If SCOTUS rules positively in NYSRPA Inc. v. Bruen how far away are we from Constitutional Carry?
- Thread starter Aim1
- Start date
- Status
JTHunter
Member
AlexanderA
Member
The level of scrutiny is just a way of getting at a result, not the result itself.
Since judges may have a preconceived ideology about the RKBA, an anti judge does not care about the level of scrutiny. They will find a basis for their decision. The strict scrutiny folks seem to think that such an application means they will all of a sudden say: Oh, My Lord - Shall Not Be Infringed - let's ditch all gun laws.
That is not going to happen.
That is not going to happen.
Archie
Member
The Attoney General of the State of New York - Leticia James - responded to the 'leaked' report of the potential reversal of Roe V Wade. In short, she says the State of New York will in essence ignore the ruling and continue to do what they want.
Should anything different be expected to be received differently?
Should anything different be expected to be received differently?
Jim Watson
Member
But isn't that what the reversal will do? I take it to mean that it will let the states regulate abortion. You know, like the old saying "don't make a federal case out of it." Just more left liberal bloviating.
sharps59
Member
Back in 1983 my show cause was target shooting and hunting. had no problem getting my permit. but then again It was in the gun friendly county of Delaware, NY
now every 5 years due to the safe act we need to recertify by means of a letter sent to you by the state police. (County is not involved in recertification) you then go online and fill out a questioner. If you don't get a response your certified.
please do not confuse New York state with New York City. two different animals w different laws. NYC has the Sulliven Act which is we won't issue. It's right on my permit not to travel to or thru NYC. If memory service me correctly if you want to go thru the city you need to call the police the meet you transport your gun and return them on the other side.
now every 5 years due to the safe act we need to recertify by means of a letter sent to you by the state police. (County is not involved in recertification) you then go online and fill out a questioner. If you don't get a response your certified.
please do not confuse New York state with New York City. two different animals w different laws. NYC has the Sulliven Act which is we won't issue. It's right on my permit not to travel to or thru NYC. If memory service me correctly if you want to go thru the city you need to call the police the meet you transport your gun and return them on the other side.
I've done a little thread cleanup, and I'll offer this little tidbit: If this thread starts heading down the road towards an abortion discussion, it will be closed.
I worry that they will open it all up to shall issue, a good thing, but then they will start adding places you can't carry, effectively nullifying the right in all but name. There need to be protections, but I fear it will take many more lawsuits.
Colorado repealed state law that says that no city can be stricter than state law, to a city cannot be looser than state law. Now multiple cities are having debates about limiting where people can carry, including Denver Mountain Parks, government used or occupied buildings, etc. Boulder is working on a slew of laws, and Edgewater, a little city of 5000, is also having discussions on limiting things. This very well could be seen in other Democrat dominated states.
Colorado repealed state law that says that no city can be stricter than state law, to a city cannot be looser than state law. Now multiple cities are having debates about limiting where people can carry, including Denver Mountain Parks, government used or occupied buildings, etc. Boulder is working on a slew of laws, and Edgewater, a little city of 5000, is also having discussions on limiting things. This very well could be seen in other Democrat dominated states.
Last edited:
Not even close this case is about criteria for issuing a carry permit not about carrying without a permit.
I would actually expect it to be even narrower than that.
What we call shall issue just means there is no discretion in the decision and you will get a permit if you are not a prohibited person. However NY will still be able to decide how they define a prohibited person and it won’t necessarily need to be restricted to criminal history. This is just one battle in a long drawn out war.
I would expect a ruling that says something along the line of “when issuing carry permits the state must use objective criteria outside the discretion of the issuing officer if there is no other means of legally carrying a firearm for self protection other than obtaining a permit.”
I suspect they may leave an out for states that have permit-less open carry to exercise more discretion for concealed permits. Or if they have shall issue for open carry, may issue may end up being okay for concealed.
this is all speculation of course but I am basing it on some of the questions that were asked by the justices during oral arguments.
A few justices who’s votes would be required for a favorable ruling seemed more concerned that the only way to carry legally was/is a discretionary permit, rather than the fact that concealed carry permits are may issue at all. I think they may have been satisfied if there was simply another way to carry legally that was not discretionary open or concealed.
or at least that’s how I interpreted it.
I would disagree. The elephant in the room is “justifiable need” or however they word it. The issuing authority asks why and you give an answer. Your answer and the subjective whim of a judge determines everything. SCOTUS will answer whether that violates a protected right. Of course, it does.
My best guess is they strike down the subjective test and instruct so long as one is not a prohibited person, they must issue. My second guess is that my state, NJ, will have to issue as well.
AlexanderA
Member
Exactly. That means nationwide "shall issue." It will have immediate effects on states like Maryland, California, etc.
Both of these things are true. SCOTUS needs to make it crystal clear that strict scrutiny applies to enumerated constitutional rights and remind the lower courts in no uncertain terms what strict scrutiny means. Then they need to fast track cases that ignore it and issue per curium opinions to reverse them, like they did on Caetano. You can't let lower courts ignore Supreme Court rulings, not if "Supreme" is going to mean anything.
If they don't, you're quite right, states like New York and California will just continue to ignore the Constitution.
"Compelling State Interest" maybe? But no; that test comes from the tired scrutiny standard established in Heller, Kavanagh and Barrett prefer the "text, history, tradition" standard of review and I would expect to see a shift in the court towards that standard at least for 2a related cases where their votes are needed.
Is that good or bad for gun owners? well I guess it depends on the question that is being asked. If the question is "dose the 2a protect my right to own a functioning tank?" you probably have a weaker position under text history tradition analysis than you would under tiered scrutiny. If the question is "dose the 2a protect my right to own machineguns and 'military style' firearms?" you probably have a much stronger argument under text history tradition than you would under tiered scrutiny.
For this case I think both standards of review get you to the same place though soooo...
AlexanderA
Member
I don't see the difference between a tank and a machine gun, from the point of view of the 2nd Amendment. (Both are protected, or neither is.)
From the point of view of current legislation, you can own a new tank (including the main gun), while you cannot own a new machine gun. Odd, isn't it?
Yes it is odd, and I agree you should be able to own both. I am just saying depending on what standard of judicial analysis you use different positions become easier or harder to argue.
toivo
Member
I wish you were right, but I don't think so. I think there's a big gap between just not being a prohibited person and having to meet some objective criteria set by the state. AFAIK, the Supreme Court has said that "reasonable" restrictions and criteria are acceptable. The point is that now in NY there aren't any objective criteria; a county judge can deny you a permit just because he/she feels like it. What I see coming out of this is a set of criteria that you have to meet (above and beyond not being a prohibited person), such as some of the current stuff, like character references, as well as a training requirement. If you meet those criteria, the judge must issue.
Jim Watson
Member
I expect such objective criteria to be such as to yield the same result, near impossibility. Simplifying the next round of challenges, just replace subjective with onerous and repeat the same argument.
AlexanderA
Member
Onerous "objective" criteria are exactly what New York can be expected to enact. Gov. Kathy Hochul said as much, in her press conference yesterday following the Buffalo shootings. This has been clear for a long time, so the Supreme Court would be remiss if they don't address this in the forthcoming opinion. I would expect the SC to slap NY down proactively.
Jim Watson
Member
I do not. That "narrowly drawn" stuff.
As it should. Courts should not be making expansive rulings. They need to rule on the issue brought to court, and only that issue.
CapnMac
Member
The main gun qualifies as a DD, if with working breech (rifled > 1/2" bore; you might have an argument about a smooth bore, but they'd apply the "no sporting purpose" language).
starnbar
Member
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2020
- Messages
- 430
And that is a STATE RIGHT and it is how it was intended by the founding fathers.
Basura Blanca
Member
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 377
But how would they accomplish that goal without issuing an overly broad opinion? I agree that the resistance will look precisely as you describe, with states like mine finding all manner of roadblocks to render away any meaning to the ruling.
On a more organic level, this case needs to drive home the point that the 2A extends beyond one's home or else it's meaningless in the bigger picture.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
