SCOTUS Case Right to Carry Firearm for Self Defense

[OwnTheRide]

Definitely seems like the wrong case, and the wrong question to be asking. I would not expect much gain out of this, but I could see us losing a lot. Fingers crossed it goes in our favor.

 

[Jmac00]

in todays political climate, I would NOT be surprised if the Xiden administration actively went behind closed doors to influence the court.

Yes, that would be illegal or unethical, but I believe the left has no qualms about 'bending the rules' to suite there desires or demands.

If SCOTUS rules against the 2A, if they deem it illegal to carry outside the home, the republic is truly done. It will be one more step towards their ultimate goal of socialism and/or One World Order.

 

[Phauxtoe]

YES,
with this Common Sense Compromise...

You can conceal carry outside your home, just dont leave your yard!

 

[Stuckinny]

In a pistol case the county capitulated and issued a full carry permit making the case moot.

I do not understand this. If I steal a car, get caught, and the car is returned, don't I still get charged with the theft? Shouldn't denying rights under the constitution be treated at least the same as GTA?

 

[FRB]

I really wish they would stop describing the court as a 6-3 conservative tilt. Its not. Not even close.

Indeed, 5-4 at best and that depends on the subject of the case at hand.

 

[Phazer]

"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.

Supreme Court agrees to hear first 2nd Amendment case in 10+ years - here's what is happening

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to consider a gun-rights case addressing the extent to which the Second Amendment protects Americans' right to carry

americanmilitarynews.com

 

[PutnamCharlie]

I see packing and term limits coming if they rule in favor of the 2nd. The threats will come fast and furious over the next weeks. Even worse then they have over the last few months.

 

[Truebeliever]

"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.

I believe it’s a chance for a big win in NYS even if it doesn’t flip the need for a permit.

This is the case they chose for a reason. It’s less about the question for a need for a permit but rather the conditions needed to be issued such a permit . Also remember, to merely possess a handgun in NYS, one needs a permit and is subject to a “ need “ basis even for a premises permit even if it’s at lesser standard than a carry permit. That may be addressed as well.

The downside is that NYS will pass more laws that create more gun free zones if there is a big win at SCOTUS.

 

[Truebeliever]

I see packing and term limits coming if they rule in favor of the 2nd. The threats will come fast and furious over the next weeks. Even worse then they have over the last few months.

They can’t add term limits to the current justices nor the lower court judges . Article 3 prevents it.

 

[Acer-m14]

explain this ..

" Today the U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear an NRA-backed case challenging New York’s restrictive concealed-carry-licensing regime. "

I don't see the NRA in the TITLE of this .. you know like NRA + NYSRPA vs XXX and YYY ..

NRA Institute for Legislative Action

NRA Institute for Legislative Action. 4,840,033 likes · 7,151 talking about this · 10,819 were here. Text NRA to 60937 to JOIN NRA or visit nra.org/2023

www.facebook.com

 

[Acer-m14]

don't worry .. FUAC is on this ..

Supreme Court to Hear Landmark 2A Case This Fall

Heller affirmed "to keep." Will this latest case affirm "and bear?"

danaloesch.substack.com

or do you just want to see FUAC tweet ..

 

[Keyzard]

don't worry .. FUAC is on this ..

Supreme Court to Hear Landmark 2A Case This Fall

Heller affirmed "to keep." Will this latest case affirm "and bear?"

danaloesch.substack.com

or do you just want to see FUAC tweet ..

Coming from a guy who is never without his taxpayer funded well armed personal security detail........

 

[Celt]

don't worry .. FUAC is on this ..

Supreme Court to Hear Landmark 2A Case This Fall

Heller affirmed "to keep." Will this latest case affirm "and bear?"

danaloesch.substack.com

or do you just want to see FUAC tweet ..

Hey andy, stick to what you know.. killing seniors and groping women against their will. Leave discussions of rights and the Constitution to those that respect them.

 

[Saltwater60]

Even if that happened the court cannot rule against itself down the road.

Ok. That’s great, so we would essentially be stuck where we are then go backwards when more laws are passed. Also you know if this goes through the right to catty outside the home won’t t be unlimited.
Sure it will help some get pistol permits but I guarantee you now you’ll hear how many more are killed with pistols than scary black riffles.

 

[spat]

Even if that happened the court cannot rule against itself down the road.

The court can do WTF they want down the road.

They basically just have to put in a "we screwed up on the last decision and this is why" in the decision.

The only reason it doesn't happen more often is that they don't like to do it.

If you want a major example look at Brown v. Board of Education, 1954 which reversed Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896

There are plenty of others.

 

[MothMan]

Monkeyface shouldn’t be talking about lowest common denominators.

 

[SmallGameAddict]

Ima do what I always do. Keep an eye on this case, hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

 

[Phazer]

By my uneducated reading of the petition, the plaintiffs are challenging "may issue" rules that require the nebulous "good cause" to be granted a carry permit. The petition cites disputes in other jurisdictions such as D.C. and California.

I would expect that if the plaintiffs are successful, states will have to become "shall issue." However, the states will still be free to determine how they vet permit applicants. The states could simply indicate that they will grant full carry permits to all applicants after they:

• Have a thorough criminal background check
• Have their social media scoured
• Have psychiatric evaluations
• Take 500 hours of state-certified firearms training
• Complete a 50 hour course on use of force
• Pass a written test regarding use of force
• Obtain a $2 million personal liability insurance policy
• Submit to unannounced home site inspections for safe storage compliance
• Submit to random drug testing
• Renew all permits yearly (including follow-up background checks and psychiatric evaluations)

If the aforementioned conditions to obtain a carry permit appear onerous, well, that'll have to be resolved in the courts 10-15 years down the line.

 

[SmallGameAddict]

By my uneducated reading of the petition, the plaintiffs are challenging "may issue" rules that require the nebulous "good cause" to be granted a carry permit. The petition cites disputes in other jurisdictions such as D.C. and California.

I would expect that if the plaintiffs are successful, states will have to become "shall issue." However, the states will still be free to determine how they vet permit applicants. The states could simply indicate that they will grant full carry permits to all applicants after they:

• Have a thorough criminal background check
• Have their social media scoured
• Have psychiatric evaluations
• Take 500 hours of state-certified firearms training
• Complete a 50 hour course on use of force
• Pass a written test regarding use of force
• Obtain a $2 million personal liability insurance policy
• Submit to unannounced home site inspections for safe storage compliance
• Submit to random drug testing
• Renew all permits yearly (including follow-up background checks and psychiatric evaluations)

And, a credit score over 800

 

[Phazer]

By the way...the Supreme Court justices will be threatened by the Leftist mob, from inside and outside of Washington, D.C.

As we have already seen, most of the justices are very susceptible to intimidation. They will likely cower in fear and then issue an opinion that is most likely to ensure their personal safety.

After the court's 2020 failure to address constitutional issues regarding federal elections, SCOTUS is a lost cause.

 

[BerettaGuy]

Not expecting anything from this case:
Point of the suit.
Two men were denied a permit to Carry as they could not show proper cause.
So the issue is do you have to show proper cause to carry concealed?

The Proper cause is capricious and arbitrary it varies widely from county to county.
IN NY you are not allowed to touch – handle, or purchase, or operate or own a handgun without a Pistol Permit, which you need to show cause for to obtain.

The NY Scheme is a total infringement on handgun rights.

If they make this about Carrying Concealed it is a loser.

 

[BerettaGuy]

Not expecting anything from this case:
Point of the suit.
Two men were denied a permit to Carry as they could not show proper cause.
So the issue is do you have to show proper cause to carry concealed?

The Proper cause is capricious and arbitrary it varies widely from county to county.
IN NY you are not allowed to touch – handle, or purchase, or operate or own a handgun without a Pistol Permit, which you need to show cause for to obtain.

The NY Scheme is a total infringement on handgun rights.

If they make this about Carrying Concealed it is a loser.

Im sorry, I was thinking of another case. I just read the case and I now have more (albeit just a little more) hope.


ARGUMENT I.
Certiorari should be granted to define the right to bear arms. A. To what extent the right to bear arms applies beyond the home has deeply divided lower courts. The federal circuit courts are intensely divided over the right to bear arms and what District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), says about it. Nearly every circuit has addressed the issue, but agreements among even a few courts are rare.

Bottom line Lower Courts are totally ignoring precedent from the Supreme Court. However, be careful what we wish for.


B. Several related issues depend on how this Court defines the right to bear arms. Lower courts have addressed several issues related to the right to bear arms, basing their holdings on predictions of how this Court will define the right. Until this Court provides additional guidance, lower courts will continue to guess what the right protects as they decide similar cases.

Bottom Line The Supreme Court needs to better define Heller so the lower courts can be schooled. Again, this could go either way for us.
Several related issues depend on how this Court defines the right to bear arms.

1. Can certain adults be denied the right to bear arms based on their age?

2. Can a state categorically deny nonresidents from bearing arms?

3. Can the right to bear arms be prohibited on United States Postal Service property?

4. Can the right to bear arms be prohibited on Army Corps of Engineers land?

5. Can firearms be prohibited in areas surrounding “sensitive places”?

6. Can criminal activity be inferred from merely carrying a firearm in public?

II. Certiorari should be granted to clarify what sort of interest-balancing this Court rejected in Heller and McDonald.

• Ascertaining a “proper cause” requires interest-balancing.
• B. Means-end scrutiny requires interest balancing.

III. Certiorari should be granted to clarify whether the right to “bear” arms—like the right to “keep” arms—should be defined by text and history. A. This Court defined the right to “keep” arms by analyzing the Second Amendment’s text, informed by history and tradition.

 

[Gonzobird]

Be prepared for this to go sideways. If the court rules that the 2A does not protect the right to carry a weapon outside the home the NYS as well as other states are going to use that as a justification to limit pistol permits even more.

 

[BerettaGuy]

Be prepared for this to go sideways. If the court rules that the 2A does not protect the right to carry a weapon outside the home the NYS as well as other states are going to use that as a justification to limit pistol permits even more.

Other states do not have what NY has. Like I said. Only in NY do you have to have a Permit to Carry Concealed just to own, touch, use, or possess a handgun. And then to top it off, a state registry of make - model and serial number. In other states, you get a permit to CCW but they don't know what you own or carry.
That is why I call it a "scheme" it is a catch 22. Do you want a handgun? You must have a Concealed Carry Permit. Do you want to Carry Concealed? Tell us why and we will decide if your reason is valid.

 

[BerettaGuy]

Be prepared for this to go sideways. If the court rules that the 2A does not protect the right to carry a weapon outside the home the NYS as well as other states are going to use that as a justification to limit pistol permits even more.

Agreed but they better be careful in that these lower courts are acting 180 degrees from SCOTUS rulings so why bother. I mean, I was there when Miranda totally changed the way police made arrests. Using today's standards, some states could simply say, We don't need no Miranda!

 

[Chevusa]

f they make this about Carrying Concealed it is a loser.

It reads to me like it's not so much about concealed carry and more about the right to bear outside of the home. In that case, if successful, it would probably pertain more to open carry. It has already been shown that further restrictions can be added to concealed carry and not so much on openly carried (bared) firearms. This has been shown in prior court cases.

From the court filing:

View attachment 114502

 

[Phazer]

Be prepared for this to go sideways. If the court rules that the 2A does not protect the right to carry a weapon outside the home the NYS as well as other states are going to use that as a justification to limit pistol permits even more.

I was thinking the same thing. If THIS court rules against the plaintiffs, and thus determines that there is no right to keep and bear arms outside of the home, then Leftist states will become even more restrictive in issuing permits. Any state that tilts towards blue from red will become a "may issue" state. And..."may" will mean "never."

 

[Chevusa]

I was thinking the same thing. If THIS court rules against the plaintiffs, and thus determines that there is no right to keep and bear arms outside of the home, then Leftist states will become even more restrictive in issuing permits. Any state that tilts towards blue from red will become a "may issue" state. And..."may" will mean "never."

Highly unlikely if you've been paying attention to their feelings on 2A matters specifically.

In June, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, complained that rather than take on the constitutional issue, (2A) “the Court simply looks the other way.” - Yahoo news.

ACB -
when she was a judge on the federal appeals court in Chicago, that argued that a conviction for a nonviolent felony — in this case, mail fraud — shouldn’t automatically disqualify someone from owning a gun.

She said that her colleagues in the majority were treating the Second Amendment as a “second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.”

Hell, even Roberts ruled in favor of 2A in the last big case (2010 timeframe).

The vote could very well be 6-3 in favor of freedom in this case. 5-4 is still a win. And thats all that matters.

 

[Edwardteach72]

Other states do not have what NY has. Like I said. Only in NY do you have to have a Permit to Carry Concealed just to own, touch, use, or possess a handgun.

Are you sure other states done have this??

 

[Phazer]

Highly unlikely if you've been paying attention to their feelings on 2A matters specifically.

I've been paying attention to the general lack of spine and intestinal fortitude in all but two of our SCOTUS justices.

Three of the justices are outright Liberal Progressive hacks. One of the justices is an outright pretend constitutionalist. The three most recently appointed justices are afraid for their own lives and are apparently easily swayed by mob threats. So...there are only two justices who will stand for the constitution at all times. For the sake of our nation, that just will not be sufficient.