DrBleachCocktail
.44 mag
I hate the fact that no one in the court pointed out that NYC is still part of NYS.
NYSRPA v. Bruen, NY 2A Case Supreme Court case and decision
- Thread starter ManualF150
- Start date
Celt
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Yep, I checked the website for NYC pistol permits but couldnt find anything about residency.
Celt
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Barrett brought up time sq on New Years as an example of a place people shouldnt have guns.
DrBleachCocktail
.44 mag
But quickly got dismissed when they kept mentioning populace and dense areas. What I’m saying is that the justice mentioned something in the lines of “there’s different permits for different counties, why not just have one for the entire state.”
The reason I asked above if the NYC license was a NYS license, It is, as is your Long Island license! The Justices asking questions that were not in the opening brief I think is a good thing.
It was Justice Thomas who mentions the 14A. ( nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. )
JUSTICE THOMAS: So if we look at the -- you mentioned the founding and you mentioned post-Reconstruction. But, if we are to analyze this based upon the history or tradition, should we look at the founding, or should we look at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, which then, of course, applies it to the states?
DrBleachCocktail
.44 mag
I hope it goes our way so we can have the conversation about reciprocity but I doubt that’ll happen.
The link in my signature brings you right to the text of the oral arguments.
Xae289
.223 Rem
Just realized, @Edwardteach72 , back from the real world to cyberspace. What's your take on this all?
Phazer
.450/400 Nitro Ex
No. As I've pointed out to many: With regards to second amendment rights, New York is not in the United States, and New York City is not in New York State.
maverick52
.223 Rem
I’m not sure SCOTUS is going to let NYC let them get away with it. After NYC pulled a fast one on the court my changing the laws to moot a case, the conservative wing of the court was pissed off. I predict the ruling will have specific guidance to run NYCs face in it.
FrankenCub
.338 Win Mag
My crystal ball predicts same shit different day. NY will not change. SCOTUS is a feeble old man with no teeth.
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
bad guys don't get permits .. looks at chiraq .. SCOTUS .. case closed .. fix your mistakes and end it .
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
Chiraq gangs have precedent rulings that permit laws don't matter ..
Same here Celt. Moved from buffalo to Rochester. Had to wait long enough to get to know others well enough to trust asking them for references. Recently applied ( September 24th) after over 2 years ( mostly due to the trust component).
camper4lyfe
.308 Win
That wouldn’t surprise me: Require insurance that NY doesn’t allow.
BerettaGuy
.308 Win
Thank you. Does anyone have any experience out side of NY City? I asked in Erie County and was told no such thing.
FrankenCub
.338 Win Mag
I'm sure it wouldn't take long for that to be fought in court. No insurance needed to exercise any other Constitutionally protected Right.
Celt
.450/400 Nitro Ex
The other part of my issue, is that by the time i had the 4 references do their paperwork the paperwork was "expired". Didnt find that out until i went to submit it, and was told i had to have thr new packet and start over.
Last edited:
MothMan
.338 Win Mag
If “proper cause” is found constitutional, IMO, it won’t be long before 42 “shall issue” states becomes 38 then 22 then 8. A negative ruling on proper cause does not much effect NYS. We already have the effin law. It will impact those “shall” states eventually cuz it will be “constitutional”.
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
Supreme Court Signals Ground Breaking Second Amendment Decision Is Coming!!!
Nov 5, 2021
In this video I discuss the recent Supreme Court arguments in the NYSRPA v. Bruen concealed carry case. In reaction to the arguments many gun control groups have been losing their minds. I explain what they heard in the arguments that is making them so scared.
From the comments section above
Gorsuch specifically asked those questions to make the petitioners and respondents argue the point. If the point isn't argued, the justices can't rule on it. Gorsuch learned his lesson from Gamble v US, when the petitioner did not argue Katz, which Gorsuch wants struck down. Now that the tiered scrutiny issue has been argued, SCOTUS can rule, and set the precedent for all the circuit courts.
Show less
https://www.youtube.com/create_channel?upsell=comment
Getting a ruling for strict scrutiny for 2nd Amendment issues would be one of the biggest wins. Would really love to see them incorporate the 2nd Amendment as well, but I doubt that will happen.
https://www.youtube.com/create_channel?upsell=comment
BerettaGuy
.308 Win
I WAS WRONG! It wasn't the solicitor general that said this it was the NYSPRA lawyer. This is what happens when your lawyer doesn't have any skin in the game.
Here is the exchange
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: Mr. Clement, I
have several questions.
First, I want to make sure I understand your main problem here with this permitting regime, as I understand it, is the discretion that's involved with the permitting officials, and your point that that's just not how we do constitutional rights, where we allow basic blanket discretion to grant or deny something for all sorts of reasons.
But I understand you would not object or do not object to the regimes that are used in many of the other 42 states, the shall issue Regimes. I mean, there could be particular problems with those, but I do not understand you to object to shall issue regimes.
Is that accurate?
MR. CLEMENT: That's accurate, Justice Kavanaugh. And as you say, they're the -- you know, especially if you have something like good moral character, there is the possibility for discretionary abuse in those regimes as well.
But the thrust of this case is, you know, we -- we'd like what they're having. We'd like what the people in the other 43 states are allowed to do and exercise their rights, and in many of those states, it's shall issue.
regimes. I mean, there could be particular problems with those, but I do not understand you to object to shall issue regimes.
Is that accurate?
MR. CLEMENT: That's accurate, Justice Kavanaugh. And as you say, they're the -- you know, especially if you have something like good moral character, there is the possibility for discretionary abuse in those regimes as well.
But the thrust of this case is, you
know, we -- we'd like what they're having. We'd like what the people in the other 43 states are allowed to do and exercise their rights, and in many of those states, it's shall issue.
And -- and that is, of course -- you
know, New York purports to have effectively a shall issue regime with respect to hunting.
7 So, if they came up with some, you
8 know, sort of, like, magic wand that gave them a
9 precise reading of typicality, and so there was
10 no discretion, but the standard was still at the
11 end of the day you have to show that you are atypical from the rest of the people protected by the Second Amendment, we would have a problem with that as well.
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: Right. A shall issue regime with an atypicality requirement would be no good in your view?
MR. CLEMENT: Exactly.
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: Yeah.
MR. CLEMENT: Even if it could be somehow if you could come up with some objective standard of typicality.
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: Okay. And the issue before us, as I understand it, is the permitting regime. We don't have to answer all
the sensitive places questions in this case, some of which will be challenging no doubt, is
3 that accurate?
4 MR. CLEMENT: That's 100 percent
5 accurate. And it's -- so there's sort of a
6 market test of the accuracy of that, which is
7 New York does have sensitive place laws, and we
8 have not challenged them in this litigation.
9 JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: And then, to
10 follow up on Justice Thomas's question and also
11 Justice Gorsuch's, we should focus on American
12 law and the text of the Constitution and we
13 don't start the analysis in a vacuum, but we
14 start it with the text, which you say grants a
15 right to carry, and then historical practice can
16 justify certain kinds of regulations, but the
17 baseline is always the right established in the
Here is the exchange
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: Mr. Clement, I
have several questions.
First, I want to make sure I understand your main problem here with this permitting regime, as I understand it, is the discretion that's involved with the permitting officials, and your point that that's just not how we do constitutional rights, where we allow basic blanket discretion to grant or deny something for all sorts of reasons.
But I understand you would not object or do not object to the regimes that are used in many of the other 42 states, the shall issue Regimes. I mean, there could be particular problems with those, but I do not understand you to object to shall issue regimes.
Is that accurate?
MR. CLEMENT: That's accurate, Justice Kavanaugh. And as you say, they're the -- you know, especially if you have something like good moral character, there is the possibility for discretionary abuse in those regimes as well.
But the thrust of this case is, you know, we -- we'd like what they're having. We'd like what the people in the other 43 states are allowed to do and exercise their rights, and in many of those states, it's shall issue.
regimes. I mean, there could be particular problems with those, but I do not understand you to object to shall issue regimes.
Is that accurate?
MR. CLEMENT: That's accurate, Justice Kavanaugh. And as you say, they're the -- you know, especially if you have something like good moral character, there is the possibility for discretionary abuse in those regimes as well.
But the thrust of this case is, you
know, we -- we'd like what they're having. We'd like what the people in the other 43 states are allowed to do and exercise their rights, and in many of those states, it's shall issue.
And -- and that is, of course -- you
know, New York purports to have effectively a shall issue regime with respect to hunting.
7 So, if they came up with some, you
8 know, sort of, like, magic wand that gave them a
9 precise reading of typicality, and so there was
10 no discretion, but the standard was still at the
11 end of the day you have to show that you are atypical from the rest of the people protected by the Second Amendment, we would have a problem with that as well.
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: Right. A shall issue regime with an atypicality requirement would be no good in your view?
MR. CLEMENT: Exactly.
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: Yeah.
MR. CLEMENT: Even if it could be somehow if you could come up with some objective standard of typicality.
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: Okay. And the issue before us, as I understand it, is the permitting regime. We don't have to answer all
the sensitive places questions in this case, some of which will be challenging no doubt, is
3 that accurate?
4 MR. CLEMENT: That's 100 percent
5 accurate. And it's -- so there's sort of a
6 market test of the accuracy of that, which is
7 New York does have sensitive place laws, and we
8 have not challenged them in this litigation.
9 JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: And then, to
10 follow up on Justice Thomas's question and also
11 Justice Gorsuch's, we should focus on American
12 law and the text of the Constitution and we
13 don't start the analysis in a vacuum, but we
14 start it with the text, which you say grants a
15 right to carry, and then historical practice can
16 justify certain kinds of regulations, but the
17 baseline is always the right established in the
dean3690
.357 mag
Thanks to nortotoga for including the link to NY Rifle and Pistol Club V. Bruin oral arguments. Good reading. I especially like the rebuttal at the end (bottom of page 121 and top of page 122 where Mr. Clements very clearly defines how the NY may issue permitting regime requiring a show of an atypical need allows for a privilege by some to exercise carrying a pistol outside the home or business and does not allow the exercise of a right by all with the exception of felons or mentally ill. Also, the point that come up about high population density areas also being potentially a greater area of need for self defense to be weighed against "safety" being important (ie: not a lot of high crime areas or number of muggings in rural wooded areas vs highly populated areas like NYC subways or public transport where plenty of guns are carried, but illegally. Also the point that many law abiding New Yorker's are arrested, charged, jailed and criminalized for simply exercising their rights under the 2nd amendment. But this should have been pushed even further by demonstrating that minorities are often those most in danger and those most often criminalized by their need and no jury or prosecutor or judge is saying "Oh, they demonstrated a need or there is a demonstrated need for them to carry due to the high crime around them in their daily comings and goings, so case dismissed and issue them a permit." So I think they made some real assumptions about the permitting regime.
They compared it to the hunting permit regime, but that is simply take a hunter safety course and go get your license. If that were truly the case in any shape matter or form with a pistol permit at all, especially a concealed permit, many more would be in place and many who have not applied would apply (Such as myself. I was close to applying but decided to wait for this coming decision). But the fact is that the regime takes an excruciatingly long period of time and leaves too much discretion which makes it a privilege in this state. The contention that you get a fair shake is false as I know in Tompkins County, if you are privileged to be an attorney or a judge or a politician, or a big wig, you get a concealed permit, no questions asked, while normal citizens are all denied by the judge. But if you live 100' farther away in a neighboring county, you can get a concealed permit as a matter of course. There is no requirement of any reasonable time limit to issue a decision, for a written explanation by the judge or ability to appeal that decision to another local judge or the Sherriff. Making an appeal to a higher court has been done and they have shown their agreement that this so called right is actually a privilege in NYS.
The assumption that you may carry back and forth to work or out and about in rural areas without a concealed permit is just a misnomer as well and I hope that the written submittals covered just how restrictive a non-concealed permit is. As it is, unloaded in a locked case or with a gun lock unreachable from the drivers compartment with ammo in a separate locked container makes having it at hand when needed if traveling that much more difficult. The idea that officers of the law are in greater danger if more carry is also a false narrative. Unless officers are being taught to fear all carriers of guns, the simple facts are that officers will know when running a plate who the registered owner is and if they are a permit holder and they will also find that out from running any ID or name and address. They certainly know that the law abiding are the 99% who don't cause issues as demonstrated by the stats and it's the unlicensed who are criminals (not the unlicensed otherwise law abiding) who are the issue of concern and danger. The mention of the stop and frisk issue was well played in Mr. Clements argument as well, but he should not have deferred that the right and subsequent regime in upstate should have been divided for NYC. It open up the ability for LI and other areas of the state like Albany and other cities to be exempt when it was pointed out that large cities like Dallas and others have concealed carry available without any wild west situation going on or added danger to the general public by law abiding citizens exercising this right. It should be emphasized, that the fears of upticks in shootings and the fears of social scientists from the 20th century never came to pass.
Thank goodness the waiting for the hearing is done. Now the waiting for a decision is and will be painful and overlong. Pray that they get it right. There's hope.
They compared it to the hunting permit regime, but that is simply take a hunter safety course and go get your license. If that were truly the case in any shape matter or form with a pistol permit at all, especially a concealed permit, many more would be in place and many who have not applied would apply (Such as myself. I was close to applying but decided to wait for this coming decision). But the fact is that the regime takes an excruciatingly long period of time and leaves too much discretion which makes it a privilege in this state. The contention that you get a fair shake is false as I know in Tompkins County, if you are privileged to be an attorney or a judge or a politician, or a big wig, you get a concealed permit, no questions asked, while normal citizens are all denied by the judge. But if you live 100' farther away in a neighboring county, you can get a concealed permit as a matter of course. There is no requirement of any reasonable time limit to issue a decision, for a written explanation by the judge or ability to appeal that decision to another local judge or the Sherriff. Making an appeal to a higher court has been done and they have shown their agreement that this so called right is actually a privilege in NYS.
The assumption that you may carry back and forth to work or out and about in rural areas without a concealed permit is just a misnomer as well and I hope that the written submittals covered just how restrictive a non-concealed permit is. As it is, unloaded in a locked case or with a gun lock unreachable from the drivers compartment with ammo in a separate locked container makes having it at hand when needed if traveling that much more difficult. The idea that officers of the law are in greater danger if more carry is also a false narrative. Unless officers are being taught to fear all carriers of guns, the simple facts are that officers will know when running a plate who the registered owner is and if they are a permit holder and they will also find that out from running any ID or name and address. They certainly know that the law abiding are the 99% who don't cause issues as demonstrated by the stats and it's the unlicensed who are criminals (not the unlicensed otherwise law abiding) who are the issue of concern and danger. The mention of the stop and frisk issue was well played in Mr. Clements argument as well, but he should not have deferred that the right and subsequent regime in upstate should have been divided for NYC. It open up the ability for LI and other areas of the state like Albany and other cities to be exempt when it was pointed out that large cities like Dallas and others have concealed carry available without any wild west situation going on or added danger to the general public by law abiding citizens exercising this right. It should be emphasized, that the fears of upticks in shootings and the fears of social scientists from the 20th century never came to pass.
Thank goodness the waiting for the hearing is done. Now the waiting for a decision is and will be painful and overlong. Pray that they get it right. There's hope.
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
"In this video I answer a lot of the questions I have been asked as a result of the recent NYSRPA v. Bruen Supreme Court arguments. This case deals with the state of New York's concealed carry restrictions and may result in a landmark Second Amendment decision."
gunpoliticsny
6.5 Creedmoor
Its unfortunate but near certain they will do everything possible to limit the SCOTUS decision impact. Unreal
Uninformed and Compliant
.450/400 Nitro Ex
When the decision is made and the law was found to be invalid,
every one of those mentioned groups and their legislators need to be rolled up for conspiracy to violate 18 USC 241 and 18 USC 242, and racketeering.