Could SCOTUS Eliminate ALL Firearm Permits ?

[Acer-m14]

were permits needed in 1791

No ...

case closed

 

[Saltwater60]

They said permits were permissible in Bruen. Don’t get mad at me and I agree they don’t follow history.

 

[byron]

They said permits were permissible in Bruen. Don’t get mad at me and I agree they don’t follow history.

The Supreme Court held oral arguments for Bruen in November 2021, with plaintiffs challenging the 100-year-old New York state handgun licensing law requiring individuals to show proper cause before they can be licensed to carry a concealed weapon in public.

The key words to carry a concealed weapon in public they were talking about concealed not to own like in Pa and many other states you don't need a permit to buy or carry open but do concealed

Although Kavanaugh indicated that he would have struck down the ban on semi-automatic rifles and the registration requirements, his discussion of the proper test to use to review gun laws suggests that he might be willing to uphold some gun laws, such as those requiring a license to carry a concealed weapon, as long as they are consistent with the history and tradition of regulating guns. He contended that a test that assesses “gun bans and regulations based on text, history, and tradition” will often give governments “more flexibility and power” than a balancing test, because “history and tradition show that a variety of gun regulations have co-existed with the Second Amendment right.”

license to carry a concealed weapon not permit to own.
Permit required to own not cover at all.

NOTE he also said. The registration requirements, he continued, are unconstitutional because gun owners have traditionally not been required to register all guns that they own legally
In NY you need to register. But unfortunately here in NY you need a permit and register as far as I know there has not been a SCOTUS case on either of these.

 

[Willyone]

Here in NYS it doesn't much matter what SCOTUS says or does so the conversation is moot.

 

[Saltwater60]

The Supreme Court held oral arguments for Bruen in November 2021, with plaintiffs challenging the 100-year-old New York state handgun licensing law requiring individuals to show proper cause before they can be licensed to carry a concealed weapon in public.

The key words to carry a concealed weapon in public they were talking about concealed not to own like in Pa and many other states you don't need a permit to buy or carry open but do concealed

Although Kavanaugh indicated that he would have struck down the ban on semi-automatic rifles and the registration requirements, his discussion of the proper test to use to review gun laws suggests that he might be willing to uphold some gun laws, such as those requiring a license to carry a concealed weapon, as long as they are consistent with the history and tradition of regulating guns. He contended that a test that assesses “gun bans and regulations based on text, history, and tradition” will often give governments “more flexibility and power” than a balancing test, because “history and tradition show that a variety of gun regulations have co-existed with the Second Amendment right.”

license to carry a concealed weapon not permit to own.
Permit required to own not cover at all.

NOTE he also said. The registration requirements, he continued, are unconstitutional because gun owners have traditionally not been required to register all guns that they own legally
In NY you need to register. But unfortunately here in NY you need a permit and register as far as I know there has not been a SCOTUS case on either of these.

It still a permit and go read what I said I thought they would do and it very much aligns with your thinking. It’s post 28 of this thread.

 

[FP1201]

They said permits were permissible in Bruen. Don’t get mad at me and I agree they don’t follow history.

Did they say "permits" or "Licenses"? There IS a difference in the historical and contextual definitions of the word despite being used interchangeably.
Do you get a Licenses to build a House inside a Municipality or a Permit?
Do you have a permit to practice Medicine or a Licenses?
Did you take the Brake off your Rifle during your break?

SCOTUS knows these Laws are unconstitutional at their basis, yet had to play mental gymnastics to hold some semblance of our society together, and while the very plain language of the Second Amendment says that "Congress" (the Federal Government) Shall Not (any ten year old knows what that means) make Laws that regulate, take, or restrict the Citizens from having "Arms" which by the Heller Decision were clearly defined in 1771 by Dictionary.

BTW: I earned things I didn't know about the Heller decision until watching https://www.youtube.com/@WashingtonGunLaw

 

[Brawny71]

I’m not sure why anyone thinks this will happen. SCOTUS already said permits are fine but they can’t be overly burdensome in time or money. Maybe they will get rid of long gun permits or handgun permits in general but CCW permits will stay. I think handgun permits as a whole will be allowed. I’d like to see them get rid of ammo cards and stuff like that and I think that’s possible.

Correct. The Spirit is the permit and process ensures no Prohibited Person is allowed to have a fire arm. Now, we all know the criminals don't do this anyway. The more invasive the process is where the SCOTUS needs to be more clear. It is also why many of the current NYS processes need immediate SCOTUS intervention. Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 "No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore". Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943). The reason NYS HAD permits serial numbers at County Level (Penal Law, Article 400.00, Section 5 (3) says County and City; NOT State https://newyorklegaldefense.com/res...ng-and-other-provisions-relating-to-firearms/ ) was to not violate the FOPA (https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/senate-bill/49) by collecting data on people who proved to NOT be Prohibited at Federal or State level.

 

[Acer-m14]

Kavanaugh can still lick my left nut ...

 

[Acer-m14]

The Spirit is the permit and process ensures no Prohibited Person is allowed to have a fire arm.

then a prohibited person should stay there ass in jail .. if they cannot be trusted with there 2A then then cannot be trusted with

there 1A and all the others ..

 

[John Stark]

Why would SCOTUS overturn their own ruling in Heller? Scalia made it clear that open carry is the Right that is protected, while making sure that Dick Heller was able to apply for a concealed hand gun permit in DC through a fair and open process, essentially upholding the state power that allows them to require a permit to carry concealed.

Now I've said it many times that law-abiding citizens have proven time and again that they lawfully own and conceal carry weapons all the time, and that they are NOT the reason for all of all the "gun crime" the government and media yammers about.

Further, I've pointed out many times that a lot of states have embraced carry, whether open or concealed, by passing laws that mirror what we like to call "Constitutional Carry," in which there are no permits to Keep or Bear Arms, which is the prerogative of the states under Heller. I applaud those states that have done so!

That being said, Heller is clear on this point: States under their discretion have the power to require a permit to conceal carry. Yes its an anachronism that goes back long before the civil war, but it is part of the "history, text, and tradition" that was relied upon in Heller, McDonald, Cetano, and Bruen.

It is an unfortunate rubric that still applies given the ruling we have in Heller, a carry over from going back to at least feudal times. It allowed for law enforcement in the United States to decide if someone was up to no good by carrying a concealed weapon vs. carrying openly which was mostly NOT prohibited except in limited circumstances,

That being said, the States can overrule that simply by passing legislation, or amending their own state constitutions (a better option).

Unless at least some portions of Heller are overturned, along with parts of McDonald and Bruen, the stricture that allows states to require a permit for concealed carry is not going away as a matter of jurisprudence.

If more people would bother to simply make the time and READ the decisions handed down by Scalia since Heller, this would be crystal clear.

And yet RKBA supporters continue to clamor for for something that is NOT going to happen unless SCOTUS decisions are overturned or their own state gets with the program and deregulates concealed carry for the citizens of their respective states.

Like it or lump it, that is the state of the law for the foreseeable future.

Further, as much as I praise concealed permit holders for their lawful behavior, I sure wish they would give it a rest and seek redress over the need for a permit to conceal carry by addressing the proper authorities in their home states.

Make no mistake though; while the states & DC under Heller have the power to regulate concealed carry via a permit, almost nothing NY and other states like are passing regarding the RKBA is legal of lawful in any way, shape, or form.

I fully support the People carrying open or concealed as is their prerogative, and I honestly think that the distinction that was made concerning the bearing of arms early on in our nation has been proven false. 99% or more of the time, concealed carry by law abiding Americans who are not felons has NOTHING to do with criminality. Almost all of the gun crime committed in the United States revolves around felons and repeat offenders.

That being said, the early period of our nation did have a distinction between open and concealed carry, and Scalia honored that distinction.

The People whine when SCOTUS does not uphold the Constitution via "history, text, and tradition" even when SCOTUS makes a good faith attempt to do so, without bothering to read the actual rulings.

Frankly, that is shamelful.

ETA: PS. The article linked in the first post of this thread is nothing more than pie in the sky hopium.

 

[Grimscale]

That being said, the early period of our nation did have a distinction between open and concealed carry,

Wasn't "open carry" considered protected by the 2nd A?
So how can States get away with banning open carry at all?
The rub that "we will allow concealed carry instead" is bull. That's no different than saying "you can't have semi-auto pistols because we allow revolvers", something SCOTUS has already shot down.

So if States want to license concealed carry, which SCOTUS has said is permissible, then these States also cannot ban open carry via the 2nd. AND cannot require permitting/licensing for open carry.

 

[John Stark]

Wasn't "open carry" considered protected by the 2nd A?
So how can States get away with banning open carry at all?
The rub that "we will allow concealed carry instead" is bull. That's no different than saying "you can't have semi-auto pistols because we allow revolvers", something SCOTUS has already shot down.

So if States want to license concealed carry, which SCOTUS has said is permissible, then these States also cannot ban open carry via the 2nd. AND cannot require permitting/licensing for open carry.

I am in agreement with you that neither the States nor the Feds can prohibit open carry, nor can they demand permits for open carry (which would include NICS, since its both defacto Proior Restraint, fails on Equal Protection, is prohibited by the 2A, and serves as both a "permission slip" and a backdoor database of gun owners) , or allow concealed but not allow open carry,. I thought I was clear on that.

As I stated, Scalia stated in Heller that "open carry is the Right protected."

Commiefornia has actually put forth the claim that only permitted concealed carry is lawful, banning open carry. In fact, if memory serves, both concealed and open carry were declared illegal at about the same time by either Commiefornia courts, a couple Fed courts, or both lol.

That's how ridiculous the whole distinction has become.

Keeping and Bearing Arms is completely lawful in all 50 states as a matter of law, as well as by current SCOTUS precedent. Keeping and Bearing is, in my opinion, just as expansive and open ended as free speech, the Right of CITIZENS to vote and run for office, freedom of assembly (and thus association), freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and so on.

The NFA ought to be struck down, along with the GCA, FOPA, the Brady bill, and so on. All of those are poison fruit.

Again, while concealed carry CAN be regulated with a need for a permit according to Heller and its follow on rulings, that process ought to be about as easy as registering to vote. No felonies, not a fugitive from justice status, not engaged in treason, etc.?

"Here's your permit to conceal carry in our state sir, and no charge!"

Or better yet, get the states to amend their constitutions so there are no permits at all to either Keep and Bear, and punish the actual criminals (especially the traitor politicians) rather than law abiding citizens.

I believe we are on the same page.

ETA: In other words, BOTH open and concealed are completely lawful in every state, but a license to conceal can be required by a state as per the "history, text, and tradition" that Scalia outlined in Heller.

 

[Brawny71]

Kavanaugh can still lick my left nut ...

View attachment 235571

Nice meme. Now to get that applied with legal precedent and allow us law abiders to stay that way.

 

[Acer-m14]

Why would SCOTUS overturn their own ruling in Heller? Scalia made it clear that open carry is the Right that is protected

Scalia can lick my right nut ..

ummmm the same reason they over turned roe vs wade ... because they got it wrong ,, and abortion is not a RIGHT

the 2A is ..

 

[Acer-m14]

ARTICLE 2
Bill of Rights
Civil Rights (CVR) CHAPTER 6

SECTION 2
Supreme sovereignty in the people

SECTION 3
Levying taxes and charges

SECTION 4
Right to keep and bear arms

SECTION 4
Right to keep and bear arms


Civil Rights (CVR) CHAPTER 6, ARTICLE 2

§ 4. Right to keep and bear arms. A well regulated militia being
necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to
keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.

so its a RIGHT in NYS then also .. all gun control is against our rights .. i see no permits listed or safe storage .. ect ..







no way is Hochul getting anywhere close to my nuts ..