US Supreme Court to consider NY gun rights case

[44 AMP]

I am however very worried they narrowed the scope to concealed carry as I stated previously .

You can be concerned, but consider this, if you try to shove the whole Apple into your throat you choke. Taken a bite at a time, you get to eat the whole apple, and don't choke.

The "Creeping incrementalism" process has been working for the other side for a long time. Done right, it can work for our side as well.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I am however very worried they narrowed the scope to concealed carry as I stated previously .

You might stop to consider that if they had not narrowed it, they might not have taken the case at all.

Remember, there are a few justices (especially Thomas) who have expressed frustration recently over the fact that no 2A cases have been granted Certioari. Not every case that is sent to the Supreme Court is accepted -- they agree to hear only a small fraction of the number that are submitted. They hold conferences to decide which ones they'll take. In the last year or two, a number of people have expressed surprise that certain cases weren't accepted -- and they were surprised by some of the justices who voted NOT to take those cases.

The theory is that the pro-gun justices didn't want those cases to be heard either because they didn't think they were good cases, OR because they weren't comfortable that they could be assured of a majority in favor of gun rights.

So along comes this case, and the pro-2A justices want to hear it ... and the anti-2A justices are probably pooping cows over it. My guess is that they had to narrow the scope in order to get it accepted.

I still think it has the potential to be helpful. Even with the narrowed scope, it could (and should) put a stake through the heart of "may issue" states (such as New York and California, among others). But think beyond that -- right now, there are multiple federal circuits that have said the right to keep and bear arms exists ONLY in the home. You don't need a permit to carry in your home, so the only way the Supremes can strike down "good cause" and "may issue" is to first recognize that the right to keep and bear arms extends beyond the home. If it doesn't extend beyond the home, there's no case.

t's going to bear watching, but I am cautiously optimistic.

 

[ATN082268]

But think beyond that -- right now, there are multiple federal circuits that have said the right to keep and bear arms exists ONLY in the home.

That makes as much sense, for example, as saying you don't have any 1st Amendment right of free speech outside your home. Doesn't give much inspiration in the courts.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

But think beyond that -- right now, there are multiple federal circuits that have said the right to keep and bear arms exists ONLY in the home.

That makes as much sense, for example, as saying you don't have any 1st Amendment right of free speech outside your home. Doesn't give much inspiration in the courts.

The courts that have said that have their agenda, which is anti-gun. They have taken the Heller decision and bent, folded, spindled and mutilated it. They take it completely out of context and use it to reach a predetermined end. Those same circuit courts also play games with the level of scrutiny they apply. It's complete intellectual dishonesty, but it does make sense (from their perspective), once you realize that they hate guns.

 

[steve4102]

My understanding is that it takes at least 4 justices to grant cert.

Do they publish these votes, so we can see who voted for what?

 

[maestro pistolero]

The right to carry and use firearms, which is primarily an outdoor activity, does not exist in the outdoors? I would hate to have to stand up and try to defend that position. I must have missed the part about all of those revolutionary era indoor ranges when I was in school.

 

[zukiphile]

The "Creeping incrementalism" process has been working for the other side for a long time. Done right, it can work for our side as well.

This can be frustrating for people with a broad vision of the right, but it's the difference between success and failure.

Making prohibitionists and regulators defend the worst existing examples of their ideas is how we got to a recognized individual right.

But in Heller Gura was arguing that the right to a gun is just for your home, and I'm sure it means anyone can wear a machine gun to a municipal zoning hearing!/Frustrated Activist*. He was limiting the issue so he could win. Heller wants to keep a 1911 at home and isn't challenging any state restrictions? It's a century old and not "high" capacity.

You don't pound a wedge in with the fat side resting on the wood. (I've never done it, but I assume the sharp end goes in first.)

If NY loses the power to deny carry permits on the basis of a lack of demonstrated particular need, that's not a small step, and I could see five and half votes for it.

If there is an established right to be permitted by your state, the next issue I see is how much regulatory and financial burden a state has the power to impose. That won't be just one case and it won't be a quick journey.


*I don't approve of NFA restrictions or a permit requirement to carry, but I don't believe we ever get there as a matter of settled federal constitutional caselaw.

 

[44 AMP]

right now, there are multiple federal circuits that have said the right to keep and bear arms exists ONLY in the home. You don't need a permit to carry in your home,

I would point out that back in the 70s when I lived there, and I'm pretty certain its still the law today, In NY, you DO need a permit to carry in your own home.

You need a permit just to possess the pistol. EVEN in your own home.

And cannot that be said about states that require FOID cards??

this is a more tricksy subject than it seems on the surface, because its not just about individual rights, it's also about state's rights.

Remember that the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution is a restriction on the FEDERAL govt, and not specific states.

Within the Constitutional framework, states have the right to do as they see fit, to a point. We fought the Civil War over that concept, and we're still fighting it today, only in courts not the battlefield.

SO, complicating the matter are a number of things, including "does the Federal Govt have the legal authority to decide which state laws are unconstitutional? What if said law does not violate the STATE Constitution??

I'm sure the High Court is considering that, too...

 

[Radny97]

Remember that the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution is a restriction on the FEDERAL govt, and not specific states.

Within the Constitutional framework, states have the right to do as they see fit, to a point. We fought the Civil War over that concept, and we're still fighting it today, only in courts not the battlefield.

SO, complicating the matter are a number of things, including "does the Federal Govt have the legal authority to decide which state laws are unconstitutional? What if said law does not violate the STATE Constitution??

I'm sure the High Court is considering that, too...

What you’re talking about is referred to in legal jargon whether a particular right has been “incorporated” to the states. Meaning does that particular right also limit state governments as well as the federal government. Certain rights, like the first amendment, the fourth amendment and others have been incorporated to the states. I am uncertain if it has ever been decided if the second amendment is incorporated. Heller may have addressed it. I just can’t remember. If it has not been, then that is certainly one of the potential issues on the table here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[zukiphile]

this is a more tricksy subject than it seems on the surface, because its not just about individual rights, it's also about state's rights.

Remember that the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution is a restriction on the FEDERAL govt, and not specific states.

McDonald incorporates the 2d Am. and applies it to the states.

I think federalism is essential to a proper understanding of the constitutional system, and that the BOR is properly understood as a federal restraint, but the Court went in a different direction.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

this is a more tricksy subject than it seems on the surface, because its not just about individual rights, it's also about state's rights.

Remember that the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution is a restriction on the FEDERAL govt, and not specific states.

Within the Constitutional framework, states have the right to do as they see fit, to a point. We fought the Civil War over that concept, and we're still fighting it today, only in courts not the battlefield.

SO, complicating the matter are a number of things, including "does the Federal Govt have the legal authority to decide which state laws are unconstitutional? What if said law does not violate the STATE Constitution??

I'm sure the High Court is considering that, too...

Zukiphile beat me to it. They don't need to consider that question, because they already addressed it. The McDonald decision established that the the 2nd Amendment applies to the states, by way of the 14th Amendment. So that question was resolved eleven years ago.

 

[ATN082268]

The courts that have said that have their agenda, which is anti-gun. They have taken the Heller decision and bent, folded, spindled and mutilated it. They take it completely out of context and use it to reach a predetermined end. Those same circuit courts also play games with the level of scrutiny they apply. It's complete intellectual dishonesty, but it does make sense (from their perspective), once you realize that they hate guns.

So the courts not only ignore their legal duty but do so hypocritically, since all of them have armed security and I'm sure some of the judges own guns. Lovely...

 

[Gary L. Griffiths]

What happens if the number of justices is increased between now and Oct?

I'm wondering if the unusual number of 9-0 decisions we've seen recently isn't the Court giving a not-so-subtle hint that adding a couple of extra justices might not have the results that the Democrats seem to think it would!

 

[RayGee]

A NYS Update for 44 AMP

Thought I would let you know things have changed in the Empire State since you left for more sane pastures. I live down on Long Island and applied for my NYS Pistol License last year before COVID shut every county office down. This was done at the Nassau County Police Department Pistol Licensing Section at their headquarters.

In my county you currently need the following to apply:

• Four references (non family) who must complete their own form and have it signed and notarized.
• A copy of your drivers abstract from NYS DMV.
• ID - Drivers license, passport etc.
• Proof of residence - Utility or tax bill.
• Two passport sized photos.
• $200 for the application fee.
• All the forms filled out correctly.

Once you drop this off, you then receive the following:

A date for you fingerprint appointment.
A fingerprint card.
Four character reference forms.

My appointment was about two months later, but the shutdown made it about four months.

For the appointment, you need to bring the following:

• The fingerprint card.
• The notarized references forms.
• $88.25 for the digital scanning of your fingerprints. They don't roll them, they scan your hand and fingers.

I received mine almost six months from dropping off the application.


You can apply for the following types of license:

• Target/Hunting
• Business/Target/Hunting
• Amored Car Guard
• Other. I guess this is where you would select concealed carry if you were so inclined.

The CCW license is still neigh impossible for "The Masses". However, you are allowed to conceal one pistol to and from firing range/hunting grounds in NYS. All and any others must be locked away. You are allowed to stop for meals/gas.

In NYS you cannot legally even handle a pistol unless you possess a license.

The license must be renewed every five years and can be done online. If/when you leave NYS, they still insist you surrender it.

Regards ---------------