This is not about OPEN CARRY v CONCEALED CARRY!
Old video.
You posted this in the other thread.Yes 7 months old, now going before the full Court en Banc but stayed waiting for results of the NYSRPA case.
I believe the majority decision did in fact involve concealed carry. It stated we have a right to bear arms specifically, and as a result one or the other must be permitted. Since there was already a lower court ruling denying concealed carry, the majority felt compelled to uphold open, since one of these options must exist to satisfy the bearing of arms.It has not been heard enbanc yet.
And it is not about either or! It is about open carry only.
Irrelevant because NY doesn't give a fuck what anyone says ... they are ignoring SCOTUS in regards to a knife case do you think they give a shit about guns.
A just what are they ignoring?
Irrelevant because NY doesn't give a fuck what anyone says ... they are ignoring SCOTUS in regards to a knife case do you think they give a shit about guns.
The right to keep a handgun in the home. You know.... Just cause and all that. A concealed carry license that not everyone can get just to touch a handgun. It's May Issue instead of Shall Issue even though you can pass a NICS.
A DWI, open container, too many parking tickets and depending on your county, you aren't getting a handgun.
They admittedly ignored the court and the case by saying the case didn't have merit. They still aren't required to respond because its just a request not a demand. I don't think they will respond to the case with anything less then they feel the case has no merit. Once again Ignoring the court.
I believe the majority decision did in fact involve concealed carry. It stated we have a right to bear arms specifically, and as a result one or the other must be permitted. Since there was already a lower court ruling denying concealed carry, the majority felt compelled to uphold open, since one of these options must exist to satisfy the bearing of arms.
At least that was my understanding of it
Okay but until the 29th you don't know for sure if they are ignoring the Court, Do you? And for one thing the SCOTUS decides what has merit not NYC.
Correction it is the 29th.
Okay but until the 29th you don't know for sure if they are ignoring the Court, Do you? And for one thing the SCOTUS decides what has merit not NYC.
Correction it is the 29th.
The right to keep a handgun in the home. You know.... Just cause and all that. A concealed carry license that not everyone can get just to touch a handgun. It's May Issue instead of Shall Issue even though you can pass a NICS.
A DWI, open container, too many parking tickets and depending on your county, you aren't getting a handgun.
It doesn't have to go before the court to be ignored. That's not how it works.Have they ignore the Court in the past about any of this NO, It has never been before the SCOTUS before has it?
Now some if not most of this may now be addressed in the NYSRPA v NYC case that is coming up.
Correct. Once a ruling is issued, states have to follow.These laws are pre 2010 correct?
Correct. Once a ruling is issued, states have to follow.
For example. The ruling below is immediate. The police cannot continue to access phone records without a warrant in spite of the ruling afterwards. Rulings aren't supposed to be ignored by states until someone challenges an illegal law. That's not how it works. It works no differently for the 2A.
Carpenter v United States
In a 5-4 ruling in Carpenter v United States, Roberts joined the court’s liberal bloc to rule that police needed a search warrant to access phone records, including the detailed caller location history that can be gleaned from cell tower data. The ruling was hailed as a landmark victory for privacy rights in the digital age.
Correct. Once a ruling is issued, states have to follow.
For example. The ruling below is immediate. The police cannot continue to access phone records without a warrant in spite of the ruling afterwards. Rulings aren't supposed to be ignored by states until someone challenges an illegal law. That's not how it works. It works no differently for the 2A.
Carpenter v United States
In a 5-4 ruling in Carpenter v United States, Roberts joined the court’s liberal bloc to rule that police needed a search warrant to access phone records, including the detailed caller location history that can be gleaned from cell tower data. The ruling was hailed as a landmark victory for privacy rights in the digital age.
Weak sauce. Read your own court cases that you post all time.Okay now this is a ruling on a particular case! But in this case it does work differently for the 2A because these are State Constitutions now that are the focal point, particularly Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas and Utah.
State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions
Weak sauce. Read your own court cases that you post all time.
My point was that SCOTUS applied the Constitution to the states themselves. It was the one after Heller. There was nothing relevant to read from the link you posted.