Biden Admin. on NY

Very disappointing that the ACLU and NYCLU filed an amicus brief on the side of New York City in this case.

The ACLU isn't getting any more of my money for a while.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/a...t-the-second-amendment-to-preserve-the-first/

This one has been a long time coming. I'm going to guess that May issue is dead and the few remaining states will have to go to shall issue. This has huge ramifications for CA also but once the SC decides it's a done deal.

I just can't see the SC upholding may issue, but then I'm not a professor of constitutional law.

As opposed to remaining with May Issue which means no issue? I'll take the Shall Issue with draconian requirements now, then litigate those draconian requirements out of existence later.

F-111 John said:

We have to watch out for draconian requirements for shall issue. Yes, you will get but you have to take out insurance, the fees are expensive, a complicated class, a long time line to process.​

As opposed to remaining with May Issue which means no issue? I'll take the Shall Issue with draconian requirements now, then litigate those draconian requirements out of existence later.

Click to expand...

The saying "Rome wasn't built in a day" comes to mind.

Again, I'll take the Shall Issue with restrictions today, and litigate those restrictions tomorrow.

The argument I see here is one of "don't mess up my good thing just to make your thing potentially better."

If you live in a permissive county in upstate NY, good for you. Try using your upstate permit in NYC. If a NYC dweller has to take a 40 hour class, get liability insurance, and install a floor safe in order to get a NYC Shall Issue carry license, so be it. If someone in upstate NY then also has to take the same training, get the same insurance, and install the same storage system, then they can join in the lawsuit to have those requirements struck down or modified.

Gun banners didn't start out on day one with a total ban on all firearms. They started by banning (or effectively taxing out of existence) fully auto firearms, SBRs, and SBSs. Then they banned the mail order sale. Then they closed the machine gun registry. Then they banned importation of inexpensive handguns. Then they banned the importation of "non-sporting" firearms. Then they banned "high capacity" magazines. Then they tried to lower the threshold of what "high capacity" meant.

Our gun rights are being taken away incrementally. We will win them back incrementally.

Permissive is not the same as shall. You still have to say "please". I see the laws being forced to change to shall issue, but mooted by the state adding additional requirements and/or hoops in which to jump through. I don't see a lightening up on the permitting process. Maybe even the opposite.

F-111 John said:

Again, I'll take the Shall Issue with restrictions today, and litigate those restrictions tomorrow.

Click to expand...

Are YOU going to be paying for that litigation? Considering the speed and propensity of politicians to dream up new restrictions faster than old ones can be litigated away, you should not think like that. You should be pushing for NO RESTRICTIONS in any situation.

JTHunter said:

Are YOU going to be paying for that litigation? Considering the speed and propensity of politicians to dream up new restrictions faster than old ones can be litigated away, you should not think like that. You should be pushing for NO RESTRICTIONS in any situation.

Click to expand...

Of course I would rather have no restrictions. But as I have tried to say over and over again, you rarely get everything you want all at once.

How many states over the past 20 years went from no issue, to may issue, to shall issue, to Constitutional carry? It was a gradual progression, not a straight jump from 'no issue' to Constitutional carry.

Gun banners have taken the long view with their incremental bans. We must also take the long view in getting our rights restored.

Along with as many restrictions as they can get away with... I'm betting that whatever office is designated as the site for requesting a permit (if the court decides in our favor...) will be as under-staffed as possible, with as many bureaucratic delays and difficulties as possible... etc. Surprise, surprise...

GEM said:

The point is that we have to be careful with nuances in a decision that may be used against us. That happened with Heller. It was supposed to be great and parts were. However, some of the decision is used repeatedly to support gun type bans and other restrictions.

Click to expand...

Heller was straight forward. The Left are ignoring or purposely misinterpreting the nuances. They cherry pick out bits and pieces while ignoring context, words, and sentences that came before and after. It's not a simple subject, so they will have to include caveats and nuances. No matter what they decide in our favor and how they word it, the Left and activist judges will spin, cherry pick, and ignore parts that do not coincide with their agenda. We seen this happen time and time again in the 9th court. Them trying to come up with a decision that can't and won't be spun or loopholed to death will be a fools errand.

lemaymiami said:

Along with as many restrictions as they can get away with... I'm betting that whatever office is designated as the site for requesting a permit (if the court decides in our favor...) will be as under-staffed as possible, with as many bureaucratic delays and difficulties as possible... etc. Surprise, surprise...

Click to expand...

You do know that you are describing the IL-ANNOY State Police Firearm Services Bureau? While the logjam is finally starting to break, some people have been waiting for their Firearm Owner ID (aka "FOID") cards for as long as 20 months. The same for their CC permits.

BryanDavis said:

Very disappointing that the ACLU and NYCLU filed an amicus brief on the side of New York City in this case.

The ACLU isn't getting any more of my money for a while.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/a...t-the-second-amendment-to-preserve-the-first/

Click to expand...

***? That some serious intellectual gymnastics right there...lol.

Concealed carry will interfere with the right to protest? Well, maybe if your ANTIFA and you start throwing down with conservative protesters......who may now be armed and can fight back......

I mean...come on...that's a big stretch of the imagination if I've ever seen one. We need to eliminate or limit one right to protect another...

Ya...If I was you...I wouldnt just stop sending them money...I'd demand a refund!

Styx said:

Heller was straight forward.

Click to expand...

Anything but straightforward. Justice Scalia left gaps that are big enough for the antigunners to drive a truck through. Particularly, his treating the Militia Clause as a nullity hurt us badly. That meant that machine guns, and by extension semiautomatics, could be banned as "military weapons" since they were unpinned from militia use. We'd be better off if the Miller case was still good law.

AlexanderA said:

Anything but straightforward. Justice Scalia left gaps that are big enough for the antigunners to drive a truck through. Particularly, his treating the Militia Clause as a nullity hurt us badly. That meant that machine guns, and by extension semiautomatics, could be banned as "military weapons" since they were unpinned from militia use. We'd be better off if the Miller case was still good law.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Without going into a deep dive explanation, I will simply state that semiautos handguns and revolvers are overwhelmingly by far the most commonly used and owned firearms in the U.S. They are in common use and will continue to be in common use. Heller protects firearms that are in common use therefore I will disagree with your opinion on that merit alone.

Styx said:

I disagree. Without going into a deep dive explanation, I will simply state that semiautos handguns and revolvers are overwhelmingly by far the most commonly used and owned firearms in the U.S. They are in common use and will continue to be in common use. Heller protects firearms that are in common use therefore I will disagree with your opinion on that merit alone.

Click to expand...

I'm not talking about semiauto handguns. I'm talking specifically about the AR-15. Under Heller, military look-alike weapons could be banned since the Militia Clause is now a nullity. The only bright spot is that this aspect of Heller could be overruled by the newly-constituted Supreme Court.

My take on the US Brief is that it both attacks the The Heller Decision by debating the historical facts that Scalia use to write the opinion, and at the same time uses th opinions language that governments have right to enact reasonable gun control regulations. It focuses on the right of the state to limit concealed carry. I think the counter to that is that in NY (and other states) open carry Is prohibited. If you cannot OC and cannot get a CCW permit the state has effectively den/ied the exercise of 2A.
There is such a case in the 9th Circuit where a district found HI’s gun laws did exactly what I just wrote. It is under appeal. You can be sure that SCOTUS is aware of that case and the logical presumption of the district judge. I am sure that the point will be made in the pro-grunts briefs. This is likely to be the most decisive contemporary gun case. It will affect all of us. The only question is how.

1942bull said:

This is likely to be the most decisive contemporary gun case.

Click to expand...

You can't carry what you can't possess. The most decisive case will be the one that declares "assault weapon" bans unconstitutional.

AlexanderA said:

You can't carry what you can't possess. The most decisive case will be the one that declares "assault weapon" bans unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

In NY you cannot buy a gun unless the state issues a permit for you to purchase the gun. That is another way to limit who carries a gun.. if they do not issue they have effectively banned a person buying. Just a different kind of ban. We’ll be waiting a long time for an assault rifle ban at SCOTUS which has recently turned down assault rifle gun cases. Heller case was 13 years ago. The New York case is likely not to be followed by another big case for another decade.

GEM said:

The ACLU nationally has not been gun friendly. Some state organizations have been, following the usual political divides, but not many.

Click to expand...

The ACLU has never been institutionally gun friendly. The TL;DR is that they were founded to defend communists and socialists from being oppressed by Woodrow Wilson's regime, which was fair to characterize as a prototype for fascism. The Fascist v Communist/Socialist divide would form the major factions in Europe a generation later around which WWII would crystalize.

1942bull said:

In NY you cannot buy a gun unless the state issues a permit for you to purchase the gun. That is another way to limit who carries a gun.. if they do not issue they have effectively banned a person buying. Just a different kind of ban. We’ll be waiting a long time for an assault rifle ban at SCOTUS which has recently turned down assault rifle gun cases. Heller case was 13 years ago. The New York case is likely not to be followed by another big case for another decade.

Click to expand...

Generaly speaking, we are winning and winning big gun rights wise across the country especially more so than in the 1980s-2010s. It's been getting better and better and more abd more Americans regardless of sex and race have been becoming pro gun. With that said, Rome was not built in a day. We are on a great trajectory. Politics and chances never moved fast in this country from slavery, to a woman voting, to gays being beaten, not able to vote, and kicked out of the military to openly gay senators winning election, so on and so forth...

Be patient, and be thankful for any gains we get no matter how small. Seems if some in the firearm community do not get everything they want all in one fail swoop, they want to whine, complain, and throw the baby out with the bath water...

As far as the orginal post os concern, no one here knows what's on the Justices minds, why they narrowed the question, or what the outcome will be. This thread is filled with speculation and guesses.