SCOTUS narrows question in the NY State Gun Rights Case

Status
Not open for further replies.
The number is not small in Erie county. Quite a few stores with handguns doing business. I was surprised by the number of folks with permits. Now other counties YMMV.
 
So the lists are used to take guns from those prohibited by current law? I don't arguing that not enforcing prohibitions is going to be seen as a positive step in general. Given the rampages conducted by folks who should have been prohibited by NICS but got guns from screw ups will negate that argument.

' Your Honor, we should keep a 2nd background check and charge a fee because, as you can see, many times the 1st BC doesn't work and our cross referencing lists of prohibited people doesn't work either '.

Concurrently, that would undermine the scheme in general.

Admitting your systems dont work doesn't seem like a good justification for adding additional layers of burdening
 
So, a total win here may be meaningless to the rest of the nation, thanks to this change in the question? Slightly curious of how the justices can change the question brought to them - isn't that the right of the Petitioner to frame the question being petitioned? How far can they change it?
 
So, a total win here may be meaningless to the rest of the nation
Except for New York and the five other states with may issue licensing provisions.

And other states wouldn’t be able to amend their concealed carry laws with may issue provisions moving forward.

Otherwise, yes – for most of the country the expected ruling would have no effect.

For example, in my state, it will still be illegal to carry a concealed weapon, a license will still be required to do so legally, and the open carrying of firearms would remain illegal even with a concealed carry license.
 
So, a total win here may be meaningless to the rest of the nation, thanks to this change in the question?

Don't let yourself be so demoralized here. The "total win" is not as small as you'd imagine.

You are looking at this as "6 of 50 states" and thinking it would be a hollow victory to get shall issue in those 6 states - 12% of states, a slim minority of the country.

Those 6 states have a combined total population of 76.8 million people, or 23.3% of our total population.

So a better to look at this is 1 out of 4 people in this country have their right of self-defense severely limited, and are living subject to a "victim" mindset imposed by the authority of a restrictive state government. Their only legal option in the event they are attacked in public is to hope they can get their phone out, dial it, survive long enough for help to arrive. The true realization is that none of those things are even remotely guaranteed to happen, leaving them in a defenseless victim condition at all times, subject to the mercy of criminals and whether or not the authorities even feel like responding to the event, should the person manage to even call for help. There's a lot of "if's" and a huge amount of critical time elapsing between a person needing help and them actually receiving help.

Whereas reaching for a firearm which the state *must* issue a permit for, instead of a phone, is an immediate possible counter to the imminent acts of violence they are subjected to as a victim.

For 1 in 4 people, they don't even have that option today.

So even if the question is narrowly framed, it affects a significant amount of our fellow citizens who have zero options to defend their own lives from death or serious bodily harm.

The way the question was re-phrased is also good for a foundation.

"“whether the State’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.”"

The key part here is "for self-defense" - in McDonald vs. Chicago the 2nd amendment was determined to be a universal right, but did not go so far as to make "self defense" a reason; it just said that states cannot universally prohibit the carrying of firearms in public; but left the reasons to allow it open to interpretation. Neither did Heller vs. D.C. - it only stipulated that the 2nd amendment applies for self defense in the home.

Having a supreme court decision that clearly spells out that self-defense in public (and not just the home) is a constitutionally protected right?

That is a good thing and ultimately a step in the right direction to being rid of gun free zones where people are still helpless victims. It will be much easier to challenge, nationwide, various states blanket prohibition on carrying in previously prohibited places. The phrasing of the majority decision will become paramount to that end; and depending on how the decision is specifically worded it may very well crack open the areas we are still restricted.

In the same way that Heller vs. DC led directly to the findings in McDonald vs. Chicago, which guaranteed that the right to carry a firearm couldn't be *universally* prohibited, this case is a building block to build out on those findings such that self defense is a valid reason to carry a concealed firearm in public, and will also fundamentally decide that self-defense of the individual regardless of where they happen to be is a protected right.

That will open the door to challenge a great deal more than is possible at present.

The original phrasing of the question:

“Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.”

Leaves things open to a great deal more challenge as yes, it *is* possible for the government to prohibit carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense {FOR THESE SPECIFIC REASONS}.

The latter way of phrasing the question takes that OUT of the equation. There's very little counter argument possible from the standpoint of opposition, the question is framed very specifically to disallowing an application to carry firearms in public for self-defense.

So you can't say "no, because of this, this, and this."

Edit: The phrasing would very likely also affects interstate - e.g. Illinois near total ban on out of state applications. If the Supreme Court rules that *any* individuals right to apply to a state for a concealed carry license for self defense shall result in a permit being issued, then, by nature, that means any citizen of the US who applies. Not just people within that state.

Sure, might have to pay for an out of state license, but would solve the issue of folks living in one state, travelling across the border to a more restrictive state, where they lose the right of self defense in public entirely (e.g. indiana residents commuting to Chicago).
 
Last edited:
The rewritten question is probably more properly phrased than the first question given the case or controversy requirement, and the scope of the decision will depend on the basis of the ruling. So if they find the "may issue" statute to be unconstitutional, then the ruling would apply to all similar statutes.

What I can't figure out is if they rule that the denial of the permit was unconstitutional because the statute violated the 2A, then what is the effect? Does that mean the plaintiff can carry without a license? If not and the court says the state needs to legislate a "shall issue" statute, then the state could just do nothing and there would be no right to carry. Or if the court says it is rewriting the statute to "shall issue" is that proper? Can the court re-write state statutes?

I think the logical conclusion is that there is a right to carry outside the home without a license, but states can prohibit certain dangerous people from carrying or prohibit carrying in sensitive areas like airports and government buildings.

That would be similar to free speech. I don't need a license to make public statements, but I can't yell fire in a crowded theater.

I know it doesn't sound realistic, but what other conclusion is likely?
 
if the court says it is rewriting the statute to "shall issue" is that proper? Can the court re-write state statutes?
No, the Court cannot rewrite the statute per se. The question before the Court is whether the requirement to show "good cause" denied the Plaintiffs' their Constitutional rights. The best the Court can do is declare that part of the statute unconstitutional.Of course, such a ruling would apply, as well, to similar provisions in other States' statutes; it would not affect any requirement for training, background checks, etc.
 
No, the Court cannot rewrite the statute per se. The question before the Court is whether the requirement to show "good cause" denied the Plaintiffs' their Constitutional rights. The best the Court can do is declare that part of the statute unconstitutional.Of course, such a ruling would apply, as well, to similar provisions in other States' statutes; it would not affect any requirement for training, background checks, etc.

That makes sense. Thank you.
 
"The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment."

It is interesting that the Justices had a lot of questions about sensitive areas and such when they don't seem to be directly connected to that which the writ for cert was granted for. If they address those issues in their ruling, would they be considered dicta and not necessarily bind the lower courts?
 
I have said many times that the way that SCOTUS framed the question in the certiorari statement seemed odd and off putting in that they can pick and choose what they want to decide. Seems like they likely did a good thing by further limiting the case though. It is now “they did this, is that illegal” as opposed to the former question which was so broad that it would be hard to decide let alone write decision for. The 2A was essentially a theoretical and idealistic notion that got written into law. Just like everything else in the bill of rights. Now that some questions are popping up it is better to address them than to chase theory again. The ruling will likely come back “New York violated rights by doing this. Everybody else, take note and don’t do that.
 
One of the most important questions is for people who are not residents of the states in which they are currently visiting or temporarily working - do they have to apply for permits of every state they pass through? I would imagine that would be prohibitively expensive and cumbersome. Some resolution form SCOTUS would he helpful here.
 
One of the most important questions is for people who are not residents of the states in which they are currently visiting or temporarily working - do they have to apply for permits of every state they pass through? I would imagine that would be prohibitively expensive and cumbersome. Some resolution form SCOTUS would he helpful here.
Not necessarily. It depends on which state your permit is from and what states you're passing though. My Indiana permit is honored in 44 states (DC and Puerto are no-go), so it's imperative that you do your research before you pack your suitcase.

Let's face it, 2A permits are never going away. Many states just won't let go of that revenue source. This is the single biggest reason why we need to treat said permits more like driver's licenses in one particular aspect - national reciprocity!
 
Not necessarily. It depends on which state your permit is from and what states you're passing though. My Indiana permit is honored in 44 states (DC and Puerto are no-go), so it's imperative that you do your research before you pack your suitcase.

Let's face it, 2A permits are never going away. Many states just won't let go of that revenue source. This is the single biggest reason why we need to treat said permits more like driver's licenses in one particular aspect - national reciprocity!
No, I mean would NY be obliged to honor a AZ permit, or would anyone passing through have to get a NY permit? The latter would impose a considerable burden on travelers.
 
No, I mean would NY be obliged to honor a AZ permit, or would anyone passing through have to get a NY permit? The latter would impose a considerable burden on travelers.
Somehow I doubt it, but I'd love nothing more than to be wrong about that. There's no use speculating so we'll just have to wait and see.
 
The case is about the NY provisions for licensing firearms and their carrying and transportation in NY. That is what SCOTUS will rule on. The case has no petition about NY reciprocity practices. SCOTUS rarely adds a claim to a case it agrees to hear. It does sometimes drop or alter a claim. It did that in this case and thus narrowed the applicability of its ruling. Chances that this case will expand NY reciprocity is nil.
 
The case is about the NY provisions for licensing firearms and their carrying and transportation in NY. That is what SCOTUS will rule on. The case has no petition about NY reciprocity practices. SCOTUS rarely adds a claim to a case it agrees to hear. It does sometimes drop or alter a claim. It did that in this case and thus narrowed the applicability of its ruling. Chances that this case will expand NY reciprocity is nil.
Well, if carrying is determined to be a constitutional 'right' then it may create a legal conflict, because walking across a state line normally does not force you to give up that right.

I am in agreement that this particular case will not in itself create reciprocity, but it may lay legal groundwork for later suits that do.
 
Well, if carrying is determined to be a constitutional 'right' then it may create a legal conflict, because walking across a state line normally does not force you to give up that right.

I am in agreement that this particular case will not in itself create reciprocity, but it may lay legal groundwork for later suits that do.

I do think that this case will likely be a springboard for future cases at the federal court and state court level just as the 2008 Heller Decision was a springboard for this case. Hopefully it won’t take 13 years to happen. Frankly I think the way to establish reciprocity is in the state courts. Reciprocity is based-on state law not federal. This case could be a strategy for such claims. That follows your thought “ if carrying is determined to be a constitutional 'right' then it may create a legal conflict, because walking across a state line normally does not force you to give up that right.”. We can freely cross street lines by federal law, and we are not banned from taking anything legal across those lines. The exception being guns in those non-reciprocal jurisdictions. I see that as state law discriminating against me. Who knows —maybe someday a smart lawyer will get on that.
 
Currently in NJ if you apply for CCW and are denied(and you will be),you must state on NJ firearm application that you were denied a permit.This could slow down pistol permits application approval significantly.

That is pretty typical practice, even in "gun-friendly" states. I had my carry permit temporarily revoked for 6 months while I fought a felony arrest. I have to put it on my renewal paperwork every time and cough up the docket paperwork showing it was dropped about 75% of the time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top