NYSRPA v. Bruen, NY 2A Case Supreme Court case and decision

[ManualF150]

I'll keep this updated to keep everything in one place.

This is great news:

Supreme Court agrees to take up major Second Amendment case

The Supreme Court announced Monday it will consider the scope of the Second Amendment next term in a case concerning a New York law that restricts an individual from carrying a concealed handgun in public.

www.cnn.com

UPDATE 5-U.S. Supreme Court takes major case on carrying concealed handguns

The U.S. Supreme Court stepped back into the heated debate over gun rights on Monday, agreeing to hear a challenge backed by the National Rifle Association to New York state's restrictions on people carrying concealed handguns in public in a case that could further undermine firearms control...

finance.yahoo.com

Supreme Court takes up major case over right to carry guns outside the home

The Supreme Court agreed to hear a major Second Amendment dispute that could settle whether the Constitution protects a right to carry guns in public.

www.cnbc.com

Supreme Court to take up major Second Amendment concealed handgun case

The case will examine whether a New York state law that makes it difficult to get a handgun permit is constitutional.

www.nbcnews.com

Amicus Briefing:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/166912/20210121154400654_20-843-FPC-Amicus%20Brief.pdf

 

[Grimscale]

I posted this in one of the other threads on this topic.
But can you explain the difference between the two ideas, and what a "win" on the second one would actually mean to New yorkers?

"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.”
"

 

[Truebeliever]

I posted this in one of the other threads on this topic.
But can you explain the difference between the two ideas, and what a "win" on the second one would actually mean to New yorkers?

"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.”
"

What it means is that they aren’t going to address the issue of the need for a permit but rather the criteria for which that permit is issued of “ just cause”.
The state of New York requires an extra ordinary reason for a person to get a carry permit unlike some other states. A normal person could jump thru all the hoops ser in law or a license authority and still be denied on that arbitrary reason as they don’t think you need it. The court is going to address that part of the question and define/outline the criteria at a minimum.

 

[kev74]

If they do the right thing on this, it will mean no more groveling letters to a judge when you apply for a permit. It will mean no more "hunting/target" restrictions, no more home inspections, or waiving your right to keep your medical history private as a condition of applying for a permit.

It will also help out New Jersey and Hawaii, who have it way worse than us in regard to concealed carry.

 

[Carlos Hathcock]

Government forcing houses of worship to remain closed for "health concerns" during the pandemic while CostCo, Walmart, and Home Depot are allowed to remain open.

Follow the money

 

[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]

FUAC is on it again ..

Supreme Court to Hear Landmark 2A Case This Fall

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

danaloesch.substack.com

scroll down to the end to see FUAC tweet ..

or go to twitter ..


or just read this ..

 

[spat]

What it means is that they aren’t going to address the issue of the need for a permit but rather the criteria for which that permit is issued of “ just cause”.
The state of New York requires an extra ordinary reason for a person to get a carry permit unlike some other states. A normal person could jump thru all the hoops ser in law or a license authority and still be denied on that arbitrary reason as they don’t think you need it. The court is going to address that part of the question and define/outline the criteria at a minimum.

Basically the first would strike down lots of permit requirements.

The second would only strike down "may issue" shenanigans.

If they rule in our favor, all we will get is "you can still require permits, but the conditions have to be spelled out in the law and not pulled out of some judges ass".

Also "if they make the law too restrictive, you are free to spend another 10 years trying to get that fixed"

 

[kev74]

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

NYSRPA is the state affiliate organization of NRA.

It is my understanding that NRA has contributed significantly financially to help fund this case.

 

[Truebeliever]

Basically the first would strike down lots of permit requirements.

The second would only strike down "may issue" shenanigans.

If they rule in our favor, all we will get is "you can still require permits, but the conditions have to be spelled out in the law and not pulled out of some judges ass".

Also "if they make the law too restrictive, you are free to spend another 10 years trying to get that fixed"

Agreed

 

[Shadow2]

The court will rule showing a need above the average citizen as arbitrary and unconstitutional. NY will just add a new arbitrary requirement that will take 110 years to make it to court. I was denied my right twice where is my check for having my rights violated.

 

[Phazer]

The court will rule showing a need above the average citizen as arbitrary and unconstitutional. NY will just add a new arbitrary requirement that will take 110 years to make it to court. I was denied my right twice where is my check for having my rights violated.

Sue your county for your denial.

The right to keep and bear arms is not in the NY constitution. It is in the NY civil rights code. Therefore, by denying your carry permit, your civil rights have been denied. Sue your county for compensation.

 

[nortatoga]

NYC Mayor openly admits suppressing gun rights of ALL New Yorkers

 

[Edwardteach72]

Sue your county for your denial.

The right to keep and bear arms is not in the NY constitution. It is in the NY civil rights code. Therefore, by denying your carry permit, your civil rights have been denied. Sue your county for compensation.

This this right here.

That's literally what these 2 guys did and how they are now the case that is going up to SCOTUS

 

[ManualF150]

Here's more info:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/178588/20210507150005158_2021-05-07%20NYSRPA-Corlett%20Joint%20Extension%20Request%20FINAL.pdf

Two important dates:
Petitioners brief (and joint appendix): July 2, 2021
Respondents brief: August 23, 2021

 

[pshift]

I'm still wondering that if the most favorable outcome is reached, will "existing permit holders" have their restrictions nullified and will we be ab;le to carry throughout the state to include NYC? The existing regimes will likely ratchet up the so-called background checks up a few notches as one of many revenge tactics against SCOTUS.

 

[Chevusa]

Wow. They know we exist.

 

[dsdmmat]

A bit late to the party. They are trying to get credit for showing up.

 

[Robin]

A copy of their brief's.

Robin

 

[gunpoliticsny]

They must have gotten a lot of hate mail because originally they weren't going to file one.

 

[pshift]

They can't let GOA and NSSF get all of the credit.

 

[Chevusa]

This reminds me of Biden taking credit for everything Trump did.

 

[Robin]

Yeah, I really loathe when people take credit for things they never actually did.
Robin

 

[nortatoga]

They can't let GOA and NSSF get all of the credit.

It would seem you want to give credit to GOA and NSSF for a case that is not theirs.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen - SCOTUSblog

Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court

www.scotusblog.com

 

[Edwardteach72]

A bit late to the party. They are trying to get credit for showing up.

This is exactly what they are doing and what they have been doing for decades now. This is why people even to this day believe the NRA is pro 2a and not just another disgusting branch off of Bloomberg and the likes

 

[Edwardteach72]

that brief probably cost the NRA less than $2,000 to file

 

[BerettaGuy]

You are a Judge on the SCOTUS. The law has been in existence since when? You ask. That would be since 1911, your honor. Hmmm, let me do some cyphering here that is 110 years ago! Do you mean that NY has been infringing for 110 years are we are just hearing about it today? Obviously the people of NY are perfectly happy with the law. Case dismissed.
Right to carry outside the home. MY ASS! IN NY because of the 110-year-old law, you need permission from the state to just touch, handle own and possess any handgun inside or outside the home. That is the issue that should be addressed. That is the infringement!

 

[soylentBlue]

that brief probably cost the NRA less than $2,000 to file

That's less than what Wayne spends on a shirt.

 

[Bob]

That's less than what Wayne spends on a shirt.

When I first read this, I missed a letter r. Though one could contend that either is equally true.

 

[Edwardteach72]

That's less than what Wayne spends on a shirt.

Or a month of his 20 something year old mistresses rent