Biden Admin. on NY

Discussion in 'Legal' started by GEM, Sep 22, 2021.

  1. GEM

    GEM Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    10,212
    Location:
    WNY
    https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/193217/20210921144917606_20-843bsacUnitedStates.pdf

    https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/biden-administration-files-supreme-court-brief-supporting-new-yorks-may-issue-gun-control-law/

    Discusses past precedent for legislation controlling carry, 2nd Amend. isn't absolute. Heller was not a statement of absolute gun rights.

    It will come down to how the 5 justices feel about gun rights (yes, they will discuss precedent and their theory of court decisions, etc. - but it will be decided by their gut on the issue).
     
  2. BryanDavis
    • Contributing Member

    BryanDavis Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2010
    Messages:
    68
  3. GEM

    GEM Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    10,212
    Location:
    WNY
    The ACLU nationally has not been gun friendly. Some state organizations have been, following the usual political divides, but not many.
     
    Spats McGee and JTHunter like this.
  4. CoalTrain49

    CoalTrain49 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2014
    Messages:
    4,490
    Location:
    Somewhere in WA.
    This one has been a long time coming. I'm going to guess that May issue is dead and the few remaining states will have to go to shall issue. This has huge ramifications for CA also but once the SC decides it's a done deal.

    I just can't see the SC upholding may issue, but then I'm not a professor of constitutional law.
     
    danez71 likes this.
  5. GEM

    GEM Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    10,212
    Location:
    WNY
    We have to watch out for draconian requirements for shall issue. Yes, you will get but you have to take out insurance, the fees are expensive, a complicated class, a long time line to process.

    It is also possible that a state like CA, NY or MA might try to abolish any carry. The SC will have to preclude that. IIRC, Cuomo threatened that but the new Gov. was at one time gun friendly and her county still is.
     
    old lady new shooter likes this.
  6. F-111 John

    F-111 John Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2011
    Messages:
    1,133
    Location:
    Holt, MI
    We have to watch out for draconian requirements for shall issue. Yes, you will get but you have to take out insurance, the fees are expensive, a complicated class, a long time line to process.

    As opposed to remaining with May Issue which means no issue? I'll take the Shall Issue with draconian requirements now, then litigate those draconian requirements out of existence later.
     
    Hypnogator, Elkins45, Yoda and 2 others like this.
  7. Styx

    Styx Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2014
    Messages:
    1,750
    The saying "Rome wasn't built in a day" comes to mind.
     
    Hypnogator, Yoda and NIGHTLORD40K like this.
  8. GEM

    GEM Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    10,212
    Location:
    WNY
    It has long been a strategy of those opposed to conceal carry (constitutional wasn't in play then) to load the permits with so many restrictions as to make carry practically useless. Adding many banned locations - malls, sporting events, banks, religious institutions, medical facilities, government offices (outside of courts), supermarkets, etc. were all part of this. Also, allowing easy banning of locations by signage and then encouraging it was common. Thus, you either didn't carry or left the gun in the carry (which you could make illegal).

    Currently, may issue in NYS depends on country. Some are very easy and many are near impossible. However, the locations bans are few and there is no signage as in many states.

    Thus, I can see a shall issue being sabotaged by restrictions. It's nice to say that you will avoid such locations but sometimes you can't.

    I note that some folks oppose allowing businesses open to the public to ban carry (not understanding the strategy) and run around with hair on fire, yelling about MUH, PROPERTY RIGHTZ - ignoring that businesses are totally regulated on so many fronts.
     
    Rule3 likes this.
  9. F-111 John

    F-111 John Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2011
    Messages:
    1,133
    Location:
    Holt, MI
    Currently, may issue in NYS depends on [county.] Some are very easy and many are near impossible. However, the locations bans are few and there is no signage as in many states.

    Thus, I can see a shall issue being sabotaged by restrictions. It's nice to say that you will avoid such locations but sometimes you can't.
    Again, I'll take the Shall Issue with restrictions today, and litigate those restrictions tomorrow.

    The argument I see here is one of "don't mess up my good thing just to make your thing potentially better."

    If you live in a permissive county in upstate NY, good for you. Try using your upstate permit in NYC. If a NYC dweller has to take a 40 hour class, get liability insurance, and install a floor safe in order to get a NYC Shall Issue carry license, so be it. If someone in upstate NY then also has to take the same training, get the same insurance, and install the same storage system, then they can join in the lawsuit to have those requirements struck down or modified.

    Gun banners didn't start out on day one with a total ban on all firearms. They started by banning (or effectively taxing out of existence) fully auto firearms, SBRs, and SBSs. Then they banned the mail order sale. Then they closed the machine gun registry. Then they banned importation of inexpensive handguns. Then they banned the importation of "non-sporting" firearms. Then they banned "high capacity" magazines. Then they tried to lower the threshold of what "high capacity" meant.

    Our gun rights are being taken away incrementally. We will win them back incrementally.
     
    The Last Outlaw likes this.
  10. dh1633pm
    • Contributing Member

    dh1633pm Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2009
    Messages:
    3,537
    Location:
    Central New York
    Permissive is not the same as shall. You still have to say "please". I see the laws being forced to change to shall issue, but mooted by the state adding additional requirements and/or hoops in which to jump through. I don't see a lightening up on the permitting process. Maybe even the opposite.
     
  11. JTHunter

    JTHunter Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2010
    Messages:
    2,711
    Location:
    Southwestern IL-ANNOY
    Are YOU going to be paying for that litigation? Considering the speed and propensity of politicians to dream up new restrictions faster than old ones can be litigated away, you should not think like that. You should be pushing for NO RESTRICTIONS in any situation.
     
  12. F-111 John

    F-111 John Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2011
    Messages:
    1,133
    Location:
    Holt, MI
    Of course I would rather have no restrictions. But as I have tried to say over and over again, you rarely get everything you want all at once.

    How many states over the past 20 years went from no issue, to may issue, to shall issue, to Constitutional carry? It was a gradual progression, not a straight jump from 'no issue' to Constitutional carry.

    Gun banners have taken the long view with their incremental bans. We must also take the long view in getting our rights restored.
     
  13. lemaymiami

    lemaymiami Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,100
    Location:
    south Florida
    Along with as many restrictions as they can get away with... I'm betting that whatever office is designated as the site for requesting a permit (if the court decides in our favor...) will be as under-staffed as possible, with as many bureaucratic delays and difficulties as possible... etc. Surprise, surprise...
     
  14. GEM

    GEM Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    10,212
    Location:
    WNY
    The point is that we have to be careful with nuances in a decision that may be used against us. That happened with Heller. It was supposed to be great and parts were. However, some of the decision is used repeatedly to support gun type bans and other restrictions.
     
    BryanDavis likes this.
  15. Styx

    Styx Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2014
    Messages:
    1,750
    Heller was straight forward. The Left are ignoring or purposely misinterpreting the nuances. They cherry pick out bits and pieces while ignoring context, words, and sentences that came before and after. It's not a simple subject, so they will have to include caveats and nuances. No matter what they decide in our favor and how they word it, the Left and activist judges will spin, cherry pick, and ignore parts that do not coincide with their agenda. We seen this happen time and time again in the 9th court. Them trying to come up with a decision that can't and won't be spun or loopholed to death will be a fools errand.
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2021
    Armybrat and DoubleMag like this.
  16. JTHunter

    JTHunter Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2010
    Messages:
    2,711
    Location:
    Southwestern IL-ANNOY
    You do know that you are describing the IL-ANNOY State Police Firearm Services Bureau? While the logjam is finally starting to break, some people have been waiting for their Firearm Owner ID (aka "FOID") cards for as long as 20 months. The same for their CC permits.
     
  17. Megawatt maker

    Megawatt maker Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2017
    Messages:
    297
    ***? That some serious intellectual gymnastics right there...lol.

    Concealed carry will interfere with the right to protest? Well, maybe if your ANTIFA and you start throwing down with conservative protesters......who may now be armed and can fight back......

    I mean...come on...that's a big stretch of the imagination if I've ever seen one. We need to eliminate or limit one right to protect another...

    Ya...If I was you...I wouldnt just stop sending them money...I'd demand a refund!
     
  18. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    8,210
    Location:
    Virginia
    Anything but straightforward. Justice Scalia left gaps that are big enough for the antigunners to drive a truck through. Particularly, his treating the Militia Clause as a nullity hurt us badly. That meant that machine guns, and by extension semiautomatics, could be banned as "military weapons" since they were unpinned from militia use. We'd be better off if the Miller case was still good law.
     
  19. Styx

    Styx Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2014
    Messages:
    1,750
    I disagree. Without going into a deep dive explanation, I will simply state that semiautos handguns and revolvers are overwhelmingly by far the most commonly used and owned firearms in the U.S. They are in common use and will continue to be in common use. Heller protects firearms that are in common use therefore I will disagree with your opinion on that merit alone.
     
  20. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    8,210
    Location:
    Virginia
    I'm not talking about semiauto handguns. I'm talking specifically about the AR-15. Under Heller, military look-alike weapons could be banned since the Militia Clause is now a nullity. The only bright spot is that this aspect of Heller could be overruled by the newly-constituted Supreme Court.
     
  21. 1942bull
    • Contributing Member

    1942bull Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2020
    Messages:
    906
    Location:
    Southeast PA
    My take on the US Brief is that it both attacks the The Heller Decision by debating the historical facts that Scalia use to write the opinion, and at the same time uses th opinions language that governments have right to enact reasonable gun control regulations. It focuses on the right of the state to limit concealed carry. I think the counter to that is that in NY (and other states) open carry Is prohibited. If you cannot OC and cannot get a CCW permit the state has effectively den/ied the exercise of 2A.
    There is such a case in the 9th Circuit where a district found HI’s gun laws did exactly what I just wrote. It is under appeal. You can be sure that SCOTUS is aware of that case and the logical presumption of the district judge. I am sure that the point will be made in the pro-grunts briefs. This is likely to be the most decisive contemporary gun case. It will affect all of us. The only question is how.
     
  22. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    8,210
    Location:
    Virginia
    You can't carry what you can't possess. The most decisive case will be the one that declares "assault weapon" bans unconstitutional.
     
    GEM likes this.
  23. 1942bull
    • Contributing Member

    1942bull Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2020
    Messages:
    906
    Location:
    Southeast PA
    In NY you cannot buy a gun unless the state issues a permit for you to purchase the gun. That is another way to limit who carries a gun.. if they do not issue they have effectively banned a person buying. Just a different kind of ban. We’ll be waiting a long time for an assault rifle ban at SCOTUS which has recently turned down assault rifle gun cases. Heller case was 13 years ago. The New York case is likely not to be followed by another big case for another decade.
     
  24. geekWithA.45

    geekWithA.45 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    10,280
    Location:
    SouthEast PA

    The ACLU has never been institutionally gun friendly. The TL;DR is that they were founded to defend communists and socialists from being oppressed by Woodrow Wilson's regime, which was fair to characterize as a prototype for fascism. The Fascist v Communist/Socialist divide would form the major factions in Europe a generation later around which WWII would crystalize.
     
    driz and Styx like this.
  25. Styx

    Styx Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2014
    Messages:
    1,750
    Generaly speaking, we are winning and winning big gun rights wise across the country especially more so than in the 1980s-2010s. It's been getting better and better and more abd more Americans regardless of sex and race have been becoming pro gun. With that said, Rome was not built in a day. We are on a great trajectory. Politics and chances never moved fast in this country from slavery, to a woman voting, to gays being beaten, not able to vote, and kicked out of the military to openly gay senators winning election, so on and so forth...

    Be patient, and be thankful for any gains we get no matter how small. Seems if some in the firearm community do not get everything they want all in one fail swoop, they want to whine, complain, and throw the baby out with the bath water...

    As far as the orginal post os concern, no one here knows what's on the Justices minds, why they narrowed the question, or what the outcome will be. This thread is filled with speculation and guesses.
     
    DoubleMag and 1942bull like this.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice