SCOTUS Case Right to Carry Firearm for Self Defense

MothMan

MothMan

.338 Win Mag
Messages
6,434
Reaction score
11,039
Location
Point Pleasant, WV
This is a NY case.

trends.gab.com

Supreme Court to take up right to carry gun for self-defense | Trends

The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to hear an appeal to expand gun rights in the United States in a New York case over the right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense. The case marks the court’s first foray into gun rights since Justice Amy Coney Barrett came on board in October, making...
trends.gab.com trends.gab.com
 
Edwardteach72

Edwardteach72

.475 A&M Magnum
U.S. Military
Messages
14,883
Reaction score
15,065
Location
New York
Celt said:
Ill keep a good thought. Wonder if NY lawmakers with sacrifice themselves to keep a positive 2a case from having a nationwide effect, much like how NYC rewrote their law when staring down the barrel of a gun.
Click to expand...

Or how DC decided not to appeal to SCOTUS a few years ago when they got smacked down for not issuing carry licenses
 
Deplorable Me

Deplorable Me

.577 Tyrannosaur.
Messages
23,987
Reaction score
46,681
Location
Western Front; Occupied NY
news.yahoo.com

Supreme Court to take up right to carry gun for self-defense

The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to hear an appeal to expand gun rights in the United States in a New York case over the right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense. The case marks the court’s first foray into gun rights since Justice Amy Coney Barrett came on board in October, making...
news.yahoo.com news.yahoo.com
 
Saltwater60

Saltwater60

.950 JDJ
Messages
31,465
Reaction score
35,188
Location
Western NY
Great timing. Politics will play a role. 6-3 conservative majority is a joke.
Part of me thinks this will go through and we will be Victorious but only as a leap for the democrats to reimagine the Supreme Court. We won’t win in the end.
 
Chevusa

Chevusa

.338 Win Mag
Messages
6,718
Reaction score
7,644
Location
Erie
Saltwater60 said:
Great timing. Politics will play a role. 6-3 conservative majority is a joke.
Part of me thinks this will go through and we will be Victorious but only as a leap for the democrats to reimagine the Supreme Court. We won’t win in the end.
Click to expand...
Even if that happened the court cannot rule against itself down the road.
 
Cooolone

Cooolone

.338 Win Mag
Messages
5,761
Reaction score
8,659
Location
NY, USA
Administrative function (restrictions) added to a RIGHT arbitrarily by the issuing authority outside what is prescribed by law is problematic and the entire issue in as far as scrutiny! Not sure how the State could evaporate the need for defense outside the home, let alone in NY! That's not the argument though.

So this county says this, and that one says that... Absent what the law states! The administration of "granting" the right to exercise, well, a Right, by adding scrutiny as to the activity itself is extreme, it's an encroachment, and an infringement! The exhibition of a "NEED" is insane!

The "expansion" is completely in the issuer in requiring a "need" that is not defined by law. Period! But the Progressive Left sees it otherwise, especially with all the snowflakes now regurgitating the Executive now because it's convenient and they're all too lazy to learn about and understand law. That's ok...

But I'm not holding my breath here, because even if the SCOTUS rules against the State, they will still do what they want, they will create law requiring need, or 100hts of training and a bazillion hoops to jump through that they deem "reasonable" and wait for the next lawsuit. And SCOTUS will scramble looking for it's dentures as it has no teeth!

FUAC, FUNY!
 
Different Drummer

Different Drummer

.44 mag
Messages
828
Reaction score
969
Location
NY
Cooolone said:
Administrative function (restrictions) added to a RIGHT arbitrarily by the issuing authority outside what is prescribed by law is problematic and the entire issue in as far as scrutiny! Not sure how the State could evaporate the need for defense outside the home, let alone in NY! That's not the argument though.

So this county says this, and that one says that... Absent what the law states! The administration of "granting" the right to exercise, well, a Right, by adding scrutiny as to the activity itself is extreme, it's an encroachment, and an infringement! The exhibition of a "NEED" is insane!

The "expansion" is completely in the issuer in requiring a "need" that is not defined by law. Period! But the Progressive Left sees it otherwise, especially with all the snowflakes now regurgitating the Executive now because it's convenient and they're all too lazy to learn about and understand law. That's ok...

But I'm not holding my breath here, because even if the SCOTUS rules against the State, they will still do what they want, they will create law requiring need, or 100hts of training and a bazillion hoops to jump through that they deem "reasonable" and wait for the next lawsuit. And SCOTUS will scramble looking for it's dentures as it has no teeth!

FUAC, FUNY!
Click to expand...
Agree completely and have been arguing this for years. In fact it goes beyond the County level for decision and is in the personal realm of the issuing officer. One person makes the judgment administratively without any mandate to do so on the State or County level. How this cannot be viewed as arbitrary and subjective is beyond me. I would say that in the case of a Judge acting as Licensing officer it is " legislating from the bench". The practice having been upheld in the past by left leaning circuit courts thus setting precedent does not make it right. I have only lukewarm optimism regarding this case but have all my fingers and toes crossed.
 
Last edited:
R

RBean

.40 S&W
Messages
208
Reaction score
674
Location
Brooklyn, NY
We can only hope. I really think the Court will rule our way. I have several gun cases in the US District Court, Eastern District of NY. I have had rulings in four of them. In every ruling the court said "there is no right to possess a handgun in NY."(even in the home). In spite of what the Supreme Court said in Heller and McDonald. Thomas and Kavanaugh were correct when they said the lower courts were intentionally not following those rulings. In two we got rulings on Motions for Summary Judgments in our favor involving lack of "due process" involving long guns. In a pistol case the county capitulated and issued a full carry permit making the case moot.
 
spat

spat

.700 Nitro Express
Messages
26,185
Reaction score
54,440
Location
Formerly Geneseo, NY. Now free in AZ
RBean said:
We can only hope. I really think the Court will rule our way. I have several gun cases in the US District Court, Eastern District of NY. I have had rulings in four of them. In every ruling the court said "there is no right to possess a handgun in NY."(even in the home). In spite of what the Supreme Court said in Heller and McDonald. Thomas and Kavanaugh were correct when they said the lower courts were intentionally not following those rulings. In two we got rulings on Motions for Summary Judgments in our favor involving lack of "due process" involving long guns. In a pistol case the county capitulated and issued a full carry permit making the case moot.
Click to expand...
"John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"


Anti 2A judges know they face no consequences for ignoring the SCOTUS rulings. They can bypass them with the flimsiest excuse, and allow the procees to be the punishment. Even if they are overruled eventually on appeal, the vast majority of people can't afford to push it far enough.

Until they do, I would expect to see more obstructionism, no matter how SCOTUS rules.
 
Grimscale

Grimscale

.338 Win Mag
Messages
6,762
Reaction score
12,858
Location
Rochester
"The plaintiffs asked the Court to consider the broad question of “whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense”

But in announcing their decision to hear the case, the justices wrote that they will only resolve a more narrow question: “whether the State’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.”
"

Not as expansive as you would think, even if they/we win.
 
Cooolone

Cooolone

.338 Win Mag
Messages
5,761
Reaction score
8,659
Location
NY, USA
Yeah, they're not going to make any earth shattering ruling! They could, but they won't. The issue of scrutiny will not be put to the test, even in an environment as arbitrary as NY where every county has different rules, made by administration and not law.

I fail to see any upside, but I'm a cynic at heart! So take it where it's coming from!
 
gun_slinger_boy

gun_slinger_boy

.338 Win Mag
Messages
5,208
Reaction score
6,779
Location
Pennsyltucky
I share the same sentiment as a few on this thread and feel the most that may come of this is may issue turns into shall issue. That sounds great and all until you realize, like mentioned they can make you jump through all types of hoops(more than you already do).
 
Defilade

Defilade

.577 Tyrannosaur.
Messages
23,489
Reaction score
33,674
Location
Elsewhere
RBean said:
We can only hope. I really think the Court will rule our way. I have several gun cases in the US District Court, Eastern District of NY. I have had rulings in four of them. In every ruling the court said "there is no right to possess a handgun in NY."(even in the home). In spite of what the Supreme Court said in Heller and McDonald. Thomas and Kavanaugh were correct when they said the lower courts were intentionally not following those rulings. In two we got rulings on Motions for Summary Judgments in our favor involving lack of "due process" involving long guns. In a pistol case the county capitulated and issued a full carry permit making the case moot.
Click to expand...
Huh? Then what the fuck is the State handing out CCW's if that is the case?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top