and any other "anti-gunner") has to accept that the feds should have the constitutional force of law to crush states that make racially discriminatory laws, like a law that says Blacks should not be allowed to own guns . . . This NY case is going to answer the question; should states have the ability to create work-arounds, and make laws that are 'just' geographically discriminatory, wink, wink.

We know whether this question can be framed in the context of "state's rights" was answered in the negative in 1868 and confirmed in 2010.

Why so many people --like the person you quoted-- refuse to accept that, is puzzling, except if they are servicing an anti-American, anti-Constitution agenda and not at all interested in understanding.

.

Is it really puzzling though? They are trolls.....and leftists...so as you have also pointed out, they don't care about truth, facts or reality......they want what they want and will do whatever they have to, say anything they have to....to get what they want...

 

[Otis Mayfield]

I kind of doubt New York will win.

They went too far. If they wouldn't have gotten so greedy, I think SCOTUS would've let the law stand.

But this SCOTUS has had a few surprises so I guess we'll see. They might just side with New York after all.