SCOTUS to discuss case that could expand Second Amendment rights on Friday

[Aim1]

This is a good case to take. Hopefully they will.

The case is called New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen.


From the article:

"The new case concerns a New York law governing licenses to carry concealed handguns in public. It requires residents to show they have what the state calls an "actual and articulable" need to do so.

Three states (California, Florida, and Illinois) and the District of Columbia generally prohibit people from openly carrying firearms in public. Two states (New York and South Carolina) prohibit openly carrying handguns, but not long guns, and another three states (Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New Jersey) prohibit openly carrying long guns but not handguns. In the remaining states, people are generally allowed to openly carry firearms although some states require a permit or license to do so."



https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/23/politics/scotus-second-amendment-new-york-boulder-colorado/index.html

 

[1942bull]

Mods, I think this is a good post but it ought to be in the 2A forum because it might get skipped over I. This one.

 

[denton]

The 9th Circuit just ruled that the right to keep and bear arms does not extend beyond the home. According to them, there is no constitutional right to carry concealed or to carry openly. I suspect that will give SCOTUS more reason to consider this case.

Rembember, though, they turn down 98% of the cases they are asked to take. This one has made it to conference, which improves the odds. But still....

 

[Aim1]

The 9th Circuit just ruled that the right to keep and bear arms does not extend beyond the home. According to them, there is no constitutional right to carry concealed or to carry openly. I suspect that will give SCOTUS more reason to consider this case.

Rembember, though, they turn down 98% of the cases they are asked to take. This one has made it to conference, which improves the odds. But still....

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-allowing-firearms-carried-public-Hawaii.html

 

[GRIZ22]

CNN has it wrong. There is no carry of any type of a handgun in NJ without a permit. If one is not engaged in hunting there is no open carry of long guns unless one has a firearms identification card issued by the state. Even then the long gun must be unloaded.

Although the law permits it you don't see open carry of long guns in NJ.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

I thought there was a decision a few years back about where it was decided that one cannot be required to show a "need" in order to exercise a right.

That's all I can remember...I can't remember what court (Supreme or otherwise) or the actual name of the case or any more of substance.

Maybe this sparks something with someone else and they can provide better input.

 

[Aim1]

From the article.


"The court is not expected to announce whether it will take action on the appeal until Monday at the earliest."


https://www.thenation.com/article/society/supreme-court-gun-control/



Didn't realize we could perhaps get an answer so soon on if they will grant cert.

Another article stated they think Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanagh are locks granting cercertio so SCOTUS may very well take this case although they hear so few cases. The article then says all you need is ACB and you have a gun rights win in SCOTUS.



This is a biased article but still and interesting read. The left is really worried about this one being taken because they think SCOTUS will vote in favor of gun rights.


https://www.usnews.com/news/top-new...-court-weighs-taking-up-major-gun-rights-case



In the NY case the Federal Court said this and because of it maybe one of the reasons the court may choose to grant cerceorti in this case.


"What we know from these decisions is that Second Amendment guarantees are at their zenith within the home," the court wrote at the time. "What we do not know is the scope of that right beyond the home and the standards for determining when and how the right can be regulated by a government."

 

[Aim1]

Also, with the recent 9th Circuit decision a few days ago in Young vs. Hawaii stating that you cannot carry a gun in public, this could be more reason to take this case.


From this article:



"A lawyer for the state, Neal Katyal, had argued that Hawaii does not outright ban people from carrying loaded guns in public, saying those with a good cause can obtain them.

In 2020, all private citizens in the state who applied for carry licenses were denied, according to a report by the Hawaii attorney general’s office."



https://nypost.com/2021/03/25/hawaiis-open-carry-ban-is-lawful-federal-appeals-court-rules/

 

[1942bull]

In light of the 9th Circuit decision, which is as extreme a ruling as I can recall, to deny the right to carry a gun in public it becomes critical that SCOTUS hear the NY case, because it could be a vehicle to indirectly overturn the 9th’s decision. I cannot imagine that any of the conservative 6 justices would uphold the 9th decision. I certainly hope SCOTUS does not deny the NY case preferring to take on the 9th once it is appealed to the SC.

 

[Aim1]

In light of the 9th Circuit decision, which is as extreme a ruling as I can recall, to deny the right to carry a gun in public it becomes critical that SCOTUS hear the NY case, because it could be a vehicle to indirectly overturn the 9th’s decision. I cannot imagine that any of the conservative 6 justices would uphold the 9th decision. I certainly hope SCOTUS does not deny the NY case preferring to take on the 9th once it is appealed to the SC.

Hawaii stating that you can get a permit to carry a gun but then denying 100% of the applicants doesn't help their case.

 

[Aim1]

More info. Hopefully more reason for SCOTUS to take this case.


"The Ninth Circuit just became the first court of appeals to expressly state that the Second Amendment right does not apply to armed self-defense outside the home," he said. "Therefore, it is expressly split with the Seventh Circuit, the D.C. Court of Appeals. That opens up the possibility of Supreme Court review."



https://www.theblaze.com/news/veteran-open-carry-supreme-court

 

[CapnMac]

Hawaii stating that you can get a permit to carry a gun but then denying 100% of the applicants doesn't help their case.

Which has been the heart of Young v. Hawaii (which if memory serves has being going for nearly a decade now).

Also the 9th circus ruling only, presently, applies to laws in HI, it makes no changes to laws in the the remainder of the 9th circus. Despite all the fervent claims in the press to the contrary.

 

[danez71]

I think the 9th basically said the 2A only covers 'hearth and home' and public places are outside the scope of the 2A thereby the States can do whatever they want.

Whats kind of interesting to me is that in the last few yrs, the 9th ruled in case that since they didn't have a complete ban on CC, they weren't in violation of the 2A.

When they did that, they were in essence acknowledging the Right to carry outside is within the scope of the 2A.

Seems like a bit of a pickle for the 9th.


RGB, decades ago, argued that "bear" meant on/about the person in a SCOTUS case justifying that a gun or knife in a (iirc) backpack was ok in in effort to let the guy off.

Scalia actually referenced RGB's words in a 2A case against the other anti 2A justices.

I can't remember the cases off hand though.


Interesting times for sure. If SCOTUS takes it, it will have a huge impact either way it goes.

 

[1942bull]

The 9th Circuit is in the legal stratosphere. Space cadets.

 

[JN01]

Link to SCOTUS blog for updates on the case: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Corlett - SCOTUSblog
Link to petition: 20201217110211298_2020-12-17 NRA-Corlett Cert Petition FINAL.pdf (supremecourt.gov)