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

[Aim1]

I am not a lawyer, so take this for what it's worth. I read somewhere (can't find it yet) that the Supreme Court rephrased the case to indicate that the harm had been done, and they were going to judge the merits of the case on that basis. That is, they were preemptively taking away New York State's ability to moot the case. Since the harm has taken place, NYS can't moot it by changing the law.

Interesting.


Was that in an article somewhere? Do you have a link?

 

[Zahn]

i'm still looking for the link. My fear is that I'm quoting a forum posting somewhere. And you know what they say, "I read it on the Internet so it must be true." But I will keep looking.

 

[CapnMac]

Matt over at Fuddbusters (who is a lawyer, and FFL, and stamp collector) pointed out that the machinations pulled by NYC to "moot" the previous case basically shoot themselves in the foot over trying to moot this one as well.

The previous NYC case was argued for a decade. As soon as it was granted certiori, the Mayor, the Governor and the NYAG colluded to moot the case in less than two weeks.

So, to moot this case would likely need to find a way to not "damage" every denied applicant (using Spats' ripeness formulation) which is a large class in the State. So, they are likely between a rock and a hard place.

.apparently many judges ignore this.

Ah, "strict scrutiny" is meant to limit legislators, not courts. Courts will follow laws as established and following known precedent.

It takes a pretty unique intersection for these cases to "break out." Person is charged with Violation, they are offered a plea deal which is no more than a fine. Most people are busy living their lives. Pay the fine, it all goes away. Or, find a suitable legal team and contend "the Law making it a Violation is wrong" and stick to that for a decade or more.

The Cook County, Illinois AR ban is dumb, and goes against common use, etc. But, until someone can present a case that clearly states "Demonstrate the Public Good the ban fulfills" and have them answer that contention, the law stands. Law is a ponderous and considered thing. It does not corner in tight radii.

 

[WestKentucky]

With the hoop jumping going on with the 1a case about school speech I am concerned about the case moving forward. In the current case they are reportedly taking extensive measures to thoroughly consider the topic but are trying to pacify both sides of the equation. If that gets applied to the 2A then it would do well for them to fully understand and articulate their ruling, but the ruling could easily go awry by trying to pacify the legislators. I’m still cautiously optimistic but my optimism has faded.

 

[Russell13]

“Silencers” it sounds very different in person from what it does in the movies

 

[Martin248]

When the NFA was being debated, some of the legislators wanted to ban machine guns but felt it would be unconstitutional. Therefore, they came up with the $200 (a large amount of money at the time) tax stamp to achieve the same end, for the most part. If they are forced into a shall issue system, I could see NY taking the same tack by raising the CCW fee to 5 or 10 grand.

Some states require training in order to get a concealed permit. Today, those that do require a short, affordable, and sensible training that can be completed at effectively any gun range.

I can see NY requiring you to get expensive training from a police instructor, where there are very few slots available, and has to be renewed annually.

SC took off the table whether the permit itself is necessary, and isn't discussing what the terms or conditions of the permit are, other than whether the applicant needs to demonstrate a need.

 

[Aim1]

Some states require training in order to get a concealed permit. Today, those that do require a short, affordable, and sensible training that can be completed at effectively any gun range.

I can see NY requiring you to get expensive training from a police instructor, where there are very few slots available, and has to be renewed annually.

SC took off the table whether the permit itself is necessary, and isn't discussing what the terms or conditions of the permit are, other than whether the applicant needs to demonstrate a need.

So, this is good I'm assuming?

 

[Martin248]

So, this is good I'm assuming?

It's a narrow question, maybe that's more likely to get a positive result? But it'll leave NY some ways of making life difficult.

 

[Aim1]

It's a narrow question, maybe that's more likely to get a positive result? But it'll leave NY some ways of making life difficult.

How more difficult?

 

[Jim Watson]

You mean besides the ones already listed?

I can see the Court rejecting vague and subjective standards, such as "need," but leaving open plans involving objective standards. Then New York could come back and enact training requirements, age requirements, residency requirements, fees, insurance mandates, medical exams, etc., etc. They could make it very difficult, in practice, to obtain a permit.

 

[Martin248]

How more difficult?

They will make the conditions to get a CCW as onerous as possible. Had the question been whether a permit was required they couldn't do that.

For example, they might require you to take a week long course, and make you retake it every single year, and that course might cost a lot of money.

If they push it too far it can be challenged as a constructive denial but you can be sure they will push the limits as far as they can.

 

[Jim Watson]

All of that sort of thing should SHOULD be barred by the same logic that banned the poll tax.

 

[GEM]

That's why the decision can't be a mess like Heller was. No ambiguity, no blather. No room for onerous processes. Scrutiny be damned. Such denial laws and regs must be declared clearly to be unconstitutional. No waffling by the states, years in the lower courts again.

 

[danez71]

I would say the chance of that happening is infinitely less than the chance of THR allowing religious, abortion, and gluten free keto diet threads.

 

[TTv2]

This is going to be a big decision. It will not just affect NY state. It will have some effect on all ‘May issue’ states and might even have bearing on the recent 9th Circuit appeal ruling upholding HI’s law against open carry. That case was brought because HI does not issue CC permits even though they are legal in HI. If SCOTUS rules that the NY refusal to issue permits it could put HI in a position where it will have to begin issuing them.

I am optimistic that the 6 conservative justices will strike down the NY law. The rational for that lies in Scalia’s Heller decision in which establishes that the right to defend oneself is inherent. Heller decided against DC law preventing people from having guns in their homes because CC permits were not part of the original case. But Heller is so firm that the right of self defense is everyone’s right and can only be denied for certain reasons. Those reasons are age, mental condition, felony conviction. I am hoping for a big win in this case.

The issue there is that while age, mental health, narcotic addictions, and felonies bar people from owning a gun, what are the "reasonable restrictions" for barring someone from carrying a gun?

I'm with post 4 in that they'll rule that states cannot deny someone from carrying based on a special need or circumstance, but they can if you aren't able to pass training qualifications. So, if you want to get a carry permit in NYC expect to have to complete 5000 hours of classroom training (that you have to pay for) and you'll have to hit a thimble sized target 1000 times in a row with no misses at 1000 yards.

This is what the big, Blue states and cities full of Anti's will do because that's how they play: zero sum game. Unless SCOTUS rules in this case that carrying a firearm (if not all weapons as there are states that ban certain kinds of knives from being carried) is a right and as such cannot have any limitations or restrictions placed on someone who is not prohibited from possessing a firearm then I see baloney like I mentioned above happening.

Sure, you can get your carry permit in NYC, but you'll have to pay for it in Confederate dollars or 10,000 hours of community service.

It could actually make things much worse because if SCOTUS rules that it is okay for states to require one to pass qualifications testing to carry a gun, then the states could demand that people have to do safety qualifications in order to purchase a gun.

 

[TTv2]

What's implied from your statement is that some kind of permit (for carrying) can be required. That takes permitless carrying, as a constitutional right, off the table, and narrows the issue to what kind of standards can be applied for the issuance of the permit.

I can see the Court rejecting vague and subjective standards, such as "need," but leaving open plans involving objective standards. Then New York could come back and enact training requirements, age requirements, residency requirements, fees, insurance mandates, medical exams, etc., etc. They could make it very difficult, in practice, to obtain a permit.

Not just those things in a rational sense, but because NY is so vehemently anti gun and anti carrying they can take slap on ridiculous levels of requirements to make it literally impossible to obtain a carry permit. Imagine they make it so you have to be 1000 years old, have lived in the state for 200 years, pay a million dollars in application fees, and require you have an IQ of 1000 before you can sign up for the classroom training seminars that you must complete 5000 hours of and then you have to pass the range qualification shooting of hitting a target the size of a dime 1000 times in a row at 1000 yards.

SCOTUS cannot make law so they cannot tell NY what is acceptable in terms of the qualifications for obtaining a license to carry. This is why the only good outcome I can see is that SCOTUS rules states cannot deny a person who is not prohibited from owning a gun from carrying it outside the home for any reason other than to ensure they are not prohibited persons. That or just rule that requiring people to obtain a permit/license to carry is itself unconstitutional and make all 50 states permitless carry states.

We all know SCOTUS isn't going to do that.

 

[TTv2]

That would be too obvious, and the courts would knock it down fairly easily. But I can see NY putting in a host of requirements that seem "reasonable" on their face.

and we'll be waiting 10-20 years for SCOTUS to accept a case and rule that requiring people to be 10,000 years old or to be able to hit target the size of a flea at 5000 yards to qualify for obtaining a carry permit isn't reasonable, then NY will lower the requirements to more "reasonable" levels of being 100 years old and able to hit a dime at 1000 yards instead.

 

[danez71]

Ok, now for some reality.

This is cut and pasted from the actual permit application site for Riverside County CA.

Basically it's an 8 hr class and about $250-$300 in expense.

While I favor constitutional carry like AZ, and I still chose to get & continually renew my AZ permit as it comes with extra benefits, the typical requirements of CA counties that actually do issue permits is light years better than the imaginary ones.

While the expense is higher than it should be, imo, the biggest problem as I see it in CA is that only about 50% of the states population live in the counties that actually do issue issue permits to regular people.

https://riversideca.permitium.com/ccw/application?permittype=new

Attach Documentation: please upload the required documentation
If you need to upload documentation, please use the button below to begin the process. The maximum size of individual files is 5 MB.

• A copy of your valid California driver’s license, or state issued ID, which has your current address in Riverside County. Your state issued ID must have your current residential or mailing address.
• Copies of two of your most recent utility bills or any other sufficient proof of your full-time residency within the County of Riverside as indicated on your application.
• Copy of your birth certificate and/or naturalization papers.
• Copy of military discharge DD214 form, if applicable.
• If you have already completed your CCW firearms safety course and Sheriff-mandated weapon(s) qualification, please provide your training certificate (min 8-hours) and qualification scores.

 

[1942bull]

Sure, you can get your carry permit in NYC, but you'll have to pay for it in Confederate dollars or 10,000 hours o
It could actually make things much worse because if SCOTUS rules that it is okay for states to require one to pass qualifications testing to carry a gun, then the states could demand that people have to do safety qualifications in order to purchase a gun.

i don’t think that is likely. Consider the Heller case. The issue was whether it was unconstitutional to prevent a person from making a gun in their home in DC. While the decision enshrines 2A rights aa an inherit right the the ruling went only to declare that DC’s restriction on guns in homes was a 2A infringement. SCOTUS rarely has gone beyond the actual dispute as claimed in the petition. Heller was ser by five conservative justices. Now we have six. So they will not rule on qualifications. Unfortunately that means qualification rules in NY are likely to be severe. But that will be a different issue.

 

[dh1633pm]

It won’t fix to much because you will still need a permit. I booked my appointment for one in August 2020. My appointment is the 20th. Now my company sending me to Germany the 17th. So another 10 months to wait just to turn in an application.

 

[gnappi]

Some states require training in order to get a concealed permit. Today, those that do require a short, affordable, and sensible training that can be completed at effectively any gun range.
>>SNIP<<

Since we already gave up on the "shall not be infringed"...

I won't give a certification to a student that cannot handle their (or rented) firearm safely, AND hit the target at 10 feet. Florida statute says they merely have to illustrate they can handle and discharge a firearm. Well my friends, there are instructors In Florida (and likely elsewhere) who skirt this by having students fire a .22 bb cap (see 790 statute snip below) into a sand bucket. Legal? Yes... ethical? Not in my opinion.

"observed the student safely handle and discharge the firearm in his or her physical presence and that the discharge of the firearm included live fire using a firearm and ammunition as defined in 790.001"

 

[TTv2]

i don’t think that is likely. Consider the Heller case. The issue was whether it was unconstitutional to prevent a person from making a gun in their home in DC. While the decision enshrines 2A rights aa an inherit right the the ruling went only to declare that DC’s restriction on guns in homes was a 2A infringement. SCOTUS rarely has gone beyond the actual dispute as claimed in the petition. Heller was ser by five conservative justices. Now we have six. So they will not rule on qualifications. Unfortunately that means qualification rules in NY are likely to be severe. But that will be a different issue.

Yeah, sure and like I said it'll take another 10-20 years before SCOTUS decides to rule that the qualifications are themselves a restriction, but the issue is what is reasonable? In my state the range qualification is 195 points out of 300 on an Army L target at 25 yards. Also, the caliber you qualify with is what you are allowed to carry, so for people who want to qualify with a .22, legally that's the largest caliber they can carry.

IMO it's not just a restriction because for people who intend to carry an LCP because it's small and light and struggle to afford that are pretty much going to fail by not getting enough points because those small handguns are almost impossible to shoot accurately, especially after 30 rounds, and they're not going to be able to go and buy a larger gun that is more accurate and they can't use a .22 to qualify because that limits them to a terrible caliber, but it's also irrational to require people qualify at a distance far beyond what typical defensive shootings occur at.

Really, how often do defensive shootings occur at 25 yards? 10%? 1%? What is the sense of requiring range qualifications at a distance that is far, FAR beyond the typical distances that most defensive shootings occur? I can understand requiring someone demonstrate they can shoot accurately and 25 yards is fine if we're talking military training with a 1911 or the Beretta 92, but this isn't men in their 20s or 30s training with full size combat pistols, this is men and women up to their 70s and 80s with all sorts of health issues, a small number who probably can't see at 25 yards even with glasses, but could qualify at typical distances of 10 yards or less with 10 rounds, but not 25 yards and 30 rounds worth.

Now, 25 yards and 30 rounds to get a score of 195 isn't as absurd as the examples I've mentioned NYC will impose (hitting a dime at 1000 yards 1000 times in a row) but it's still a ridiculous standard that's set by politicians who know absolutely nothing and the experts who will advise them (police chiefs) will look to their own training standards and not use rational standards like 10 rounds at 10 yards, no caliber restrictions.

I bring that example up because the point of range qualifications isn't to ensure someone is capable of shooting accurately and safely with a pistol, but like with magazine capacities, to set an arbitrary numerical limit to ensure less people will be approved to carry a handgun who under normal circumstances will never have to shoot 30 times at a distance of 25 yards. The entire thing is set up to be an infringement on a certain percent of people.

 

[Bfh_auto]

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.

Better purchase a edible hat just in case.
I don't have high hopes. But I'm not a pessimist either.

 

[daverich4]

the typical requirements of CA counties that actually do issue permits is light years better than the imaginary ones.

Well, that’s the key though isn’t it? I lived in San Francisco for 35 years with zero chance of getting a carry permit before moving to North Carolina. I just renewed my NC permit for the second time.

 

[danez71]

Well, that’s the key though isn’t it? I lived in San Francisco for 35 years with zero chance of getting a carry permit before moving to North Carolina. I just renewed my NC permit for the second time.

Absolutely. That's why I said

While the expense is higher than it should be, imo, the biggest problem as I see it in CA is that only about 50% of the states population live in the counties that actually do issue issue permits to regular people.

And actually, the 50% I referred to.... some those counties are still pretty selective & subjective on who gets approved but not nearly as bad as L.A. S.F. unwritten 'No Soup For You' policy.

I'd guess only about 25% of the population has a sheriff that is pro 2A