If SCOTUS rules positively in NYSRPA Inc. v. Bruen how far away are we from Constitutional Carry?

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Aim1

member
Joined
Oct 24, 2015
Messages
2,310
SCOTUS is going to shortly (hopefully before the end of June) rule on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen and if it is positive for the 2nd Amendment like I think it will be it will rule that you cannot make someone demonstrate a "proper cause" to receive a permit to carry. As long as you are eligible for a permit meaning not a felon or prohibited, than you will receive a permit which should be all law-abiding citizens without a felony that precludes them from possessing a firearm.

So, if anyone who isn't prohibited from receiving a permit to carry that is basically Constitutional Carry.

Constitutional carry means that the state’s law does not prohibit citizens who can legally possess a firearm from carrying handguns, (openly and/or in a concealed manner) thus no state permit is required.


So, if SCOTUS rules positively in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen and states that you cannot force someone to prove they have a "proper cause" to receive a permit to carry (thus meaning anyone who is eligible and applies for a permit to carry will automatically receive one) how far off are we from Constitutional Carry and not needing a permit to carry?
 
With the current display regarding a certain draft decision being leaked I feel certain that they will carefully choose words to try and avoid a repeat of the current fecal matter exposition. I expect the ruling to be very narrow. I hope for a broad and simple ruling which would be meaningful but I don’t expect it.
 
Silver lining to SCOTUS leak is that there may be more favorable ruling than expected for NYSRPA v. Bruen case. The leak revealed SCOTUS is ready to overturn a landmark case and this may indicate that SCOTUS may finally be ready to rule aggresively on major 2A cases it passed on previously and perhaps we may see how "Originalist" SCOTUS has become with infusion of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...on-the-second-amendment.856201/#post-11231970

"In this video I discuss what impact the recent Supreme Court opinion leak will have on another upcoming case NYSRPA v. Bruen. This leak reveals some important things about the upcoming Second Amendment decision."

https://rumble.com/v13kipk-leaked-s...signals-upcoming-2a-case-decision-result.html

Video expresses NYSRPA v. Bruen is the case justice Thomas has been waiting for and likely write the court's opinion to leave a lasting legacy that justice Alito is doing with leaked SCOTUS case.

And I cannot wait to hear justice Kavanaugh's opinion on "Assault Weapon" case where he likely will volunteer to write the opinion as he wrote the dissent for Heller II and likely also want to leave a lasting legacy - https://reason.com/volokh/2018/07/09/judge-kavanaugh-and-the-second-amendment/

"In Heller, the Supreme Court held that handguns—the vast majority of which today are semi-automatic—are constitutionally protected because they have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens. There is no meaningful or persuasive constitutional distinction between semi-automatic handguns and semi-automatic rifles. Semi-automatic rifles, like semi-automatic handguns, have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens for self-defense in the home, hunting, and other lawful uses."​

"Ground Breaking Supreme Court Ruling On 'Assault Weapon' Bans Coming"

https://rumble.com/v12uvp8-ground-breaking-supreme-court-ruling-on-assault-weapon-bans-coming.html
 
Last edited:
The rulings only change (that I can foresee), is negating the need to justify concealed carry. So all licenses in NY will now have that written on them. The onerous regulations of the licensing process will be left intact or get worse.
 
Not to seem pessimistic but I don't think constitutional carry will happen in my lifetime. Part of the permit process that I went through was having to sign a waver stating that having handguns is a privilege, revocable at any time for any reason. Failure to sign was an automatic denial. The legislators, and judges will not allow the current permit system to be so "degraded " as yo allow constitutional carry, they will however have to allow all qualifying permit applications to be approved.
 
Seen on a FB group:

"New York has one of the most restrictive gun laws in the country," Tresmond said, "We at this law firm believe that anyone who passes a mental health check has the right to possess a firearm."

That is not what I want my lawyer to say in a gun possession case.

I have seen nothing to change my mind that the decision will be in favor of the plaintiff but so "narrowly drawn" as to have no practical effect.
 
Aim1 said:
So, if SCOTUS rules positively in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen and states that you cannot force someone to prove they have a "proper cause" to receive a permit to carry (thus meaning anyone who is eligible and applies for a permit to carry will automatically receive one) how far off are we from Constitutional Carry and not needing a permit to carry?
Click to expand...
1. A positive result in the Bruen case is almost a foregone conclusion.
2. This means that we will have nationwide "shall issue" permitting.
3. "Constitutional" (permitless) carrying is quite a bit further down the road. State-level legislation would be needed.
4. The next important 2A Supreme Court case will be about what classes of weapons, if any, can be banned. "Assault weapon" bans are a more significant 2A infringement, IMO, than carrying restrictions.
 
The nuances about shall issue will be important. A limited removal of showing a 'cause' could be it. However, in NYS, there are other obstacles depending on county. There is the issue of references - they vary. Do they have to be in the same town, how long do they have to know you? That can be an obstacle. What is the waiting time for approval? I can see NYC making it very, very long. What is the fee schedule? How long is the 'permit' good for? Is there a training mandate that is extreme. Currently, it's rather easy.

The decision would have to be careful to forbid unnecessary or complex obstacles to a 'shall issue' permit.

Cuomo had once mentioned that if it came to shall issue, he would push to eliminate carry permits. Hopefully, the decision would shut down that option.

Mandating constitutional carry or allowing OC might be in your wish list but I doubt it for this one. The hope is that it doesn't contain too much Scalia like blather that would give the restricted states some ways of screwing with a standard shall issue. Note his prose sunk many cases against AWBs and mag bans. Yes, he was clear if you were a Scalia true believer but it didn't play out like that in the lower courts.

I agree that getting rid of any possible AWB and mag bans is a priority for us. Not so much for Scotus. Another set of long years before we see that. They are more into other culture war issues.
 
The current Supreme Court majority (judging from this week's events) seems to be inclined to render "absolutist" decisions that "push the envelope," regarding things that have long been on the conservative agenda. Therefore, I would expect that beyond specifying "shall issue," the Court will also explicitly preclude the obvious evasive techniques such as unreasonable training requirements, high fees, bureaucratic delays, etc.
 
Even with a conservative SCOTUS majority, I can see them ruling narrowly in the Bruen case. I do not expect SCOTUS to burn down the "justifiable need" clauses that many states have as part of their may issue permit system. I suspect the scope will be narrow and focus on just NY and their draconian gun laws.

But, if they go wide, I would be pleasantly surprised. And happy to be wrong.
 
Probably not Permitless Carry, not in NYS--that's just a bridge too far (esp over the Hudson).

Now, a ruling that "shall issue" means just that; that "only if we think you gave a good enough reason" is a clear infringement. It's one thing if "government" wants clear barriers to a Right--violent history, addiction, incapacity, etc.--it's quite another to just say no one has the right unless they plead for it in a way that pleases us.

Now, this will have "downstream" effects if it goes "our" way. MD, DE, NJ, and all the States that have "show good cause" requirements for issue, will have to change their laws. (This would actually remove four pending SCOTUS cases from those several States.)

We will likely pass the halfway point for permit-less carry this month. Florida is poised to change in the next month, which will make it either the 27th or 28th State to do so. The smart people looking at this think it is likely we may wind up with 34 States that are permit-less; 13 that will retain a permit requirement. Which will leave three that may have to be forced into consistent permit issue (CA, HI, & NY).

The smart people are also pondering if the legality of FOID will be next to be addressed.

Really, the only thing "the leak" has revealed is that SCOTUS has often worked by writing opinions as if finished, and then debating those amongst themselves until they settle the matter amongst themselves, and then release a final ruling.
 
When I got permit, the minimum time was 6 months, Cost 35 dollars, and unless revoked for any reason, was lifetime, mine actually took a year, but now the cost is considerably higher almost prohibitive to those with the greatest need, and needs to be renewed every few years.
 
I think that all of the ideas tossed around so far are great, but I still think that it’s a bit of a reach to think that the ruling will go after “show cause” clauses and such. What this case actually boils down to is that the system that is in place is a convoluted and inconsistent system. The fact that it is so inconsistent from county to county means that essentially the laws which are on the books in NY allow for favoritism just the same as they allow for discrimination without notable cause. I suspect that the ruling will be that the law has to be enforceable consistently. Period. Eliminate the arbitrary discrimination. Provide a path that is consistent… whatever that path may be.

Doing it this way would leave the buck firmly passed to and residing at the state level, would not touch the shall/may issue, and would not really have much of an impact outside of NY.
 
The ruling will be narrow in that it will only invalidate the may issue provision of New York law, and likewise invalidate similar provisions in eight other states.
 
jdc1244 said:
The ruling will be narrow in that it will only invalidate the may issue provision of New York law, and likewise invalidate similar provisions in eight other states.
Click to expand...
What you're saying is that the ruling will result in nationwide "shall issue." I wouldn't call that "narrow," but I suppose it could be called "narrow" by those who want to get nationwide permitless carry out of this. That isn't going to happen, for the simple reason that it isn't the relief that is being sought in the case. The Court doesn't answer questions that are not being asked.
 
AlexanderA said:
What you're saying is that the ruling will result in nationwide "shall issue." I wouldn't call that "narrow," but I suppose it could be called "narrow" by those who want to get nationwide permitless carry out of this. That isn't going to happen, for the simple reason that it isn't the relief that is being sought in the case. The Court doesn't answer questions that are not being asked.
Click to expand...
Except in this case the court looked at the situation and framed the question themselves. It’s kind of a weird situation. I’m no legal expert but it does not seem normal for the suit to be filed, the relief to happen therefore invalidating the suit, and the court decide to continue consideration by picking and choosing what they want to look at.
 
My expectation is that SCOTUS will begin by acknowledging that RKBA extends well beyond the home. If we get that, it is a huge win. Many good things would follow that.

It would follow that schemes that restrict the right to a select few, however they are structured, are unconstitutional.

I have no idea what form the remedy will take. But there will be a remedy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
What happens to a Constitutional Carry case at SCOTUS after today's ruling in NYSRPA Inc. v. Bruen?
Replies
6
Views
478
F-111 John
F-111 John
A
  • Locked
Landmark 2nd Amendment victory at SCOTUS in NYSRPA Inc. v. Bruen!!!
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
165
Views
7K
Insignificant bill
Insignificant bill
LiveLife
Antonyuk v. Nigrelli - Supreme Court Will Rule On States Defying Its NYSRPA v. Bruen Decision
2 3
Replies
56
Views
6K
jstert
jstert
A
  • Locked
SCOTUS Justice John Roberts justifying Constitutional Carry?
2
Replies
42
Views
2K
rust collector
R
A
  • Locked
SCOTUS to discuss case that could expand Second Amendment rights on Friday
Replies
14
Views
2K
JN01
JN01
Back
Top