maverick52
.223 Rem
I may also add that even Kagan seemed like she was persuaded by Clement.
NYSRPA v. Bruen, NY 2A Case Supreme Court case and decision
- Thread starter ManualF150
- Start date
zorro
.357 mag
Even the fact the was it 42???? Other states allow it is a fairly compelling point
but who knows - could go either way, depending upon the political wind nearer the time!!
but who knows - could go either way, depending upon the political wind nearer the time!!
DrBleachCocktail
.44 mag
I like the part where the justices mentioned that there is multiple permits in different counties and that it’s a bit confusing, shouldn’t there just be one and the fact that NYC and NYS have 2 different permits is just bizarre. I am a bit CONFIDENT.
maverick52
.223 Rem
NYSRPA made strong compelling arguments. NYS did not. Underwood was a joke. Fletcher from DOJ was just a legal hack who you couldn't even follow. I believe by next year NY and the other 5 progressive regimes- will become shall issue states. Restrictions and amendments will be gone. The only caveat is that the Suprememe Court will say that the state reserves the right to time and place sensitivity i.e. Time Sq. on New Years Eve and schools and courtrooms (the normals stuff).
Hopefully this tees up the Safe Act to be overturned as well.
Hopefully this tees up the Safe Act to be overturned as well.
Phazer
.338 Win Mag
One of Liberal justices asked NYS attorney how concealed carry affects policing and if there were any studies on the issue. Ummm...YES! Studies have shown that law-abiding citizens permitted to have concealed carry, after background checks, commit crimes at lower rates than even police officers. (But, nobody mentioned that.)
Phazer
.338 Win Mag
One of the justices clarified that this whole case pertained to NY State and not NYC. So, looks like they intend to maintain the "home rule" doctrine for NYC. Ergo, nothing with regards to NYC will change.
Phazer
.338 Win Mag
Supreme Court Signals It Will Void New York Gun-Carrying Limits
U.S. Supreme Court justices signaled they are poised to rule that most people have a constitutional right to carry a handgun outside the home, casting doubt on a New York law that requires a special justification to get a permit.
www.bloomberg.com
Supreme Court Signals It Will Void New York Gun-Carrying Limits
By Greg Stohr
November 3, 2021, 12:04 PM EDT
U.S. Supreme Court justices signaled they are poised to rule that most people have a constitutional right to carry a handgun outside the home, casting doubt on a New York law that requires people to have a special justification to get a permit.
Hearing arguments in Washington, the court’s six conservatives indicated they will back a National Rifle Association affiliate and two people who say the state is violating their Second Amendment rights. The state issues concealed-carry licenses only to those who can show a special need for protection.
“Why isn’t it good enough to say I live in a violent area, and I want to be able to defend myself?” asked Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
A broad ruling could lead to more guns in public places in some of the nation’s most populous cities, including New York City and Los Angeles.
New York is one of about seven states -- a group that includes California, Massachusetts and New Jersey -- with so-called “may issue” laws that gun-rights advocates say prevent most people from getting a carry license. Illinois and the District of Columbia also had sharp restrictions before their laws were invalidated in court.
Everytown for Gun Safety, which advocates for universal background checks and gun-safety measures, is backed by Michael Bloomberg, founder and majority owner of Bloomberg News parent company Bloomberg LP. The group filed a brief at the Supreme Court supporting the New York restrictions.
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
VIDEO: TTAG's All-Star Supreme Court Argument After-Action Legal Analysis - The Truth About Guns
◀Previous Post Next Post▶ As promised, TTAG assembled a who’s who of Second Amendment legal minds to give their highly educated opinions and analysis of this morning’s arguments in the New York Second Amendment case before the Supreme Court. See below for brief descriptions of the...
www.thetruthaboutguns.com
An analysis of today's court session...
ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
Enter liberal senators with threats to pack the court.
pshift
.338 Win Mag
More political analysis on this...
www.politico.com
Supreme Court appears likely to void New York's gun permit law
The justices seem inclined to find that the right to keep and bear arms extends to carrying them outside the home.
www.politico.com
Phazer
.338 Win Mag
Th
They're gonna have to act fast given potential loss of senate control in 2022. And...they'll have to figure how that'll look for them in the 2022 midterms.
Phazer
.338 Win Mag
There is no doubt that Alito really understands the particulars of New York's permitting scheme. We on these forums have been saying the same things for years.More political analysis on this...
Supreme Court appears likely to void New York's gun permit law
The justices seem inclined to find that the right to keep and bear arms extends to carrying them outside the home.
“There is the right to self-defense for celebrities and state judges and retired police officers, but pretty much not for the ordinary kind of people who have a real, felt need to carry a gun to protect themselves,” Alito said.
MSN
www.msn.com
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. pressed a similar line of questioning, saying the law only hurts “law-abiding” citizens who are “scared to death” when working late at night, for instance.
“There are a lot of armed people on the streets of New York and in the subways late at night right now. Aren’t there?” Alito asked. “All these people with illegal guns, they’re on the subway, they’re walking around the streets. But the ordinary, hard-working, law-abiding people I mentioned, no, they can’t be armed.”
Last edited:
SmallGameAddict
.308 Win
Thank you for posting that.More political analysis on this...
Supreme Court appears likely to void New York's gun permit law
The justices seem inclined to find that the right to keep and bear arms extends to carrying them outside the home.
SmallGameAddict
.308 Win
If I see this to fruition in my lifetime, I will truly Rest In Peace.
Please Lord, let me live to at least June or July, to hear this sweet music with my own ears, to feast upon it, with my own eyes.
Edit: Alito, suggesting the Sullivan Law was rooted in racism against Irish and Italian immigrants.
Damn right it was.
At last, exposed to the light of day.
Please Lord, let me live to at least June or July, to hear this sweet music with my own ears, to feast upon it, with my own eyes.
Edit: Alito, suggesting the Sullivan Law was rooted in racism against Irish and Italian immigrants.
Damn right it was.
At last, exposed to the light of day.
i am curious, if SOCTUS rules against NYC, do all of our restricted licenses suddenly become full carry? How will this affect the "permitting schemes" here in westchester and other similar counties?
Phazer
.338 Win Mag
First, relax. Second, it is against New York State (not NYC), Third, who the hell knows.
please let me live in my alternate reality
These second amendment foundations in New York need to find another attorney. The bland and agreeable demeanor of Clement clearly demonstrates he doesn’t give a shit about this cause and is just grabbing money bags.
I mean how in the world do you allow the judges and the opposition to repeatedly insert Heller and say the right to keep firearms in the home is protected by that? This guy is arguing on behalf of New York plaintiffs who surely had a miserable time getting a license to even buy a handgun in this State as i’m sure the rest of you guys have. I would have driven home every single time they brought up Heller, that New York hasn’t changed a single thing since Heller; aside from the stupid law that prohibited you from taking your gun out of the state. Which is what they want any way right? They want to keep guns out of New York but they then wrote a law that prohibited people from taking their guns out of New York lol. A law only people that have no concern for the 2nd Amendment whatsoever would write and not a care in the world about it until they saw SCOTUS was stacked against them.
I don’t know about you guys but I am CAUTIOUSLY optimistic. And when I say cautiously, I mean not very optimistic at all.
You get a chance to say your peace infront of a 2A friendly court and the jist of your argument is: “I’m open to reasonable restrictions”. That is the entire reason why we are still fighting this battle 13 years later because states like New York took “reasonable restrictions” from Heller and said to themselves “well our restrictions are incredibly reasonable, no need to change anything about our process at all”. If SCOTUS inserts those words in their decision without explicitly laying out what those restrictions are and what the consequences will be for taking a liberal reading of “reasonable restrictions” we’re back to square one and the only time anyone will find relief is if they move or sue for 5 years straight lol.
This was an opportunity squandered on a bland, clueless money grabber. Good luck NYSRA getting a single red cent from me. We now have to rely solely on the judges appetites for truly understanding how restrictive gun possession in general whether carry or at home, NY is. These judges aren’t gun nuts they’re highly intellectual, highly educated individuals who happen to view the constitution as a serious doctrine. If you can’t drive home to them exactly what the problem is, i’m not sure they will go out of their way to figure it out. They have other shit on their minds too.
I mean how in the world do you allow the judges and the opposition to repeatedly insert Heller and say the right to keep firearms in the home is protected by that? This guy is arguing on behalf of New York plaintiffs who surely had a miserable time getting a license to even buy a handgun in this State as i’m sure the rest of you guys have. I would have driven home every single time they brought up Heller, that New York hasn’t changed a single thing since Heller; aside from the stupid law that prohibited you from taking your gun out of the state. Which is what they want any way right? They want to keep guns out of New York but they then wrote a law that prohibited people from taking their guns out of New York lol. A law only people that have no concern for the 2nd Amendment whatsoever would write and not a care in the world about it until they saw SCOTUS was stacked against them.
I don’t know about you guys but I am CAUTIOUSLY optimistic. And when I say cautiously, I mean not very optimistic at all.
You get a chance to say your peace infront of a 2A friendly court and the jist of your argument is: “I’m open to reasonable restrictions”. That is the entire reason why we are still fighting this battle 13 years later because states like New York took “reasonable restrictions” from Heller and said to themselves “well our restrictions are incredibly reasonable, no need to change anything about our process at all”. If SCOTUS inserts those words in their decision without explicitly laying out what those restrictions are and what the consequences will be for taking a liberal reading of “reasonable restrictions” we’re back to square one and the only time anyone will find relief is if they move or sue for 5 years straight lol.
This was an opportunity squandered on a bland, clueless money grabber. Good luck NYSRA getting a single red cent from me. We now have to rely solely on the judges appetites for truly understanding how restrictive gun possession in general whether carry or at home, NY is. These judges aren’t gun nuts they’re highly intellectual, highly educated individuals who happen to view the constitution as a serious doctrine. If you can’t drive home to them exactly what the problem is, i’m not sure they will go out of their way to figure it out. They have other shit on their minds too.
Cavalry
.308 Win
I'm already in the club so no real benefit in the long run personally. I would like to see possession requirements with a 4473 and thats good enough. Oh, and shitcan the registry and draconian rules about touching/lending/buying. Its good to dream.
Phazer
.338 Win Mag
Sure.please let me live in my alternate reality
BTW - With regards to your icon, I watched Captain Caveman on Saturday mornings as a kid (when it originally aired).
same here. and that was my nickname in college - at one point I had really long hair and a cast on my arm. I was immediately given this nickname and it stuck. unfortunately it never came with the expected teen angels.
maverick52
.223 Rem
We already have CCW permits. The administrative restrictions will become null and void. I suppose we no longer will need to get amendments for new guns, as we won’t need permission from a judge or sheriff to purchase a new gun. The big winners will be newcomers to the CCW camp.
gunpoliticsny
6.5 Creedmoor
Phazer
.338 Win Mag
Negating all administrative restrictions so that all permits are carry permits (as the permit already says, "To possess and carry") could possibly occur.
I'm not sure what will happen with amendments. Nothing in this case would negate the state's ability to background check, and delay, each and every firearm purchase.
The state could even drag out permitting for longer periods of time and say, "We need much more thorough background investigations because every permit grantee will have a CCW permit."
Last edited:
Just because they have judge as their job doesn't mean they know what's what. They too are part of the political elite and get manipulated just as well. 1776 all guns oc, cc, didn't even show on the radar as it was all fine; as in shall not be infringed, period.
Phazer
.338 Win Mag
They did, however, seem to agree that a state must allow all law-abiding citizens to have access to self defense. That could be open carry or concealed carry. By my inference from what I heard, the conservative justices seem to believe that a state cannot ban both types of personal carry. The state must leave some avenue open for self defense to be in compliance with the 2A. So, if New York wants to keep their delicate Liberal Progressive sheep calm, they can continue to ban open carry....but would have to allow concealed carry for all non-prohibited citizens.
SmallGameAddict
.308 Win
I bet they wish she was wearing a mask
TJ12010
9mm
I’ll be happy if my target restriction becomes void. Sure I’d like more, but in this cesspool of a state, I’ll take what I can get.
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
Everything is up in the air as to what will happen. I can see NY State crafting new laws to make up for the fact old ones get struck down.... A limit on haw much ammo one can own at one time .. All lead bullets get turned in because of the new law just passed yesterday.. . Protect the climate or what ever they decide ... Many schemes are in their playbook.. A new permit every year .... proficiency when obtaining a permit. .. If we have permits. .. They could just limit their ruling as to NY City grievance ... .. Keep permitting process for everyone .. Just make it uniform across the state
SmallGameAddict
.308 Win
Ima shake the Magic 8 Ball, and it says...take a hard look at the hand SCOTUS dealt to the state of Illinois.