Supreme Court Issues Final Ruling: NYSRPA v. Bruen

Been waiting for this. It's a win, but we all know that these same states will now up the fees and training, taxes, etc to de facto ban regular citizens from being able to get a carry license.

F-111 John said:

If so, then this ruling may also affect the pending 9th Circuit En Banc ruling in the case Duncan v. Becerra dealing with magazine capacity limits.

Click to expand...

The way I read the concurring opinions, there are at least 6 Justices who are not ready to declare "assault weapon" bans or magazine capacity limits to be invalid. (The three liberals, Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Alito.)

Styx said:

Been waiting for this. It's a win, but we all know that these same states will now up the fees and training, taxes, etc to de facto ban regular citizens from being able to get a carry license.

Click to expand...

It will be wait and see for sure. Currently we have a temporary Governor, a big Red swing with momentum and a few solid Republican candidates.

That being said NYC will do what NYC will do! It is an Island in and of itself. The rest of the states Permit System is not the same as NYC Sullivan Law which was a big overturn today!

The way NYS Permit Laws are written is that it is up to the local County to regulate and manage. If they opt out the State Police do it.

Any new Law that violates this ruling will be an easy challenge, Heller took care of quite a few of the capricious conditions, fees and hurdles that can be put in place.

For instance I am in Suffolk County and although they have always followed the States Guidelines they have never been big proponents or anti-gun. It’s a fairly conservative County. Other Counties issues Unrestricted Carry based on their own guidelines. This kind of nullifies that!

As Retired Police I have an “Unrestricted Permit” in which any fee is waived. My wife just renewed hers which is the “Target, Range,Hunting, Premise, Carry to and from only” type. We have to pay them a visit next week to pick up the new card. I am curious to see what they have to say or how this changes. When you go and get your new card they make you sign for a book with all the rules and regulations. That book is kind of worthless now, I will report back! Gonna be interesting!

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

Spats McGee said:

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.

Click to expand...

Justice Breyer, in his dissent, seems to agree, stating, "Many States have tried to address some of the dangers of gun violence just described by passing laws that limit, in various ways, who may purchase, carry, or use firearms of different kinds. The Court today severely burdens States’ efforts to do so. It invokes the Second Amendment to strike down a New York law regulating the public carriage of concealed handguns. In my view, that decision rests upon several serious mistakes"

He seems to be saying this decision will impact every or nearly every state-based exclusion to a very broad interpretation of the Second Amendment as an absolute right which is explicitly stated, not implied.

Styx said:

Been waiting for this. It's a win, but we all know that these same states will now up the fees and training, taxes, etc to de facto ban regular citizens from being able to get a carry license.

Click to expand...

I'll let @Spats McGee or one of the other real lawyers comment on that but, as I understand it, the voting law cases have already established case law and proper precedent to strike down any undo burden or tax whose intent or function is to limit the individual rights of citizens to practice Constitutionally protected activities - like voting. I could be wrong and, to your point, breaking the law or violating an oath of office is simply business-as-usual in the context of Democratic-Socialism. Let's not forget that, under this system of governance, there is no God, therefore no God-given rights, and no morality, therefore no moral obligations; especially not to surrender power in order to treat one's fellow Man fairly. "Equal Justice under the law," is an obscene imposition on the right of the most violent and least moral mob to rule under such systems.

F-111 John said:

In addition to striking down the "proper cause" requirement for obtaining a concealed carry permit, this ruling apparently also provides the framework under which ALL FUTURE SECOND AMENDMENT CASES are to be evaluated.

In sum, the Courts of Appeals’ second step is inconsistent with Heller’s historical approach and its rejection of means-end scrutiny. We reiterate that the standard for applying the Second Amendment is as follows: When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.” Konigsberg, 366 U. S., at 50, n. 10.
​

If so, then this ruling may also affect the pending 9th Circuit En Banc ruling in the case Duncan v. Becerra dealing with magazine capacity limits.

Click to expand...

Amazing

Spats McGee said:

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.

Click to expand...

I would expect them to try to put up hurdles. However, Heller sort of set the bar with regards to such hurdles. If the Supreme Court tells you that you don’t need to show $5000 a week in cash receipts in order to obtain a endorsement to carry “While Conducting Business”, then making 80 hours of training necessary is kind of the same thing. Right now the permit process is designed around sending off a paper background check, ink prints sent and returned from the FBI, character references, etc. This is from the days of yesteryear and before instant background and scanned finger prints. So the average turn over time from application to permit is around 18 months. It’s crazy and I am curious to see how any of this changes. I am sure there will be a rush of applications and a need to streamline the process because anything resembling an unnecessarily difficult application process has been already addressed in Heller and now this decision. I am sure they have already given this some thought and their heads are spinning in Albany! But it is an election year, overreaction will cost them. I know my local Police Departments Pistol License Section has been waiting for this. Unsure how it will be interpreted though.

Spats McGee said:

*= 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.

Click to expand...

Well, I was kinda hoping the precedents set for "undo burden" in other areas of Constitutional protection might help mitigate that but, if it won't it don't.

As has been said many times, I'm not a lawyer, I've never played one on TV, and I didn't stay in a Holiday In Express last night. So my opinions not worth the 2¢ I chipped in for it.

Thanks!

Spats McGee said:

I agree with the majority in its statement that Justice Breyer is really trying to relitigate Heller.

Click to expand...

Did you read Kavanaugh (and Roberts) concurrence? There was what seemed like a big warning to the other 6 states regarding unnecessary hurdles. At least it’s how I read it.

“Going forward, therefore, the 43 States that employ ob- jective shall-issue licensing regimes for carrying handguns for self-defense may continue to do so. Likewise, the 6 States including New York potentially affected by today’s decision may continue to require licenses for carrying hand- guns for self-defense so long as those States employ objec- tive licensing requirements like those used by the 43 shall- issue States.”

Wiggle room - it would not surprise me they go shall issue with a requirement to take full police training and qualify at Rodman's Neck.

Here in NJ it appears you can simply go to your local PD and apply and reference today's ruling. Ultimately a Superior Court Judge is the issuing body and since most judges/lawyers can read a SCOTUS order and understand it, should be a slam dunk. While the legislature and governor figure out how to muck things up, the statutes stand as is and the only hurdle we in NJ had standing in our way was "justifiable need". Now that this has been deemed unconstitutional, the rest is objective. Mental health check, qualifying for your pistol(s) and taking a safety course. I've already started my paperwork.

Breyer's dissent is a useful tool to understand which portions of the Bruen opinion are particularly galling to him, and to others who would limit Constitutional (not just Second Amendment) rights.

1) The originalist view of the Constitution forms the principal basis of the ruling in Bruen. Breyer decries Second Amendment originalism as inflexible and inadequate to the thorny problems of "gun violence" today. More broadly, however, I suspect that he knows that originalism is the primary bulwark against the efforts of other activist judges to mold the Constitution to their views.

2) Breyer writes that cities and rural jurisdictions should be able to develop different solutions to "gun problems" that suit their individual situations. Not only would he subject the individual rights embodied in the Second Amendment to the judgments of courts and legislatures to make this happen, but he also rejects the "Privileges and Immunities" language of the 14th Amendment. I have to wonder whether there are any Constitutional rights that he would consider to be beyond the reach of judges and legislators.

3) The majority in Bruen writes that "We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding 'interest balancing' approach" (emphasis added). This clearly is the majority's instruction to lower courts to treat Second Amendment jurisprudence as carefully as they have, say, same sex marriage. And Breyer knows it. Yet, he refuses to let this instruction stand unmuddied. Instead, he breezes past the majority's acknowledgements that prohibited possessor rules, sensitive-places limitations, etc. are reasonable and Constitutionally-acceptable limitations of an individual's Second Amendment rights, and rushes to a broad, straw-man argument that most, if not all, Constitutional rights are not unlimited and should be subject to "means-end scrutiny".



What I found to be most telling, however, is that Breyer chose not to disagree with any part of Thomas' recounting of how Reconstruction-era Freedmen depended on their concealed weapons to defend themselves against deadly-force attacks by postbellum southerners. Standing is a big deal in US courts, and I suspect that Breyer realized that he didn't have standing to go there.

F-111 John said:

The way I read it, as long as the hurdles equally apply to everyone applying for a concealed carry permit, and those hurdles are objectively measurable, then the hurdles are constitutional.

Now, when you get to unreasonable hurdles, like proving you bench press 500 lbs before you can have your permit, then it will take litigation to challenge those provisions. But as Spats said, requiring 80 hours of classroom instruction may be constitutional as long as it is applied equally.

Click to expand...

Again my Legal Degree is in the Mail but I read it as having to conform to the overall hurdles that other states apply. So NY has to come in alignment with the must issue states. But yea, they will try as they may!

GeoDudeFlorida said:

I'll let @Spats McGee or one of the other real lawyers comment on that but, as I understand it, the voting law cases have already established case law and proper precedent to strike down any undo burden or tax whose intent or function is to limit the individual rights of citizens to practice Constitutionally protected activities - like voting. I could be wrong and, to your point, breaking the law or violating an oath of office is simply business-as-usual in the context of Democratic-Socialism. Let's not forget that, under this system of governance, there is no God, therefore no God-given rights, and no morality, therefore no moral obligations; especially not to surrender power in order to treat one's fellow Man fairly. "Equal Justice under the law," is an obscene imposition on the right of the most violent and least moral mob to rule under such systems.

Click to expand...

It's already being done. NYC is already planning on making darn near every place they can think of as being a "sensitive places."

DC already makes it all more trouble than it's worth to get a permit. Their permits only last a year or two. Carrying in public is akin to walking in a land field as with the shear number of sensitive places they have that you can not be within a set distance of, the cost to get the permit and classes (class room and range), you have to retake a class and pay another fee with every renewal, etc, etc... Anywhere one would need a gun the most are banned.

Oh and you have to register your handguns and register which handguns (up to 3 IIRC) that you plan on carrying. I believe there's a fee involved with that as well...

wcwhitey said:

I would expect them to try to put up hurdles. However, Heller sort of set the bar with regards to such hurdles. If the Supreme Court tells you that you don’t need to show $5000 a week in cash receipts in order to obtain a endorsement to carry “While Conducting Business”, then making 80 hours of training necessary is kind of the same thing. Right now the permit process is designed around sending off a paper background check, ink prints sent and returned from the FBI, character references, etc. This is from the days of yesteryear and before instant background and scanned finger prints. So the average turn over time from application to permit is around 18 months. It’s crazy and I am curious to see how any of this changes. I am sure there will be a rush of applications and a need to streamline the process because anything resembling an unnecessarily difficult application process has been already addressed in Heller and now this decision. I am sure they have already given this some thought and their heads are spinning in Albany! But it is an election year, overreaction will cost them. I know my local Police Departments Pistol License Section has been waiting for this. Unsure how it will be interpreted though.

Click to expand...

Here in AZ you have to take a class, submit a full set of fingerprints, and they check if you have any criminal history. IIRC the fee is $50. Turnaround time is about a week. Of course, here anyone not a prohibited person can already carry concealed, the purpose of the permit is for reciprocity with other states and to avoid having to wait for a background check when you purchase a gun (the carry permit serves as the background check, per the Brady Bill), I think there might be a couple of other benefits (maybe being able to carry places people without a permit can't) but I can't remember right now.

@Styx “It's already being done. NYC is already planning on making darn near every place they can think of as being a "sensitive places."

Just wondering how you know this? I know a few still in charge and have not heard anything. All I have heard is from the Police Commissioner who announced that until they get this figured out if you have a “Premise” Permit it has not changed. City Counsel cannot do this as it is State Law, the Sullivan Act which is Tammany Hall law is now defunct.

luzyfuerza said:

Breyer's dissent is a useful tool to understand which portions of the Bruen opinion are particularly galling to him, and to others who would limit Constitutional (not just Second Amendment) rights.

Click to expand...

I stopped at the last concurring opinion, the three in the minority are predictable. I guess as an academic exercise it may be fun but the convoluted logic is too depressing for me, ha.

wcwhitey said:

@Styx “It's already being done. NYC is already planning on making darn near every place they can think of as being a "sensitive places."

Just wondering how you know this? I know a few still I’m charge and have not heard anything. All I have heard is from the Police Commissioner who announced that until they get this figured out if you have a “Premise” Permit it has not changed. City Counsel cannot do this as it is State Law, the Sullivan Act which is Tammany Hall law is now defunct.

Click to expand...

Going to be hard to overcome the dicta in Thomas's opinion: "That said, respondents’ attempt to characterize New York’s proper-cause requirement as a “sensitive-place” law lacks merit because there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a “sensitive place” simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department."