1. Bikerdoc's passing and how you can help

    As many of you know, bikerdoc- AKA Al Spiniello- is no longer with us. There are always extra expenses when someone passes. If you would like to contribute to support his family, please do so here: Bikerdoc GoFundMe page.

    (Note - this notice can be dismissed by clicking on the X in the upper right corner.)
    Dismiss Notice

SCOTUS accepts first major 2nd Amendment Gun case in over a decade - NY State Rifle & PA v. Corlett

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Aim1, Apr 26, 2021.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. GEM

    GEM Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    10,048
    Location:
    WNY
    One can argue that the majority of states are shall issue. Rolling that back doesn't seem in the future. Even may issue states can have a good number of permits. This can vary by county.

    However, state AWBs and a Federal AWB are a powerful RKBA threat and seem to have more chances of being passed - state more than Federal.

    Arguing that there won't be compliance doesn't understand the issue as the hidden guns become useless for most functions.
     
  2. Aim1

    Aim1 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2015
    Messages:
    1,934

    What do you mean by this?
     
  3. Insignificant bill

    Insignificant bill Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2019
    Messages:
    545
    Which means those scary looking rifles are protected too.
     
    stillquietvoice likes this.
  4. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    12,379
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    Except, in the United States Constitution itself the Founding Fathers gave the federal courts the authority to decide what the Constitution means and how it applies (Constitution of the United States, Article III, Sections 1 and 2):

    Judicial power is:

    The exercise of judicial power and the deciding of cases arising under the Constitution necessarily involves interpreting and applying the Constitution to the circumstances of the matter in controversy in order to decide the dispute.

    Many of the Founding Fathers were lawyers and well understood what the exercise of judicial power meant and entailed. In fact, of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, 25 were lawyers; and of the 55 framers of the Constitution, 32 were lawyers.

    What our Constitution says and how it applies has been a matter for dispute almost as soon as the ink was dry. Hylton v. United States in 1796 appears to be the first major litigation involving a question of the interpretation and application of the Constitution. Then came Marbury v. Madison decided in 1803; and McCulloch v. Maryland was decided 10 years later, in 1813.

    So, as the Founding Fathers provided in the Constitution, if there is disagreement about how the Constitution applies to the circumstances of a particular case, the matter is one within the province of the federal courts to decide. As the Supreme Court ruled back in 1803 (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 2 L. Ed. 60, 1 Cranch 137 (1803), 1 Cranch at 177 -- 178):
    .

    See also Madison in Federalist No. 39:

    And Hamilton in Federalist No. 78:
    .

    The U. S. Supreme Court has been deciding cases arising under the Constitution for over two hundred years. Its decisions in those cases affect the lives and property of real people in the real world. And those decision of the U. S.Supreme Court are also used by the lower courts in deciding cases brought before them.

    The U. S. Supreme Court has consistently ruled that rights protected by the Constitution are not absolute and that under the correct circumstances may be regulated.

    As the Supreme Court said in Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 63 S.Ct. 870, 87 L.Ed. 1292, 146 A.L.R. 81 (1943), at 110:

    As further illustration of this fundamental principle —

    1. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 62 S.Ct. 766, 86 L.Ed. 1031(1942), at 571-572:


    2. In Cox v. State of New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569, 61 S.Ct. 762, 85 L.Ed. 1049, 133 A.L.R. 1396 (U. S. Supreme Court, 1941) the Supreme Court upheld as constitutional a municipal ordinance which burdened the exercise of a right protected under the First Amendment by requiring a permit, for which a fee was charged, to hold a parade of procession on the streets was valid and enforceable.

    3. In Hill v Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 120 S.Ct. 2480, 147 L.Ed.2d 597 (2000), the Court upheld a Colorado law which restricted rights protected under the First Amendment by restricting protesting, educational or counseling activities within 100 feet of the entrance to a health facility.

    4. In Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969), at 629 (emphasis added):

    In all such cases the Court analyzes the nature and significance of the right, the nature and extent of the the burden, and the importance of the governmental interests furthered by the imposition of the burden as part of the process of deciding whether a particular law regulating a right protected by the Constitution is, or is not, constitutionally permissible.

    Reality is what happens in real life in the real world. There are over 1.3 million lawyers in the U. S. There are something on the order of 30,000 judges in various state courts and about 1,700 federal court judges. Something well over a million cases are filed each year in the state and federal trial courts. Decisions affecting the lives and property of real people are being made every day in that system.

    No matter how confident you might be, confidence doesn't change reality.
     
  5. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    12,379
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    If you read Heller, you'll see the court decisions upholding such laws discussed. It each case such laws were upheld in large part because state law permitted the open carry of firearms.
     
    Neo-Luddite likes this.
  6. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    5,337
    Location:
    CA,AZ,CA,TX
    I can't wrap my head around why so many pro 2A conservative types think/say that SCOTUS is 6-3
     
    Bfh_auto, Neo-Luddite, P5 Guy and 4 others like this.
  7. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    62,949
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
  8. wiscoaster

    wiscoaster Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2019
    Messages:
    2,670
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    I agree. Once they get in there who appointed them and even their previous record signifies little when trying to predict which way they'll go.
     
    Bfh_auto, Roknstevo, hso and 3 others like this.
  9. readyeddy

    readyeddy Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,709
    looks like the court instructed the parties to focus on whether the permit denial violates the 2A. This means the court is looking to rule on the merits of the case vs deciding the case on a procedural issue like standing or ripeness.
     
    carpboy likes this.
  10. Aftershock51

    Aftershock51 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2021
    Messages:
    6
    If we get a pro-2A outcome from this, I’ll eat my hat live on camera. I’ll edit this post with the link to the video if it happens.
     
  11. Tommygunn

    Tommygunn Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    7,321
    Location:
    Morgan County, Alabama
    Be aware there is a shortage of ketchup so if that's a condiment you like on hats, stock up now!!!!:D:rofl::thumbup:
     
  12. Aim1

    Aim1 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2015
    Messages:
    1,934


    Is that good or bad?
     
  13. readyeddy

    readyeddy Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,709
    good question. Could end up there is a 2A right to carry outside the home.... or not.
     
  14. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    5,337
    Location:
    CA,AZ,CA,TX
    How could the 2A not apply to outside the home?

    IMO, this will focus on that OC is banned and CC is denied results is 2A violation and that the State must afford a method of carrying outside the home.
     
    Poper, carpboy and Neo-Luddite like this.
  15. P5 Guy

    P5 Guy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,520
    Location:
    Tampa Bay area
    Conservative Justices Have a Chance to Overturn Handgun Laws Across the Country as Gun Club Targets N.Y.’s Strict Licensing Regime (msn.com)

    For additional reading.

    “A law that flatly prohibits ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying a handgun for self-defense outside the home cannot be reconciled with the Court’s affirmation of the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” the gun club’s petition argues. “The Second Amendment does not exist to protect only the rights of the happy few who distinguish themselves from the body of ‘the people’ through some ‘proper cause.’ To the contrary, the Second Amendment exists to protect the rights of all the people.”
     
    stillquietvoice likes this.
  16. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    62,949
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    I'm not a lawyer nor a constitutional scholar, but I think SCOTUS made this distinction to rule on whether the 2A is violated by a regulation of the right that is too broad and restrictive by requiring a cause to exercise the right through a regulated means is based on circumstances the state should not restrict. IOW, carry can be regulated, but NY has regulated too restrictively. Whether that means NY will have to go to "Shall Issue" or keep "May Issue" less restrictively will be very interesting.

    Something else altogether may happen and that's NY may decide the change the law to a broader "May Issue" criteria before SCOTUS can rule and that would stop the process as the cases would no longer have standing upon the change.
     
    Dan Forrester likes this.
  17. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    5,337
    Location:
    CA,AZ,CA,TX

    Wasn't that discuss here regarding the other NY case and the outcome was that SCOTUS didn't have to drop it?

    If so, SCOTUS may get tired of that game.
     
    stillquietvoice likes this.
  18. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    62,949
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    You may remember I'm involved with Knife Rights and we were on the cusp of having the case against NYC go to SCOTUS when the state changed the law. We continued to try to get SCOTUS to hear the case, but they would not because the law had been changed. We could face the same here if NY changes their restrictions to match other "May Issue" states making the other court decisions irrelevant.
     
    danez71 likes this.
  19. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    8,052
    Location:
    Virginia
    Here's a good recap of the state of play in this case:

    Given their druthers, there is little question that the Court, as currently constituted, will rule in favor of the plaintiff, and so will open up concealed carry to residents of the eight mostly large, blue states where such permits are currently limited (the other 42 states already allow concealed carry for most residents). Associate Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch, along with Kavanaugh and Barrett, have tipped their hands repeatedly in past jurisprudence. The views of Roberts are less clear, but when there is one of him and five of them, his views don't much matter.

    https://electoral-vote.com/#item-2
     
  20. ev780

    ev780 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2021
    Messages:
    53
    Is (are?) SCOTUS setting up for an either/or situation with regard to open vs concealed? With the open carry Hawaii case in the pipeline also, we could potentially see the Supreme court tell states to be shall issue or allow open carry but, either way a permit would be allowed by the court.

    I suspect this is a way for SCOTUS to get a defacto gun owner licensing scheme.

    A stretch? Probably.
     
    stillquietvoice and danez71 like this.
  21. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    5,337
    Location:
    CA,AZ,CA,TX
    I don't think it's a stretch.

    And if licensing is ok, the anti 2A politicians will spin is to claim that UBC/Registration is 'needed to comply with the SCOTUS decision'.
     
  22. wiscoaster

    wiscoaster Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2019
    Messages:
    2,670
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    If NY pulls that stunt again, does that force SCOTUS to dismiss as moot, as they did previously, or do they have the option to proceed anyway?
     
  23. Aim1

    Aim1 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2015
    Messages:
    1,934

    This could go either way.


    From what I read in that case if NY changes the law from 'May Issue' to 'Shall Issue' SCOTUS could choose to drop the case stating that the case is moot since NY changed the law.....on the other hand SCOTUS could plow forward and say that even though NY changed the law they could easily just change the law back to what it was as soon as SCOTUS drops the case.


    In this case, even if NY changed the law I just don't see SCOTUS dropping the case since this case also affects numerous other states.
     
    stillquietvoice and danez71 like this.
  24. Aim1

    Aim1 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2015
    Messages:
    1,934
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2021
  25. Jim Watson

    Jim Watson Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    30,454
    Location:
    Florence, Alabama
    I am with Burt. I expect the decision will nominally be for the plaintiff but so narrowly drawn and weasel worded as to offer little improvement to NY and not much carryover to other "good reason" repressive jurisdictions.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  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