Transcript of oral arguments from today's SCOTUS case - NY SR&PA Inc. v. Bruen

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Aim1

member
Joined
Oct 24, 2015
Messages
2,310
Here is a transcript of today's oral arguments in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

Incredible how fast they typed this and kept up.


It's on Twitter but you don't need a Twitter account to read it.


- Hunting permits was a major part of of it one of the SCOTUS justices said, "How many muggings happen in the woods?"

- They talked about subways and transit being sensitive places where you shouldn't be able to carry a gun because of the large number of people but no one said, "Because of all the dangerous assaults, muggings, and murders, on subways and other modes of public transportation, they should precisely be where citizens are allowed to carry their weapons for self-defense."



*** One big takeaway is that no matter how narrow the scope of the decision may be if it is a 2nd Amendment win pertaining to granting permits it means that the 2nd Amendment does enshrine the right to carry weapons outside of the home and that is huge!

So many courts have said because of Heller the 2nd Amendment only pertains to possessing/carrying guns inside the home.



You can read this on a computer or cellphone.


https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1455897604823437315?t=Gl9Zty33hoiwZHPZ-VgUOA&s=19
 
Last edited:
That would appear to me to be headed in favor of our 2A rights ... it may have been brought by NY NRA and those two guys but it will have reverberating effect across the nation especially in other very blue cities that are denying rights to their citizens.

Too bad they will probably not issue their ruling until next July.

Glad to see the Trump Three are leaning towards a very conservative opinion in this case. It's about time.
 
Aim1 said:
- Hunting permits was a major part of of it one of the SCOTUS justices said, "How many muggings happen in the woods?"
Click to expand...

Was this remark in favor of 2A or against? I will read later, I'm not familiar with the case at this point, just curious what was the meaning of the justices remark "how many muggings happen in the woods"?
 
DustyGmt said:
Was this remark in favor of 2A or against? I will read later, I'm not familiar with the case at this point, just curious what was the meaning of the justices remark "how many muggings happen in the woods"?
Click to expand...

It was pro 2A.

The context was NY saying that people in more rural areas of NY can get CCP and hunting license to carry outside the home easier than, say, NYC. This was an attempt to say the laws were legal because it's playing up to the sensitive area clauses.... that NYC has more sensitive needs, thereby justifying the permit denial based on general self defense as reason.

Judge basically saying: OK, yeah sure... but the potential for bears mugging people isn't what the average citizen is trying to protect themselves against. Stated or asked about people having to travel through bad areas to get home late at night shortly before or after that exchange.
 
DustyGmt said:
Was this remark in favor of 2A or against? I will read later, I'm not familiar with the case at this point, just curious what was the meaning of the justices remark "how many muggings happen in the woods"?
Click to expand...
Yep like danez said .... it is definitely pro-2A. Almost patronizingly condescendingly-so. It was awesome. It made the government’s case seem ignorant to the facts .... "soooooo Mr Counselor, how many muggings would you say occur in the woods?"

Awesome!
 
I just finished watching the above video and concur with Braden's description of the oral arguments as a "slap factory". Some of the arguments by the solicitors and the resulting responses by the Justices are very telling what they think about those arguments, and in some cases (like Roberts) they're absolutely hilarious.
 
After listening to the live arguments, then reading the transcript, I took away the impression that the liberal Justices had already conceded the 'may issue' scheme as unconstitutional, and concentrated instead on the ability of the State to limit places where concealed firearms could be carried under a 'shall issue' scheme.

What was not discussed at all by either side was the unconstitutionality of a 'shall issue' scheme, or to put it another way, it seems that mandated Constitutional Carry is completely off the table.

One thing not in this case, so unsurprisingly was not discussed, was the legal obligations of States to recognize permits from other states, in other words reciprocity.

Reciprocity will have to be litigated in a new case under the 'full faith and credit' clause.
 
F-111 John said:
One thing not in this case, so unsurprisingly was not discussed, was the legal obligations of States to recognize permits from other states, in other words reciprocity.

Reciprocity will have to be litigated in a new case under the 'full faith and credit' clause.
Click to expand...

Excellent point.
 
F-111 John said:
What was not discussed at all by either side was the unconstitutionality of a 'shall issue' scheme, or to put it another way, it seems that mandated Constitutional Carry is completely off the table.
Click to expand...
That issue was not discussed because it was not the question before the court, nor was it alluded to in the original case at the District level.
 
F-111 John said:
After listening to the live arguments, then reading the transcript, I took away the impression that the liberal Justices had already conceded the 'may issue' scheme as unconstitutional, and concentrated instead on the ability of the State to limit places where concealed firearms could be carried under a 'shall issue' scheme.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. They'll never get away with a misdirection move at this point in the case. They blew their chance to-do that in the lower courts.

What was not discussed at all by either side was the unconstitutionality of a 'shall issue' scheme, or to put it another way, it seems that mandated Constitutional Carry is completely off the table.
Click to expand...

Again, doesn’t matter. That's not the issue before the court but, if you'll take another gander at another post of mine (wait, it may not be in this thread) this does indicate that they are going somewhere along the lines of what SC did recently (open carry with a permit which has a familiarization and safety competency requirement). I tried to explain it, from an instructor's perspective, probably didn't do a very good job of it apparently.

One thing not in this case, so unsurprisingly was not discussed, was the legal obligations of States to recognize permits from other states, in other words reciprocity.

Reciprocity will have to be litigated in a new case under the 'full faith and credit' clause.
Click to expand...

Reciprocity is not the big issue here nor will it ever be forced upon the states. Peaceable Journey, yes, but not reciprocity because of the training questions. Right to carry concealed, or otherwise open carry with a shall issue permit, is where the minutiae will sorted-out ... the devil is in the details sort of thing, but reciprocity can not and will not be forced upon the states by the federal government. It would go against everything the blue states represent. No way in heck would they risk going there.

Look at it this way. For blue states, more apropos blue cities, to push-for or against reciprocity would be like them agreeing to a Constitutional Convention in a year in which they were the minority and didn't hold the white house or the majority of the governors. Could they try it? Sure. Would they win? Not a chance. Not only that but they would risk losing more in the process, because, once convened more laws could be added and/or more rights revised, reworded or strengthened. In other words it would be a chance for the 1st and the 2nd to be revised with better wording like, for instance, a qualifier to be considered "Press" with an honesty clause and, as far as the 2nd is concerned, replace "a well regulated militia" with "all law abiding legal citizens" etc.

Plus we may include an amendment that protects our borders, by law, prevents social welfare overreach, eliminates anchor babies and takes away the automatic citizenship clause for those born on this soil after such and such a date, etc. The possibilities are endless and they know it and they'll never risk it.

That is what they would be risking if they opened-up the reciprocity question while in this, or any other, court.
 
Last edited:
The Sullivan Act disarms the law abiding and is ignored by law breakers.

All Tim Sullivan really wanted was pistol permits for his poll watchers, none for his opponents' poll watchers and an excuse to jail them if they were illegally armed. The Sullivan act is a hangover from Tammany Hall machine politics.

Modern prohibitory state, county, municipal gun permit laws were possible because of that 1870s SCOTUS Cruikshank decision that gutted the civil rights acts after the Civil War, saying the Bill of Rights only protected against federal infringement.
 
F-111 John said:
One thing not in this case, so unsurprisingly was not discussed, was the legal obligations of States to recognize permits from other states, in other words reciprocity.

Reciprocity will have to be litigated in a new case under the 'full faith and credit' clause.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I’m not sure that’s the case. People often cite driver’s licenses when talking about reciprocity, but the ability to drive in any state with a valid license wasn’t brought about as a Constitutional issue. IIRC it is the result of a 50 state voluntary compact. So there’s not an obvious reason why reciprocity could be forced as a Constitutional issue.

I would be happy to be wrong about this.
 
Elkins45 said:
I would be happy to be wrong about this.
Click to expand...

I don't think you are wrong. The DL issue is an example of how it could be done but not constitutionally forced to be done. As such, it wont happpen.

The wheels turn slowly.... How I can see this playing out over a decade or two or 3, SCOTUS rules Shall issue and States, after additional litigation, will eventually be required to either honor out of state permits or offer permits to out of state residents; likely the anti-states, such as CA who doesn't honor any other states permits, will choose the later as it raises revenue and makes it more difficult.
 
Elkins45 said:
I would be happy to be wrong about this.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I do think you are wrong. Hopefully the Supreme Court will rule that the Right to Bear Arms outside of the home will be confirmed as a fundamental right.

You shouldn't lose a fundamental right just because you leave your home state. If a state insists that you must have a permit in order to exercise a fundamental right, then that state should also be required to recognize permits from other states as valid under the full faith and credit clause.
 
F-111 John said:
You shouldn't lose a fundamental right just because you leave your home state. If a state insists that you must have a permit in order to exercise a fundamental right, then that state should also be required to recognize permits from other states as valid under the full faith and credit clause.
Click to expand...

While I agree with you, my agreement has no value. For your assertion to become the law of the land we would need for SCOTUS to rule that concealed carry, not just carry is a fundamental right . Otherwise we will have the situation where states will say publicly “well, I guess we have to let people open carry” but then in actuality arrest them for disturbing the peace or some other offense as soon as they do. Or place so many restrictions as to render it meaningless, setting up another decade or two of legal challenges, some of which will likely take place under less favorable courts.

I’m afraid I simply don’t share your optimism. We’ve seen how banners can always find a way to narrow and restrict firearm freedom too many times.
 
Elkins45 said:
While I agree with you, my agreement has no value. For your assertion to become the law of the land we would need for SCOTUS to rule that concealed carry, not just carry is a fundamental right . Otherwise we will have the situation where states will say publicly “well, I guess we have to let people open carry” but then in actuality arrest them for disturbing the peace or some other offense as soon as they do. Or place so many restrictions as to render it meaningless, setting up another decade or two of legal challenges, some of which will likely take place under less favorable courts.

I’m afraid I simply don’t share your optimism. We’ve seen how banners can always find a way to narrow and restrict firearm freedom too many times.
Click to expand...

First of all, I am not optimistic at all that any sort of reciprocity ruling will come out of this case. On the contrary, it was my assertion that further litigation would be necessary.

Second, all 50 states have some sort of provision for concealed carry, be that a 'may issue' scheme, a 'shall issue' scheme, or a 'Constitutional Carry' scheme. Not one state prohibits concealed carry outright. Because each state has some sort of concealed carry scheme, it would not take a lot for a future SCOTUS to rule that states must provide 'full faith and credit' to other states' concealed carry licenses.

But this would be the subject of a future lawsuit, assuming that we get a favorable ruling in this lawsuit.
 
F-111 John said:
...it would not take a lot for a future SCOTUS to rule that states must provide 'full faith and credit' to other states' concealed carry licenses....
Click to expand...

Why do you believe this? Have you done some research about the "full faith and credit" clause? Can you cite some legal authority that leads you to your conclusion?

In fact, it's not true --

  1. States recognize each others driver's licenses because they have specifically agreed among themselves to do so -- not because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.

  2. In fact the courts have applied Article IV, Section 1 fairly narrowly.

    • For example, see this article:
      ...In drafting the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Framers of the Constitution were motivated by a desire to unify their new country while preserving the autonomy of the states. To that end, they sought to guarantee that judgments rendered by the courts of one state would not be ignored by the courts of other states. The Supreme Court reiterated the Framers' intent when it held that the Full Faith and Credit Clause precluded any further litigation of a question previously decided by an Illinois court in Milwaukee County v. M. E. White Co., 296 U.S. 268, 56 S. Ct. 229, 80 L. Ed. 220 (1935).....
      Click to expand...

    • Or this article:
      ...The Court first interpreted the clause in the 1813 case Mills v. Duryee [11 U.S. 481]. Currently, the Court has heard numerous cases involving the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The Court says that the clause can be used in three different ways. First, the clause can command a state to take jurisdiction, or control, over a claim that started in another state. Second, the clause can determine which state's law should be applied when a case involves more than one state. And lastly, the clause directs states to acknowledge and enforce court judgments from other states. ...
      Click to expand...

    • As discussed here, the scope of the application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause has been well settled in the courts:
      ...The Supreme Court has invoked the clause to police state-court proceedings in three contexts: (1) determining when a state must take jurisdiction over claims that arise in other states; (2) limiting the application of local state law over another state's law in multistate disputes; and (3) recognizing and enforcing judgments rendered in sister-state courts....
      Click to expand...

    • And here's another interesting commentary on the finer points of the Full Faith and Credit Clause:
      ...Article IV, Sec. 1, has had its principal operation in relation to judgments. Embraced within the relevant discussions are two principal classes of judgments. First, those in which the judgment involved was offered as a basis of proceedings for its own enforcement outside the State where rendered, as for example, when an action for debt is brought in the courts of State B on a judgment for money damages rendered in State A; second, those in which the judgment involved was offered, in conformance with the principle of res judicata, in defense in a new or collateral proceeding growing out of the same facts as the original suit, as for example, when a decree of divorce granted in State A is offered as barring a suit for divorce by the other party to the marriage in the courts of State B....
      Click to expand...

  3. Let's look at some applications of Article IV, Sec. 1:

    • Your State B license to marry means nothing in State A:

      • It won't allow you to legally contract marriage in State A.

      • What would matter is that if you legally contracted marriage in State B now State A would recognize you as being married.

      • But any consequences of being recognized as married by State A will be decided under the laws of State A. For example:

        • If you and your spouse remain residents of State B but have investments in State A, your liability for State A income tax on those investment would be determined based on (1) you and your spouse being a married couple; and (2) the tax laws of State A.

        • If after having been married for a while and living in State B (which is a community property State) you and your spouse move to State A (which is a common law marital property State), respective rights in property acquired after the move will be determined in accordance with the law of State A, even though the marriage was contracted in State B and even if respective rights in marital property acquired before moving from State B continue to be determined in accordance with the laws of State B.

    • Similarly:

      • If you acquired title to a 1997 Ford F-150 by intestate succession under the laws of State B because the decedent was a resident of State B when he died, and under the intestate succession laws of State B you were entitled to that property, State A would recognize you as the owner of that 1997 Ford F-150.

      • That would be the case even though under the intestate succession laws of State A you would not have been entitled to that truck.

      • But again, any consequences of your ownership of that truck in State A would be determined in accordance with the laws of State A. So, for example, if the windows of that truck have a dark tint permissible in State B but not in State A, you'll be likely to get a ticket if you drive your truck in State A.

    • For another example:

      • You sue Y in State B and win. The court in State B issues a judgement in your favor against Y to the effect that Y must pay you $100,000.

      • Y splits to State A where he has all his property and bank accounts.

      • You now take that judgement to a court in State A to get a writ of execution to allow you to attach Y's property and/or bank accounts so you can get paid the money Y owes you.

      • In general, the court in State A will recognize and accept the State B judgement as conclusively establishing that Y owes you $100,000 (although there are some limited bases upon which Y might try to collaterally attack that judgement).

      • But even though the court in State A has accepted (given Full Faith and Credit to) that State B judgement, the way you can collect that judgement in State A (e. g., terms of the writ of execution, how it may be served, the interest payable on the unpaid judgement, exemptions of property from levy, limitation on garnishment of wages, etc.) will all be determined under the laws of State A.

  4. However, in general, State B will not recognize a license issued by State A to do something. If you are licensed by State A as a barber, lawyer, contractor, doctor, etc., in State A, you can't expect to take that State A license and be able to set up shop in State B as a barber, lawyer, contractor, doctor, etc. So while I'm licensed to practice law in California, that license isn't necessarily recognized by the State of Oregon to allow me to practice in Oregon (at least unless I associate with local counsel.
 
Frank Ettin said:
Why do you believe this? Have you done some research about the "full faith and credit" clause? Can you cite some legal authority that leads you to your conclusion?

In fact, it's not true --

  1. States recognize each others driver's licenses because they have specifically agreed among themselves to do so -- not because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.

  2. In fact the courts have applied Article IV, Section 1 fairly narrowly.
    • For example, see this article:
      ​

    • Or this article:
      ​

    • As discussed here, the scope of the application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause has been well settled in the courts:
      ​

    • And here's another interesting commentary on the finer points of the Full Faith and Credit Clause:
      ​

  3. Let's look at some applications of Article IV, Sec. 1:
    • Your State B license to marry means nothing in State A:
      • It won't allow you to legally contract marriage in State A.

      • What would matter is that if you legally contracted marriage in State B now State A would recognize you as being married.

      • But any consequences of being recognized as married by State A will be decided under the laws of State A. For example:
        • If you and your spouse remain residents of State B but have investments in State A, your liability for State A income tax on those investment would be determined based on (1) you and your spouse being a married couple; and (2) the tax laws of State A.

        • If after having been married for a while and living in State B (which is a community property State) you and your spouse move to State A (which is a common law marital property State), respective rights in property acquired after the move will be determined in accordance with the law of State A, even though the marriage was contracted in State B and even if respective rights in marital property acquired before moving from State B continue to be determined in accordance with the laws of State B.

    • Similarly:
      • If you acquired title to a 1997 Ford F-150 by intestate succession under the laws of State B because the decedent was a resident of State B when he died, and under the intestate succession laws of State B you were entitled to that property, State A would recognize you as the owner of that 1997 Ford F-150.

      • That would be the case even though under the intestate succession laws of State A you would not have been entitled to that truck.

      • But again, any consequences of your ownership of that truck in State A would be determined in accordance with the laws of State A. So, for example, if the windows of that truck have a dark tint permissible in State B but not in State A, you'll be likely to get a ticket if you drive your truck in State A.

    • For another example:
      • You sue Y in State B and win. The court in State B issues a judgement in your favor against Y to the effect that Y must pay you $100,000.

      • Y splits to State A where he has all his property and bank accounts.

      • You now take that judgement to a court in State A to get a writ of execution to allow you to attach Y's property and/or bank accounts so you can get paid the money Y owes you.

      • In general, the court in State A will recognize and accept the State B judgement as conclusively establishing that Y owes you $100,000 (although there are some limited bases upon which Y might try to collaterally attack that judgement).

      • But even though the court in State A has accepted (given Full Faith and Credit to) that State B judgement, the way you can collect that judgement in State A (e. g., terms of the writ of execution, how it may be served, the interest payable on the unpaid judgement, exemptions of property from levy, limitation on garnishment of wages, etc.) will all be determined under the laws of State A.

  4. However, in general, State B will not recognize a license issued by State A to do something. If you are licensed by State A as a barber, lawyer, contractor, doctor, etc., in State A, you can't expect to take that State A license and be able to set up shop in State B as a barber, lawyer, contractor, doctor, etc. So while I'm licensed to practice law in California, that license isn't necessarily recognized by the State of Oregon to allow me to practice in Oregon (at least unless I associate with local counsel.
Click to expand...
Excellent examples, really makes the issue clear.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Link to oral arguments audio for tomorrow's SCOTUS 2nd Amendment case - NY SRPA Inc. v. Bruen
Replies
6
Views
376
cslinger
C
A
  • Locked
What happens to a Constitutional Carry case at SCOTUS after today's ruling in NYSRPA Inc. v. Bruen?
Replies
6
Views
475
F-111 John
F-111 John
A
  • Locked
Landmark 2nd Amendment victory at SCOTUS in NYSRPA Inc. v. Bruen!!!
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
165
Views
7K
Insignificant bill
Insignificant bill
U
  • Locked
Do you think SCOTUS will not grant cert on these cases?
Replies
8
Views
410
azmjs
A
A
  • Locked
If SCOTUS rules positively in NYSRPA Inc. v. Bruen how far away are we from Constitutional Carry?
2 3
Replies
54
Views
2K
Spats McGee
Spats McGee
Back
Top