SCOTUS accepts first major 2nd Amendment Gun case in over a decade - NY State Rifle & PA v. Corlett
- Thread starter Aim1
- Start date
- Status
Here's an interesting question:.
What happens if SCOTUS rules in favor of the 2nd Amendment and rules that state's cannot deny law abiding citizens conceal carry permits.
That basically makes the 2nd Amendment shall issue barring you're not a felon or a prohibited person.
Since your constitutional rights do not end when you cross state lines shouldn't your state's permit to carry work in the entire US since the 2nd Amendment is your concealed carry permit?
Thus you wouldn't need national reciprocity laws since the 2nd Amendment is your national reciprocity.
What happens if SCOTUS rules in favor of the 2nd Amendment and rules that state's cannot deny law abiding citizens conceal carry permits.
That basically makes the 2nd Amendment shall issue barring you're not a felon or a prohibited person.
Since your constitutional rights do not end when you cross state lines shouldn't your state's permit to carry work in the entire US since the 2nd Amendment is your concealed carry permit?
Thus you wouldn't need national reciprocity laws since the 2nd Amendment is your national reciprocity.
troy fairweather
Member
And that's one of the easier county's, most take a year or more and I've seen where it's taken 2 years for when they say you can pickup your handgun. My county they are just denying everybody.
It doesn't happen in MOST states. I suggest you look up Emily Got Her Gun, wherein reporter Emily Miller documented the multiple layers of hoops she had to jump through just to BUY a handgun in DC. It was exactly the sort of bureaucratic maze described in the previous post.
The permit maze doesn't exist for CCW in California only because most counties in CA flat out don't issue CCW permits except to politicians and their cronies. There's plenty of laws regarding every aspect of gun ownership, including a background check to buy a box of 22 ammo.
Erie County and Niagara County are similar. Covid switched things so after the class the application could be mailed in. Some different nuances, such as no relatives or two people from the same residence. It took a little more than 3 months. A phone interview with a sheriff that was pleasant. My experience went over well. Getting a gun involves purchasing it, sending a form to the county - getting approval back - takes about two weeks. Yes, they know what handguns you have.
Note that Scotus passed on bump stocks - https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/03/more-on-todays-orders-2/ . Despite other rulings they are not being made and having one is a risk.
Gorsuch was angry at the decision. We can thank the one whose name must not be spoken for that ban precedent.
About Heller:
1. It wasn't a panacea in actual behavior. Since NYS could deny you a handgun or dramatically slow you down when a judge didn't like your story as in some counties, Heller had no behavioral effect and the challenges were rejected up till now.
2. It was said that it protected assault weapons (no term hissy fits please). No, while some readers say it was clear, again behaviorally it had little effect. Lower courts read it as supporting bans which implies it was NOT clear and poorly written or dodged the issue, take your choice. In any case, no state ban was overturned based on Heller, so it failed if that was a purpose. The language waffled and was used to support bans. The SD emphasis was used in cases to say basically that 5 is enough, you don't need higher capacity mags to defend the home.
So back to the current case, I'm betting on a tweak to NYS law that may weaken county discretion but no national mandate. Th flaming decision of truth promised by the new judges on the court will not happen. I could be wrong but that's my bet.
Note that Scotus passed on bump stocks - https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/03/more-on-todays-orders-2/ . Despite other rulings they are not being made and having one is a risk.
Gorsuch was angry at the decision. We can thank the one whose name must not be spoken for that ban precedent.
About Heller:
1. It wasn't a panacea in actual behavior. Since NYS could deny you a handgun or dramatically slow you down when a judge didn't like your story as in some counties, Heller had no behavioral effect and the challenges were rejected up till now.
2. It was said that it protected assault weapons (no term hissy fits please). No, while some readers say it was clear, again behaviorally it had little effect. Lower courts read it as supporting bans which implies it was NOT clear and poorly written or dodged the issue, take your choice. In any case, no state ban was overturned based on Heller, so it failed if that was a purpose. The language waffled and was used to support bans. The SD emphasis was used in cases to say basically that 5 is enough, you don't need higher capacity mags to defend the home.
So back to the current case, I'm betting on a tweak to NYS law that may weaken county discretion but no national mandate. Th flaming decision of truth promised by the new judges on the court will not happen. I could be wrong but that's my bet.
AlexanderA
Member
That's probably exactly what will happen. But then the issue drops down to the next level, which is process. When you mention "permits," that implies a process for obtaining those permits. There's a host of procedural requirements that states could set up as roadblocks. (Training? Fees? Age? Residence? Insurance?) That's where the next legal battle will be fought. What procedural steps are "reasonable" and what are not?
Since the procedural requirements would vary from state to state, that would preclude national reciprocity on this basis.
Last edited:
toivo
Member
Yes -- NY law in this regard is very clear that the default is "no bearing arms," and that permitting is the exception. I see this as unconstitutional, but I'm not a lawyer, much less a Supreme Court Justice.
Remember that laws against shall issue carry were the law of most of the land until very recently in USA history. There wasn't a Constitutional uproar then. Whether it is constitutional or not depends, as Frank always says, on what the court says. Our personal views are worth what you paid for them, sadly.
One can see a NYS tweak with ambiguity generating another glacial pace wave of lawsuits. Some supposed progun justices are getting into 'just drop dead' age range, the Senate may be Democratic - who knows. The 2nd Amendment had that horrific militia cause, which generated waves of legal BS for years. It's perfectly clear in supporting individual gun rights or just a state organized militia, depending on what you think of guns. That is what is happening with lower court decisions. The belief of the judge determines the outcome and then they look for justifications. Scrumptious scrutiny is not going to change this operative principle in most cases.
One can see a NYS tweak with ambiguity generating another glacial pace wave of lawsuits. Some supposed progun justices are getting into 'just drop dead' age range, the Senate may be Democratic - who knows. The 2nd Amendment had that horrific militia cause, which generated waves of legal BS for years. It's perfectly clear in supporting individual gun rights or just a state organized militia, depending on what you think of guns. That is what is happening with lower court decisions. The belief of the judge determines the outcome and then they look for justifications. Scrumptious scrutiny is not going to change this operative principle in most cases.
Tommygunn
Member
True, but, sensibilities change with the times. Sometimes organizations respond; the NRA used to be a sportsmen's organization. Early gun control efforts spurred members to bother the NRA to become more involved in the political fight, so it did.
Prohibition happened because it became popular .... it .... "unhappened" because it became unpopular --- and it didn't work as expected.
I "get" that courts decide the laws ..... but I am leery about relying on institutions that can find rights "in the shadows of penumbras" especially when one plain English sentence is pretty clear in meaning.
Styx
Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2014
- Messages
- 3,272
Because judges and politicians ignore the simple and plain meaning of the law and case law. They disingenuously "interpt" a simple sentence to coincide with their ideology. They already have a conclusion that they're going to reach one way or another before the case is even heard.
As I was saying earlier. In Heller, they concluded that the 2A did not give us the right to carry any weapon in any way, shape, or form. That some weapons could be banned and long standing bans on weapons were okay; however, firearms that are in common use are protected by the 2A. AR15s are the most used and most popular rifles in the US, thus anyone with even below average intelligence should understand that they are protected. You stated that that part of the ruling was badly written because lower courts are interpting it in a different way. I disagree. I don't believe lower courts are interpting it in a different way because it was badly written but rather they are just "pretending" the plain text of the ruling means something else entirely. It's pretty straight forward.
Tommygunn
Member
Why are there Democrats and republicans?
Why do some people believe President Kennedy was assassinated by a conspiracy and others Lee Harvey Oswald?
Some people believe flying saucers are peoples' imagination while others believe they're alien visitors....
Everyone has their own worldview. That includes their own politics and agendas. To complicate that, there are leaders and then there are followers. Often leaders want control, and in the view of some, an armed populace might threaten that control. Arms in the hands of people must be in the hands of only those loyal so the Second Amendment is interpreted in the "collective" sense, despite the "clear meaning."
The fact that the 2A is pretty straight forward is not a guarantee it cannot be willfully misinterpreted or innocently misunderstood. Such a guarantee is impossible in a world where an earlier president once questioned what the meaning of "is" is.
"Any fact, when viewed from another perspective, will yield a different interpretation," ~~ Sherlock Holmes.
Why do some people believe President Kennedy was assassinated by a conspiracy and others Lee Harvey Oswald?
Some people believe flying saucers are peoples' imagination while others believe they're alien visitors....
Everyone has their own worldview. That includes their own politics and agendas. To complicate that, there are leaders and then there are followers. Often leaders want control, and in the view of some, an armed populace might threaten that control. Arms in the hands of people must be in the hands of only those loyal so the Second Amendment is interpreted in the "collective" sense, despite the "clear meaning."
The fact that the 2A is pretty straight forward is not a guarantee it cannot be willfully misinterpreted or innocently misunderstood. Such a guarantee is impossible in a world where an earlier president once questioned what the meaning of "is" is.
"Any fact, when viewed from another perspective, will yield a different interpretation," ~~ Sherlock Holmes.
I think it is badly written as it gave the lower courts the chance to misinterpret it - granted that is deliberate. Yes, the decision and 2nd Amendment are being deliberately and willfully misinterpreted. They should have seen that coming in the Heller prose. I know it was compromise as Kennedy was hoodwinked into weakening the decision by Stevens.
Look at the 13th Amendment:
No wiggle room for slavery as in the 2nd and Heller for those want to oppose the RKBA.
I fear this decision may be a mess. Roberts is clearly anti and some rumble that Kavanaugh is in his orbit which might, again, give us a weak outcome.
After Heller first came out, I said on another forum, OMG - there is a fault here that will be used. I was attacked by Scalia true believers that there was no such weakness and Scalia was a wiley old bird, setting up future cases to strengthen the RKBA. Well, I was correct, the antis jumped on the faults, new cases were not taken up with Thomas and Scalia dissenting strongly, and then Scalia passed on. It makes no difference if you think it is perfectly clear if it can be misused. It is the behavioral outcome in the real world that counts and not Internet opinion.
Look at the 13th Amendment:
No wiggle room for slavery as in the 2nd and Heller for those want to oppose the RKBA.
I fear this decision may be a mess. Roberts is clearly anti and some rumble that Kavanaugh is in his orbit which might, again, give us a weak outcome.
After Heller first came out, I said on another forum, OMG - there is a fault here that will be used. I was attacked by Scalia true believers that there was no such weakness and Scalia was a wiley old bird, setting up future cases to strengthen the RKBA. Well, I was correct, the antis jumped on the faults, new cases were not taken up with Thomas and Scalia dissenting strongly, and then Scalia passed on. It makes no difference if you think it is perfectly clear if it can be misused. It is the behavioral outcome in the real world that counts and not Internet opinion.
Tommygunn
Member
We're just going to have to disagree then.
In my misspent youth I did manage to graduate from college with a measly B. A. in English, so I guess I'm a bit sensitive about the language, it's construction, comprehension and usage, even though I'm not really an expert. As Rush Limbaugh said, "words mean things," and the Second Amendment is really one sentence. The Founders wrote THE FEDERALIST PAPERS and THE ANTIFEDERALIST PAPERS to explain what they did and why, plus there are other letters and statements by them and their contemporaries (such as Tench Coxe's "the deadliest implement of the soldier is the birthright of an American.") to help fill out why they wrote what they did and what they meant.
Yes, it is being deliberately and willfully misinterpreted. But had it been written differently, disingenuous people would not be dissuaded from lying about its meaning. Constructing the amendment differently might have made it more complex, and thus easier to misinterprete; as it is, a single comma and it's placement is used in some arguments. The term "a well regulated militia" is used to argue states can ban guns as a function of such "regulation" despite the fact such interpretation commits the logic flaw of "denying the antecedant."
I really don't think it is possible to construct a sentence that is immune from willful misconstruction. I'd like to think it would be possible but then whenever I've believed I've seen the ultimate in deceit, ooooops, something else comes along in life and proves me wrong.
Last edited:
danez71
Member
AlexanderA
Member
In regard to the 2nd Amendment, historical context is everything. In 1791, they actually envisioned a Swiss-style universal militia system, in which being a member of the militia was synonymous with citizenship. (So there was no conflict between the collective right and the individual right to arms, since they were one and the same.) Unfortunately, the universal militia didn't last much beyond the War of 1812.
Sometimes I think that today, the 2nd Amendment, as written, mainly serves to cloud the waters. Thus we have the tortured Heller decision, which may be cited by all sides in support of their positions. As currently interpreted, the 2nd is definitely not a clear-cut statement of individual rights. It's actually not a clear-cut statement of anything.
Sometimes I think that today, the 2nd Amendment, as written, mainly serves to cloud the waters. Thus we have the tortured Heller decision, which may be cited by all sides in support of their positions. As currently interpreted, the 2nd is definitely not a clear-cut statement of individual rights. It's actually not a clear-cut statement of anything.
TTv2
Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 4,986
Because the Republican appointed justices realize that faith in the judiciary is as low as it has ever been among the Right, so they're virtue signaling. "Hey, we didn't take up any cases dealing with the election, but don't worry, we're still good! Here ya go we'll get you some more gun rights, but this only applies to like 8 states and doesn't affect most of you who have lost faith in us, but whatever!"
Unless this leads to permitless carry in all 50 states, it's a pretty pathetic attempt by SCOTUS to throw the Right a bone thinking them dealing with such a narrow gun rights issue is going to win us back.
Styx
Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2014
- Messages
- 3,272
I think the lifetime Conservative appointees have demonstrated that they're going to vote how they see fit regaurdless of how we feel about it. I'd bet the election results are the farthest thing from their minds.
I agree that they simply should keep ignoring all 2A cases. Seems they're getting more grief, push back, and complaints from the vocal Right when they take one up vs when they ignore them. If I had my way, I'd have them drop the case, and allow the lower ruling to stand just to quiet the naysayers and those who are complaining more than the Liberals over them taking the case. Both Liberals and at least the gun owners on this forum will be upset if/when they rule in our favor, so it's pointless for them t even take the case IMHO.
Last edited:
DrDeFab
Member
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2005
- Messages
- 251
Here's my hot take:
Looking at this in terms of an Overton window along the axis from "infringed" to "uninfringed", legislation since at least 1934 has been incrementally shoving the window to the "infringed" side. Heller and McDonald did much to stop that movement, but didn't reverse it.
I'm hopeful that NYSR&PA will push the window back one step, but think it's probably naive to expect much more than that.
Looking at this in terms of an Overton window along the axis from "infringed" to "uninfringed", legislation since at least 1934 has been incrementally shoving the window to the "infringed" side. Heller and McDonald did much to stop that movement, but didn't reverse it.
I'm hopeful that NYSR&PA will push the window back one step, but think it's probably naive to expect much more than that.
TTv2
Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 4,986
They proved that years ago when they voted to impose sales taxes on internet sales in the South Dakota v Wayfair case when it should have been left up to the Congress to make that decision. The Supreme Court is largely a statist, pro big government entity now and they make decisions based on what will not bring much heat on them by the media.
I think at the very least the three Trump appointed justices are trying to save face because they've told 70+ million people after the election last year to pound sand, that state supreme courts can change election laws at their leisure.
In regards to this cases tho and all 2A cases, if what SCOTUS rules is a person cannot be denied because they lack a reason for seeking a carry license, I'll take it. We're talking about probably 70 million people in states that have a may issue system on the books, some of which are de facto no issue or are so complex they may as well be no issue and those people will have a chance to obtain a license to carry. Of course, I'm not going to like the ridiculous qualifications these states mandate one passes to get the license, but some chance is better than no chance.
That said, you know as well as I do that the Founders intention was that people should be able to carry loaded guns for self defense with them without having to get permission from a government first or if they crossed state lines while carrying a pistol that they needed to be licensed by the states they were traveling/visiting in beforehand so they could do it legally.
Exactly. This is a French essay written by Frédéric Bastiat in the 1850’s that essentially explains what is going on now. As discussed in many of our posts, we’ve given away the power to read, think, and interpret, to those that claim we are unable to do so. As it pertains to the 2A, it seems the issue started around the ‘34 GCA. Creeping Incrementalism.
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html
Styx
Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2014
- Messages
- 3,272
I agree that they are pro big business which is why Trump appointed them. Trump, Republicans in Congress, and SCOTUS are all pbig business, and they've been very successful in brainwashing Conservative voters to support their big business agenda and the rights of the rich to their own detriment.
Back on topic, I do not believe they're trying to save face just because they took one 2A case. There is no proof of that or that they give two hoots about what happened during the election or what we think. It's just unfounded conjure on your part that's not fact based. Takes 4 votes to hear a case. Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito have previously decented in the prior 2A case (New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York) complaining that the courts should have taken the case and the others were snubbing 2A cases. Kavanaugh agreed to moot that case based on procedural grounds, but expressed interest in taking up another 2A case. Kavanaugh stated, and I quote: "
The Court should address that issue soon (Lower courts ignoring their 2A rulings), perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court." That's four Justices stating on record that they want to take up one of the up coming 2A cases before election ever took place.
Last edited:
Dudedog
Contributing Member
Just my worthless opinion but, It is never pointless to try do the"right" thing, it may seem like it and the result may be but trying is is not.
No matter what you do you can't please all the people all the time.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
