NYSRPA v. Bruen, NY 2A Case Supreme Court case and decision
- Thread starter ManualF150
- Start date
kev74
20×102mm Vulcan
The "ignore" button is awesome! Just sayin'.
FrankenCub
.338 Win Mag
The red-headed stepchild of the Constitution, to the weak at heart. To those who will be first to cower.
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
Justice Scalia read this excerpt of his opinion from the bench when he announced the opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller. Although the majority opinion was 5-4, all four justices in the two dissents said they agreed with the five justices in the majority that concealed carry is not a right, and can be banned.
New York was handed a win on a silver platter in NYSRPA v. Bruen when the justices rewrote the questions presented in the case to one question and limited the question to concealed carry and limited the question further to the denial of the two petitioners applications for [unrestricted] concealed carry licenses.
All New York had to do to win was to limit their brief on the merits to the very simple question presented. Moreso, because the NYSRPA lawyers never answered the question presented by the justices for the justices in this case.
Justices Alito and Thomas do not join in majority opinions where the majority answers a question not presented to the court. Add their two votes to the votes of Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor, and you have five votes in favor of the proper cause requirement for a concealed carry permit. Add to that the vote of Justice Kavanaugh since neither of the sides asked the Court to overrule Section III of District of Columbia v. Heller and you have the six votes you need for a per curiam opinion, likely without dissent.
New York never had to argue whether or not the Second Amendment applies outside the home in order to win.
But their lawyers did.
New York argues that the Second Amendment does extend to public places, but only to remote, unpopulated rural places where one is unlikely to encounter another human being.
New York could still win, and likely will as to the proper cause requirement for a concealed carry license but the New York lawyers may discover that by going beyond the question presented and arguing that the Second Amendment does not apply to populated places beyond which the State of New York permits, the justices now get to weigh in on to where outside of the home the right to keep and bear arms applies.
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
so voting can have the same restrictions .. per him .. oh the SCOTUS ruled .. its precedence and cant be changed.
Justice Scalia .. Traitor ..
yep his opinion really works ..
CALI ..
Justice Scalia .. Traitor ..
yep his opinion really works ..
CALI ..
Last edited:
FrankenCub
.338 Win Mag
I'm half ready to believe all those 2A lawyers intentionally fuck up to keep money rolling in.
All nine justices in District of Columbia v. Heller were in agreement that concealed carry is not a right and can be banned. When Justice Alito responded to a dissent in McDonald v. City of Chicago, he said nothing in his opinion changed what the Heller decision said in Section III. Section III of the Heller opinion began by saying that prohibitions on concealed carry do not violate the Second Amendment. In short, all nine justices in both Heller and McDonald agreed that concealed carry is not a right.
Regardless of whether or not one reads Section III of the Heller opinion to set a precedent, be meaningless dicta, or be somewhere in between, that does not really matter in NYSRPA v. Bruen because the NYSRPA lawyers in their brief on the merits did not argue that the denial of the petitioners' applications for concealed carry licenses violated the Second Amendment. Instead, they chose to argue that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a handgun in public, which was the question they presented in their cert petition.
Given that neither side has asked the Court to overrule Section III of the Heller opinion as it applies to concealed carry, it is unlikely that the Justices will, even if there were the votes to do so, which I doubt.
However, the justices can decide whether or not the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is limited to unpopulated rural areas as the State contends, or whether or not the right extends to public places where people congregate. They can because both sides have briefed that question even though it was not the question presented.
The justices don't have to decide that but since New York decided to argue that in its brief, the Justices can decide.
I used to think that as well, and it may be true. But after reading their briefs for the past ten years, and listening to their oral arguments, I have concluded that one should not rule out incompetence.
Case in point, an NRA lawyer recently argued before the 9th circuit court of appeals that it is constitutional to ban large-capacity magazines, and California's ban on large capacity magazines would be constitutional if the limit were higher.
She made that same argument regarding a local ban on magazines before the 9th circuit court of appeals seven years ago, and lost.
Seven years ago, the three-judge panel noted that the NRA attorney conceded that bans on large-capacity magazines are constitutional. The Court agreed with her and upheld the local ban on magazines greater than 10 rounds.
I suspect the court will uphold the statewide ban and will again note in its opinion that the NRA lawyer told the panel of judges that bans on large-capacity magazines are constitutional.
Robin
.475 A&M Magnum
If you somehow think my birthright requires insurance then that should also be a part of that birthright, without levy. You are part of the problem.
Robin
pshift
.338 Win Mag
Let them try to make firearms insurance mandatory. They will be sued by the Civil Liberties groups for discrimination against the economic and socially disadvantaged! Oh wait, we have auto (mandatory if financing), home (mandatory if mortgaged), life (depends), renters (unnecessary)...... never mind). 
IrishMick
.44 mag
Collision Auto Insurance and Homeowners are mandatory as a condition of the agreement between you and the bank. The government does not mandate that you have it. Now the standard liability auto insurance is another matter. The scam with that is that it is mostly based on the person and their driving record (I know it is deeper than just your driving record and includes a lot of statistical probabilities as well) but you must "insure" each vehicle that you own for basic liability even though that liability is based on you.
? Ok, what part of the constitution do they fall under again?
Your zip code effects your price too.
pshift
.338 Win Mag
Any type of 'mandatory insurance' is a scam. If you want to take your chances, you should be free to do so.
IrishMick
.44 mag
Neither Homeowners insurance or Auto Collision insurance are mandated by the government and thus not in the Constitution. If you must have them it is part of an agreement between you and the bank as a condition to borrow the money. You enter this agreement of your own free will. You can go buy a house or a new car and have no insurance that covers the cost or repair of these things. Until the Obama care debacle you never were mandated to have health insurance. You don't need to carry life insurance. That being said, the compulsory liability insurance is mandated by the government and that is a different matter. That protects others should you happen to crash into them. There used to be waivers to this mandate if you could show that you could afford to pay for any accidents and damage that you cause, but that work around was usually for larger corporations and may not exist anymore.
Agreed. As long as you have the means to pay for any damages you might cause. Also mandating insurance for a Constitutionally guaranteed right is completely wrong. $200 before you can exercise speech. $200 to practice your faith. $200 to keep silent and not incriminate yourself. $200 to be secure in your papers and effects. None of this would pass a court challenge.
BerettaGuy
.308 Win
My fear uncertainty and doubt (FUD) come from the fact that NYSRPA is not questioning the constitutionality of the NY STATE PISTOL PERMIT SCHEME at all. It is as if they are saying. We have no issue with the 100 year old law that forbids any NY Citizen (except Law Enforcement) to touch a handgun unless they pay big bucks to their County who then issues them a Permit to Carry a Firearm and then makes them registered each and every handgun on the back of said permit. We have no issue with the fact that if you are caught carrying a gun that is not on the permit you are going to jail. (I mean if they overturned the Scheme, they would be out of business.) MY FUD is that the case involves the restrictions on the unconstitutional pistol permit scheme and that it is the restrictions that are being challenged, not the permit itself. So even though I am not an attorney nor do I play one on the interweb, I can see the SOTUS ruling for the state on the restrictions only because the scheme is not being questioned. I hope I am wrong! The other issue is the lower courts, No matter what the SCOTUS says, we have Judges that flip them the bird.
BerettaGuy
.308 Win
I have dealt with politicians and attornies on 2A issues while in SCOPE. Most have no skin in the game. They will say they are pro 2A (whatever that means) but when asked, do you have a Permit to Carry? No, I have a shotgun though.
gun_slinger_boy
.338 Win Mag
That's an issue I have with ALL "pro 2A" orgs. Are any of them dedicated enough to fighting the cause to the point of putting themselves out of business or do they simply realize there will always be a need for them fight.
BerettaGuy
.308 Win
I can agree but due to the all-out assault by liberal Democrats on my Constitutional Rights, it is not a deal killer.
What choice do we have, relying on the Dept of Education to teach our rights to our children?
Today's millennials fall on their knees and worship the word "sustainability" at the very mention of the word sustainability.
Mention the Bill of Rights and they cock their head like a dog hearing a wolf on the Television.
Remember politicians used to fear the NRA. Now the fear anything that questions sustainablity.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
I could see the argument for CC not being constitutionally protected.
But carry is explicitly protected (WTF do they think the word bear means...)
So, if you are going to outlaw CC, then you *must* allow OC.
If restrictive jurisdictions want to go down that route, we can oblige. I bet they will change their mind real quick about CC if there are OCers walking around all the time redpilling the sheep about how common gun ownership is though.
As much as the gun grabbers hate CC, they hate OC more. So if we can force them into a choice, we will have already won.
Celt
.338 Win Mag
Bwahahahahahaha, YOURE OUT OF YOUR DAMN MIND!
Last edited:
If all nine justices in Heller and McDonald are correct, and I think they are, that prohibitions on concealed carry do not violate the Second Amendment then outlawing concealed carry does not require the state to allow Open Carry any more than outlawing heroin requires the state to allow Open Carry.
The same is true of the argument that outlawing Open Carry requires the state to allow concealed carry because banning the constitutionally protected right to Open Carry does not create a right to concealed carry any more than banning Open Carry creates a right to possess/carry/use heroin.
Unfortunately. my fear is that although SCOTUS said Open Carry perfectly captures the meaning of the right to keep and bear arms, most inferior court judges are going to continue to ignore it until SCOTUS grants an Open Carry cert petition.
There are only two in the pipeline. Young v. Hawaii, whose cert petition is limited to handguns and who does not challenge a permit requirement. There are "vehicle problems" with granting the Young cert petition, not the least of which his case can be mooted simply by Hawaii granting him a permit to carry a handgun, openly or concealed, and promise to renew it for an additional two years.
That leaves my California Open Carry appeal, which is on hold until the disposition of the Young v. Hawaii cert petition.
Hawaii, in its brief in opposition falsely claimed that the CRPA/NRA lawsuit Flanagan v. Bonta is an Open Carry lawsuit. The Flanagan plaintiffs argue that California's bans on Open Carry are constitutional. It is their argument that since California has banned Open Carry that somehow entitles them to concealed carry permits.
Moreover, all but one of the named individual plaintiffs in Flanagan has disavowed any intention of openly carrying a firearm anywhere and for any reason. The one remaining named individual plaintiff did not articulate a concrete plan to openly carry a firearm in violation of California law, which means he does not have standing to challenge California's Open Carry bans, even if he wanted to.
Finally, after two hearings in which he tried but failed to get the plaintiffs' attorneys to challenge California's Open Carry bans the district court judge said he was not going to decide whether or not California's Open Carry bans are constitutional.
In short, the NRA/CRPA lawsuit is limited to the denial of the plaintiffs concealed carry permits.
Celt
.338 Win Mag
The right to Keep (own) and Bear (carry) arms shall not be infringed.
Seems pretty simple to me.
Seems pretty simple to me.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
If the second ammendment protects carry (i.e. bearing arms), and you outlaw CC, then you *must* allow OC. Unless you have some form of carry in mind that is neither open nor concealed.
It seems pretty clear that bearing arms is protected. It would be hard to envision a *more* clearly stated guarantee in all of law.
If states plainly *must* allow carry, and there are only 2 ways to do it, and they outlaw one, then they *must* allow the other. That seems pretty indisputable.
Shadow2
6.5 Creedmoor
Whats going to happen? They are going to be handed a choice, hand out concealed permits or allow open carry. Carry is not dangerous a majority of the country allows it. Hell most counties in the state allow it. How does NY explain that one away.
It is pretty simple but there are simpletons who think that because the text of the right does not explicitly state that they can't carry concealed weapons and does not say that they can't carry or use weapons for any purpose or at any place then there is no limitation on the bearing of arms.
The NRA and SAF lawyers have made that argument in court and lost every time. The justices in Heller and McDonald explicitly stated that Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution and explicitly stated that prohibitions on concealed carry do not violate the Second Amendment.
And, of course, not only do the NRA lawyers not claim in NYSRPA v. Bruen that New York can ban Open Carry in favor of concealed carry, the NRA lawyers do not even argue that there is a right to concealed carry. Not for the petitioners, not for anyone.
libertysnake
.338 Win Mag
Whatever isn't prohibited is allowed. They want more than that, they should call a convention. Anything else is technically unconstitutional. Fuck, you should be able to own a tank according to the constitution cause it counts as arms, and the constitution doesn't say otherwise.
All of this shit is unconstitutional.