NYSRP NRA file in Supreme Court

BerettaGuy

BerettaGuy

.308 Win
Messages
4,007
Reaction score
7,343
Location
Cuomo may be gone but his Gun Squad remains.
Supreme Court to hear a challenge to New York’s restrictive process for issuing concealed carry licenses.. Does anyone know the case that NYSRP and the NRA is using? Agsin, I reiterate, I saw it in SCOPE, I see it here I see it everywhere I go. Too many NY gun advocates are clueless. They think all the other states do what NY does. News flash, they don't! Buying a hand gun in most other states is no different than buying a shotgun in NonY. Now the question is simple. Has NY States Pistol Permit Scheme Infringed your right to pick up,handle and obtain as in keep a handgun without state permission? DOES THE LAW INFRINGE?
 
BerettaGuy

BerettaGuy

.308 Win
Messages
4,007
Reaction score
7,343
Location
Cuomo may be gone but his Gun Squad remains.
C3D said:
Well there's some hope the new ACB will make a difference, but I am not holding my breath.
Click to expand...
I hear ya. We have progressed in this country to if you don't agree with us, we will dox you, harass your children, troll you into submission. She has little kids to worry about. As for us, sit down shut up and comply..
 
Grimscale

Grimscale

.338 Win Mag
Messages
6,748
Reaction score
12,827
Location
Rochester
i predict that, assuming the SC even bothers to hear it, they'll spout off the usual "reasonable restriction for public safety" bullshit, followed by "acquisition of a handgun is not completely banned" bullshit.

Assuming the SC actually does use strict scrutiny...NY will just ignore it. As usual.
 
BerettaGuy

BerettaGuy

.308 Win
Messages
4,007
Reaction score
7,343
Location
Cuomo may be gone but his Gun Squad remains.
VietnamEraVet said:
Here is a link to the actual petition:

2020-12-17-nra-corlett-cert-petition-final.pdf (d3uwh8jpzww49g.cloudfront.net)
Click to expand...
This is what I mean. The first sentence shows the stupidity of the law suit. iot says "New York prohibits its ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying a handgun outside the home without a license, and it denies licenses to every citizen who fails to convince the state that he or she has “proper cause” to carry a firearm. "
They are making the suit about Carrying or CCW or whatever you want to call it. They as I said in the op are clueless!
Answer this question can you touch or handle a handgun at a Cabelas or store without a permit to CCW.
Suppose you don't want to CCW but just want to buy a pistol.
The suit should have said New York prohibits its ordinary law-abiding citizens from owning unless they apply for and obtain a license to carry. New York then prohibits its ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying a handgun outside the home and it denies licenses to every citizen who fails to convince the state that he or she has “proper cause” to own a firearm.
 
BerettaGuy

BerettaGuy

.308 Win
Messages
4,007
Reaction score
7,343
Location
Cuomo may be gone but his Gun Squad remains.
BerettaGuy said:
This is what I mean. The first sentence shows the stupidity of the law suit. iot says "New York prohibits its ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying a handgun outside the home without a license, and it denies licenses to every citizen who fails to convince the state that he or she has “proper cause” to carry a firearm. "
They are making the suit about Carrying or CCW or whatever you want to call it. They as I said in the op are clueless!
Answer this question can you touch or handle a handgun at a Cabelas or store without a permit to CCW.
Suppose you don't want to CCW but just want to buy a pistol.
The suit should have said New York prohibits its ordinary law-abiding citizens from owning unless they apply for and obtain a license to carry. New York then prohibits its ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying a handgun outside the home and it denies licenses to every citizen who fails to convince the state that he or she has “proper cause” to own a firearm.
Click to expand...
Let me rephrase that: NY legislated that a handgun is a firearm so that they may say they do not infringe upon their citizen's right to bear arms. The suit should have said NY legislated that a handgun is a firearm so that they may say they do not infringe upon their citizen's right to bear arms. New York prohibits its ordinary law-abiding citizens from owning their classification of firearms unless they apply for and obtain a license to carry concealed. New York then prohibits its ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying these firearms outside the home and it denies licenses to every citizen who fails to convince the state that he or she has “proper cause” to own such a firearm.
 
BerettaGuy

BerettaGuy

.308 Win
Messages
4,007
Reaction score
7,343
Location
Cuomo may be gone but his Gun Squad remains.
I have turned it all into text for us to pick apart.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

STATEMENT OF THE CASE A. Factual Background New York has “a general prohibition on the possession of ‘firearms’ absent a license.” Kachalsky, 701 F.3d at 85 (citing N.Y. Penal Law §§265.01- 265.04, 265.20(a)(3)). Under New York’s framework,
the only way to lawfully possess a firearm—regardless of whether one wishes to keep it inside the home or bear it outside the home—is by obtaining a license pursuant to N.Y. Penal Law §400.00. Licenses are issued by “licensing officer” typically judges or law enforcement officers—and “[n]o license shall be issued or renewed” unless the licensing officer determines that the applicant, among other things, is of good moral character and lacks a history of crime or mental illness, and that “no good cause exists for the denial of the license.” N.Y. Penal Law §400.00(1)(a)-(n). New York bans the open carry of handguns entirely. Kachalsky, 701 F.3d at 86. And while New York permits concealed carry of a handgun with a license, the state makes it virtually impossible for the ordinary law-abiding citizen to obtain a license. A New York licensing officer enjoys the discretion to grant a concealed carry license to members of select professions, such as state court judges, N.Y. Penal Law §400.00(2), but a license to carry a handgun “without regard to employment or place of possession” may only be granted “when proper cause exists for the issuance thereof,” id. §400.00(2)(f). See Kachalsky, 701 F.3d at 86 (“Given that New York bans carrying handguns openly, applicants ... who desire to carry a handgun outside the home and who do not fit within one of the employment categories must demonstrate proper cause pursuant to section 400.00(2)(f).”).
Despite the term’s importance as a condition precedent, New York law does not define “proper cause.” Instead, New York courts have fashioned “a substantial body of law instructing licensing officials on the application of [the ‘proper cause’] standard.” Id.
In particular, these courts have ruled that an applicant seeking a license to carry a handgun for selfdefense “must ‘demonstrate a special need for selfprotection distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession.’” Id. (quoting Klenosky v. N.Y. City Police Dep’t, 428 N.Y.S.2d 256, 257 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980)). Thus, “‘[a] generalized desire to carry a concealed weapon to protect one’s person and property does not constitute “proper cause.”’ Id. Good, even impeccable, moral character plus a simple desire to exercise a fundamental right is, according to these courts, not sufficient. Nor is living or being employed in a “high crime area.” Id. at 86-87 (citations omitted) (quoting In re O’Connor, 585 N.Y.S.2d 1000, 1003 (N.Y. Cty. Ct. 1992), and Martinek v. Kerik, 743 N.Y.S.2d 80, 81 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)). Instead, it is only by demonstrating that he or she is “special” (i.e., not a typical law-abiding citizen) and by showing an atypical reason for wanting to carry a handgun for self-defense that an individual applicant can hope to satisfy New York’s “proper cause” test. As a practical matter, New York’s insistence upon something atypical precludes typical New Yorkers from carrying their handguns for self-defense. The experiences of the petitioners are illustrative. Petitioner Robert Nash requested a license to carry a handgun in public for self-defense. App.7. “In support of his request,” the district court explained, “Nash ‘cited a string of recent robberies in his neighborhood and the fact that he had recently completed an advanced firearm safety training course.’” App.7. The licensing officer, respondent McNally, denied the application on the ground that Nash “failed to show
‘proper cause’ to carry a firearm in public for the purpose of self-defense, because he did not demonstrate a special need for self-defense that distinguished him from the general public.” App.7. Petitioner Brendan Koch likewise applied for a license that would “‘allow[] him to carry a firearm for self-defense.’ Koch cited ‘his extensive experience in the safe handling and operation of firearms and the many safety training courses he had completed’ in support of his request.” App.7 (citation omitted). McNally denied the request on the ground that Koch “failed to show ‘proper cause’ to carry a firearm in public for the purpose of self-defense, because he did not demonstrate a special need for self-defense that distinguished him from the general public.” App.8. As the district court thus summarized, “Nash and Koch do not satisfy the ‘proper cause’ requirement because they do not ‘face any special or unique danger to [their] life.’” App.6. Petitioner New York State Rifle and Pistol Association is a group organized to defend the right of New York residents to keep and bear arms, including thousands of members who reside in New York. Many of its members would carry handguns if permitted, but are prohibited from doing so because they cannot satisfy New York’s “proper cause” test. App.6. B. Procedural History Petitioners brought suit to challenge the constitutionality under the Second Amendment of New York’s ban on carrying handguns outside the home without a special showing of a “proper cause.” App.3-4. Both the district court and the Second Circuit held that petitioners’ claims were foreclosed by
the Second Circuit’s earlier decision in Kachalsky. App.2, 11-13. Like this case, Kachalsky involved a Second Amendment challenge to New York’s “proper cause” restriction. The plaintiffs sought licenses to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense, but their applications were denied for failure to establish “‘proper cause’—a special need for self-protection.” Kachalsky, 701 F.3d at 83-84. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the state, and the Second Circuit affirmed. Id. at 84. In the Second Circuit’s view, this Court’s decision in Heller “raises more questions than it answers.” Id. at 88. According to the Second Circuit, “[w]hat we know from [Heller and McDonald] is that Second Amendment guarantees are at their zenith within the home,” but “[w]hat we do not know is the scope of that right beyond the home and the standards for determining when and how the right can be regulated by a government.” Id. at 89. Writing on this purportedly blank slate, and invoking Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 562 (2003), and Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484 (1965), the court reasoned that the Second Amendment must have vastly diminished force outside the home. 701 F.3d at 94. Hence, although the Second Circuit acknowledged (with considerable understatement) that “New York’s proper cause requirement places substantial limits on the ability of law-abiding citizens to possess firearms for selfdefense in public,” id. at 93, it nonetheless ruled that the Second Amendment does not prohibit New York from “limiting handgun possession in public to those who show a special need for self-protection,” id. at 101
 
Last edited:
VietnamEraVet

VietnamEraVet

.308 Win
U.S. Military
Messages
3,753
Reaction score
7,673
Location
Ex WNY as of 08/2018. Screw FUAC & FUKH too!
After SCOTUS turned down those 12 suits before ACB joined the court (because that compromised turncoat Roberts prevented them from having 5 members to grant Cert), I was as disgusted as I could be.

Will that change for the better with ACB on the court? Maybe... But the only way we will know is to throw some of these suits back at SCOTUS and see if they get granted Cert. Until we see one of these accepted and ruled on, or denied Cert outright, I will try to remain positive.

It doesn't actually affect me all that much anymore, but I do think it would be a huge deal if SCOTUS does grant Cert, AND if they then struck down May Issue in the known anti-2A states.

I don't know that they would do it based on this lawsuit, but it would really be something if they were to rule that we have a right to carry outside the home in all of the states and territories without having to get a permit from a specific state. We know that even if SCOTUS were to rule in our favor and strike down May Issue, those same anti 2A states would still try to prevent non residents from carrying there.

A ruling that we have the right to carry outside the home in all states and territories would give us full National Reciprocity without having to screw around with Congress.


Image result for which states are may issue
The following states are may-issue by law: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island.


So, for now, I will keep my fingers crossed.
 
Last edited:
BerettaGuy

BerettaGuy

.308 Win
Messages
4,007
Reaction score
7,343
Location
Cuomo may be gone but his Gun Squad remains.
I have always said that the whole Pistol Permit Scheme is capricious and arbitrary. That is why some counties take 30 days and others take 400. Some give no restrictions and others give restrictions. Nothing equal about section 400. But listing every "registered" gun on the license and not being allowed to touch a handgun if you don't have a license is just wrong. Unfortunately, I have found that even the staunchest NY Gun Rights advocate is of the opinion, Well, I got mine and it is for life. So they stopped giving a crap. How did that work out? Hmmmmm? I only hope that Andrew Cuomo is like them. He will get into the Attorneys General Office and find out that only in NY can his feeble plans work. You can't confiscate without knowing what and whom to confiscate from. In the petition, it seems to me that they are okay with Section 400. Bummed.
 
BerettaGuy

BerettaGuy

.308 Win
Messages
4,007
Reaction score
7,343
Location
Cuomo may be gone but his Gun Squad remains.
VietnamEraVet said:
After SCOTUS turned down those 12 suits before ACB joined the court (because that compromised turncoat Roberts prevented them from having 5 members to grant Cert), I was as disgusted as I could be.

Will that change for the better with ACB on the court? Maybe... But the only way we will know is to throw some of these suits back at SCOTUS and see if they get granted Cert. Until we see one of these accepted and ruled on, or denied Cert outright, I will try to remain positive.

It doesn't actually affect me all that much anymore, but I do think it would be a huge deal if SCOTUS does grant Cert, AND if they then struck down May Issue in the known anti-2A states.

I don't know that they would do it based on this lawsuit, but it would really be something if they were to rule that we have a right to carry outside the home in all of the states and territories without having to get a permit from a specific state. We know that even if SCOTUS were to rule in our favor and strike down May Issue, those same anti 2A states would still try to prevent non residents from carrying there.

A ruling that we have the right to carry outside the home in all states and territories would give us full National Reciprocity without having to screw around with Congress.


View attachment 100196
The following states are may-issue by law: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island.


So, for now, I will keep my fingers crossed.
Click to expand...
Here is the rub. Many states don't give a crap about how many guns you buy and they don't restrict you from buying them. Now if you want to carry concealed they require a permit. Can you see the difference between the NY pistol permit scheme and other states? NY YOU CAN NOT BUY WITHOUT A PERMIT. Think chicken and the egg.
 
Saltwater60

Saltwater60

.950 JDJ
Messages
31,402
Reaction score
35,139
Location
Western NY
BerettaGuy said:
Finally the question before the court.
The question presented is: Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.
Click to expand...
You can’t carry one inside your home without a permit either.
 
Acer-m14

Acer-m14

.950 JDJ
Messages
34,691
Reaction score
36,537
Location
Livingston
BerettaGuy said:
This is what I mean. The first sentence shows the stupidity of the law suit. iot says "New York prohibits its ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying a handgun outside the home without a license, and it denies licenses to every citizen who fails to convince the state that he or she has “proper cause” to carry a firearm. "
Click to expand...

NY prohibits the purchase of a pistol at the gun store to keep in your home unless you get FUAC in the ass first .. but you can buy a fkin rifle
 
dsdmmat

dsdmmat

Donut Master
Moderator
Messages
10,644
Reaction score
23,415
Location
Alpha Quadrant, Sector 001
Edwardteach72 said:
Hmmm what's the saying about idiots an their money?
Click to expand...
It is “a fool and their money“ and we all know you are Anti-NRA but you Don’t have to be anti social as well. People spend their money on all kinds of things I consider to be foolish (glocks, mosins, Rossis, Taurus, bersas, Mac books, fords, houses and property in NY /sarcasm) however, I don’t purposely hunt for threads to tell them they are foolish with their money. Reading something and letting it go without comment, is a form of stress reduction, you might want to try it.
 
Last edited:
BerettaGuy

BerettaGuy

.308 Win
Messages
4,007
Reaction score
7,343
Location
Cuomo may be gone but his Gun Squad remains.
dsdmmat said:
It is “a fool and their money“ and we all know you are Anti-NRA but you Don’t have to be anti social as well. People spend their money on all kinds of things I consider to be foolish (glocks, mosins, Rossis, Taurus, bersas, Mac books, fords, houses and property in NY /sarcasm) however, I don’t purposely hunt for threads to tell them they are foolish with their money. Reading something and letting it go without comment, is a form of stress reduction, you might want to try it.
Click to expand...
In a world of identity politics where the county has been divided then sub divided and sub sub divided again, we here should remember that the same people who relish in the division hate us as a group. We have that in common and it should bring us together like a band of brothers in war because it is or soon will be a war. I am warning us all, If Biden is sworn in, they are coming.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top