Transcript of oral arguments from today's SCOTUS case - NY SR&PA Inc. v. Bruen

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Aim1, Nov 3, 2021.

  1. Aim1

    Aim1 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2015
    Messages:
    1,997
    Here is a transcript of today's oral arguments in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

    Incredible how fast they typed this and kept up.


    It's on Twitter but you don't need a Twitter account to read it.


    - Hunting permits was a major part of of it one of the SCOTUS justices said, "How many muggings happen in the woods?"

    - They talked about subways and transit being sensitive places where you shouldn't be able to carry a gun because of the large number of people but no one said, "Because of all the dangerous assaults, muggings, and murders, on subways and other modes of public transportation, they should precisely be where citizens are allowed to carry their weapons for self-defense."



    *** One big takeaway is that no matter how narrow the scope of the decision may be if it is a 2nd Amendment win pertaining to granting permits it means that the 2nd Amendment does enshrine the right to carry weapons outside of the home and that is huge!

    So many courts have said because of Heller the 2nd Amendment only pertains to possessing/carrying guns inside the home.




    You can read this on a computer or cellphone.


    https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1455897604823437315?t=Gl9Zty33hoiwZHPZ-VgUOA&s=19
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2021
    270OKIE, danez71 and DoubleMag like this.
  2. herrwalther

    herrwalther Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2013
    Messages:
    7,127
    Being a former resident of NY, I will be watching this case with honest interest.
     
    270OKIE and Enfielder like this.
  3. readyeddy

    readyeddy Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,740
    I'm glad Justice Kavanaugh mentioned that "may issue" laws grant officials too much discretion based on subjective criteria. That needed to be said.
     
    armydog, 270OKIE and danez71 like this.
  4. Airborne Falcon
    • Contributing Member

    Airborne Falcon #AATW 2/325 1/509 4/325 Jumpmaster

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Messages:
    678
    Location:
    Capital City, SC
    That would appear to me to be headed in favor of our 2A rights ... it may have been brought by NY NRA and those two guys but it will have reverberating effect across the nation especially in other very blue cities that are denying rights to their citizens.

    Too bad they will probably not issue their ruling until next July.

    Glad to see the Trump Three are leaning towards a very conservative opinion in this case. It's about time.
     
    270OKIE and DoubleMag like this.
  5. DustyGmt

    DustyGmt Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2016
    Messages:
    2,839
    Location:
    Green Mountains Vermont
    Was this remark in favor of 2A or against? I will read later, I'm not familiar with the case at this point, just curious what was the meaning of the justices remark "how many muggings happen in the woods"?
     
  6. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    5,717
    Location:
    CA,AZ,CA,TX
    It was pro 2A.

    The context was NY saying that people in more rural areas of NY can get CCP and hunting license to carry outside the home easier than, say, NYC. This was an attempt to say the laws were legal because it's playing up to the sensitive area clauses.... that NYC has more sensitive needs, thereby justifying the permit denial based on general self defense as reason.

    Judge basically saying: OK, yeah sure... but the potential for bears mugging people isn't what the average citizen is trying to protect themselves against. Stated or asked about people having to travel through bad areas to get home late at night shortly before or after that exchange.
     
    270OKIE, Airborne Falcon and DustyGmt like this.
  7. Airborne Falcon
    • Contributing Member

    Airborne Falcon #AATW 2/325 1/509 4/325 Jumpmaster

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Messages:
    678
    Location:
    Capital City, SC
    Yep like danez said .... it is definitely pro-2A. Almost patronizingly condescendingly-so. It was awesome. It made the government’s case seem ignorant to the facts .... "soooooo Mr Counselor, how many muggings would you say occur in the woods?"

    Awesome!
     
  8. old lady new shooter

    old lady new shooter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    23,011
    Braden at Langley Outdoor made a nice video of the five best (in his opinion) zingers from the Justices:
     
    Spats McGee and Airborne Falcon like this.
  9. wiscoaster

    wiscoaster Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2019
    Messages:
    3,402
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    I just finished watching the above video and concur with Braden's description of the oral arguments as a "slap factory". Some of the arguments by the solicitors and the resulting responses by the Justices are very telling what they think about those arguments, and in some cases (like Roberts) they're absolutely hilarious.
     
    Airborne Falcon likes this.
  10. F-111 John

    F-111 John Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2011
    Messages:
    1,156
    Location:
    Holt, MI
    After listening to the live arguments, then reading the transcript, I took away the impression that the liberal Justices had already conceded the 'may issue' scheme as unconstitutional, and concentrated instead on the ability of the State to limit places where concealed firearms could be carried under a 'shall issue' scheme.

    What was not discussed at all by either side was the unconstitutionality of a 'shall issue' scheme, or to put it another way, it seems that mandated Constitutional Carry is completely off the table.

    One thing not in this case, so unsurprisingly was not discussed, was the legal obligations of States to recognize permits from other states, in other words reciprocity.

    Reciprocity will have to be litigated in a new case under the 'full faith and credit' clause.
     
  11. irishlad

    irishlad Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2016
    Messages:
    473
    Location:
    Southern Utah
    Excellent point.
     
    270OKIE likes this.
  12. Shanvanvocht

    Shanvanvocht Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2021
    Messages:
    78
    Location:
    Upstate South Carolina
    That issue was not discussed because it was not the question before the court, nor was it alluded to in the original case at the District level.
     
  13. Airborne Falcon
    • Contributing Member

    Airborne Falcon #AATW 2/325 1/509 4/325 Jumpmaster

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Messages:
    678
    Location:
    Capital City, SC
    Doesn't matter. They'll never get away with a misdirection move at this point in the case. They blew their chance to-do that in the lower courts.

    Again, doesn’t matter. That's not the issue before the court but, if you'll take another gander at another post of mine (wait, it may not be in this thread) this does indicate that they are going somewhere along the lines of what SC did recently (open carry with a permit which has a familiarization and safety competency requirement). I tried to explain it, from an instructor's perspective, probably didn't do a very good job of it apparently.

    Reciprocity is not the big issue here nor will it ever be forced upon the states. Peaceable Journey, yes, but not reciprocity because of the training questions. Right to carry concealed, or otherwise open carry with a shall issue permit, is where the minutiae will sorted-out ... the devil is in the details sort of thing, but reciprocity can not and will not be forced upon the states by the federal government. It would go against everything the blue states represent. No way in heck would they risk going there.

    Look at it this way. For blue states, more apropos blue cities, to push-for or against reciprocity would be like them agreeing to a Constitutional Convention in a year in which they were the minority and didn't hold the white house or the majority of the governors. Could they try it? Sure. Would they win? Not a chance. Not only that but they would risk losing more in the process, because, once convened more laws could be added and/or more rights revised, reworded or strengthened. In other words it would be a chance for the 1st and the 2nd to be revised with better wording like, for instance, a qualifier to be considered "Press" with an honesty clause and, as far as the 2nd is concerned, replace "a well regulated militia" with "all law abiding legal citizens" etc.

    Plus we may include an amendment that protects our borders, by law, prevents social welfare overreach, eliminates anchor babies and takes away the automatic citizenship clause for those born on this soil after such and such a date, etc. The possibilities are endless and they know it and they'll never risk it.

    That is what they would be risking if they opened-up the reciprocity question while in this, or any other, court.
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2021
  14. Carl N. Brown

    Carl N. Brown Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Messages:
    9,938
    Location:
    Kingsport Tennessee
    The Sullivan Act disarms the law abiding and is ignored by law breakers.

    All Tim Sullivan really wanted was pistol permits for his poll watchers, none for his opponents' poll watchers and an excuse to jail them if they were illegally armed. The Sullivan act is a hangover from Tammany Hall machine politics.

    Modern prohibitory state, county, municipal gun permit laws were possible because of that 1870s SCOTUS Cruikshank decision that gutted the civil rights acts after the Civil War, saying the Bill of Rights only protected against federal infringement.
     
    armydog and Airborne Falcon like this.
  15. brickeyee

    brickeyee Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    3,201
  16. Elkins45

    Elkins45 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2009
    Messages:
    6,173
    Location:
    Northern KY
    Unfortunately, I’m not sure that’s the case. People often cite driver’s licenses when talking about reciprocity, but the ability to drive in any state with a valid license wasn’t brought about as a Constitutional issue. IIRC it is the result of a 50 state voluntary compact. So there’s not an obvious reason why reciprocity could be forced as a Constitutional issue.

    I would be happy to be wrong about this.
     
    Spats McGee likes this.
  17. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    5,717
    Location:
    CA,AZ,CA,TX
    I don't think you are wrong. The DL issue is an example of how it could be done but not constitutionally forced to be done. As such, it wont happpen.

    The wheels turn slowly.... How I can see this playing out over a decade or two or 3, SCOTUS rules Shall issue and States, after additional litigation, will eventually be required to either honor out of state permits or offer permits to out of state residents; likely the anti-states, such as CA who doesn't honor any other states permits, will choose the later as it raises revenue and makes it more difficult.
     
  18. F-111 John

    F-111 John Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2011
    Messages:
    1,156
    Location:
    Holt, MI
    Unfortunately I do think you are wrong. Hopefully the Supreme Court will rule that the Right to Bear Arms outside of the home will be confirmed as a fundamental right.

    You shouldn't lose a fundamental right just because you leave your home state. If a state insists that you must have a permit in order to exercise a fundamental right, then that state should also be required to recognize permits from other states as valid under the full faith and credit clause.
     
  19. Elkins45

    Elkins45 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2009
    Messages:
    6,173
    Location:
    Northern KY
    While I agree with you, my agreement has no value. For your assertion to become the law of the land we would need for SCOTUS to rule that concealed carry, not just carry is a fundamental right . Otherwise we will have the situation where states will say publicly “well, I guess we have to let people open carry” but then in actuality arrest them for disturbing the peace or some other offense as soon as they do. Or place so many restrictions as to render it meaningless, setting up another decade or two of legal challenges, some of which will likely take place under less favorable courts.

    I’m afraid I simply don’t share your optimism. We’ve seen how banners can always find a way to narrow and restrict firearm freedom too many times.
     
    JTHunter likes this.
  20. F-111 John

    F-111 John Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2011
    Messages:
    1,156
    Location:
    Holt, MI
    First of all, I am not optimistic at all that any sort of reciprocity ruling will come out of this case. On the contrary, it was my assertion that further litigation would be necessary.

    Second, all 50 states have some sort of provision for concealed carry, be that a 'may issue' scheme, a 'shall issue' scheme, or a 'Constitutional Carry' scheme. Not one state prohibits concealed carry outright. Because each state has some sort of concealed carry scheme, it would not take a lot for a future SCOTUS to rule that states must provide 'full faith and credit' to other states' concealed carry licenses.

    But this would be the subject of a future lawsuit, assuming that we get a favorable ruling in this lawsuit.
     
  21. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    12,529
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    Why do you believe this? Have you done some research about the "full faith and credit" clause? Can you cite some legal authority that leads you to your conclusion?

    In fact, it's not true --

    1. States recognize each others driver's licenses because they have specifically agreed among themselves to do so -- not because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.

    2. In fact the courts have applied Article IV, Section 1 fairly narrowly.

      • For example, see this article:

      • Or this article:

      • As discussed here, the scope of the application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause has been well settled in the courts:

      • And here's another interesting commentary on the finer points of the Full Faith and Credit Clause:

    3. Let's look at some applications of Article IV, Sec. 1:

      • Your State B license to marry means nothing in State A:

        • It won't allow you to legally contract marriage in State A.

        • What would matter is that if you legally contracted marriage in State B now State A would recognize you as being married.

        • But any consequences of being recognized as married by State A will be decided under the laws of State A. For example:

          • If you and your spouse remain residents of State B but have investments in State A, your liability for State A income tax on those investment would be determined based on (1) you and your spouse being a married couple; and (2) the tax laws of State A.

          • If after having been married for a while and living in State B (which is a community property State) you and your spouse move to State A (which is a common law marital property State), respective rights in property acquired after the move will be determined in accordance with the law of State A, even though the marriage was contracted in State B and even if respective rights in marital property acquired before moving from State B continue to be determined in accordance with the laws of State B.

      • Similarly:

        • If you acquired title to a 1997 Ford F-150 by intestate succession under the laws of State B because the decedent was a resident of State B when he died, and under the intestate succession laws of State B you were entitled to that property, State A would recognize you as the owner of that 1997 Ford F-150.

        • That would be the case even though under the intestate succession laws of State A you would not have been entitled to that truck.

        • But again, any consequences of your ownership of that truck in State A would be determined in accordance with the laws of State A. So, for example, if the windows of that truck have a dark tint permissible in State B but not in State A, you'll be likely to get a ticket if you drive your truck in State A.

      • For another example:

        • You sue Y in State B and win. The court in State B issues a judgement in your favor against Y to the effect that Y must pay you $100,000.

        • Y splits to State A where he has all his property and bank accounts.

        • You now take that judgement to a court in State A to get a writ of execution to allow you to attach Y's property and/or bank accounts so you can get paid the money Y owes you.

        • In general, the court in State A will recognize and accept the State B judgement as conclusively establishing that Y owes you $100,000 (although there are some limited bases upon which Y might try to collaterally attack that judgement).

        • But even though the court in State A has accepted (given Full Faith and Credit to) that State B judgement, the way you can collect that judgement in State A (e. g., terms of the writ of execution, how it may be served, the interest payable on the unpaid judgement, exemptions of property from levy, limitation on garnishment of wages, etc.) will all be determined under the laws of State A.

    4. However, in general, State B will not recognize a license issued by State A to do something. If you are licensed by State A as a barber, lawyer, contractor, doctor, etc., in State A, you can't expect to take that State A license and be able to set up shop in State B as a barber, lawyer, contractor, doctor, etc. So while I'm licensed to practice law in California, that license isn't necessarily recognized by the State of Oregon to allow me to practice in Oregon (at least unless I associate with local counsel.
     
  22. old lady new shooter

    old lady new shooter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    23,011
    Excellent examples, really makes the issue clear.
     
  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