NYSRPA v. Bruen, NY 2A Case Supreme Court case and decision

[Acer-m14]

permits need to be gone , 4473's too .. shall not infringe .. criminals don't get one .. and when good guys do and engage in with some LEO's .. you get attacked .. at least this guy had a good judge but he still got attacked buy a person with a gun too ...

 

[FrankenCub]

Fuck, you should be able to own a tank

Well, you can own a tank. Now. Legally.

 

[GOPerfect]

Funny, gun laws and permits and all that jazz; seems to not be on my care list at all these days.

 

[spat]

Well, you can own a tank. Now. Legally.

With a fully functional gun if you want.

Ammo is even harder to find for them than the rest of the stuff, but there's no legal prohibition.

Hell, there are even enough privately owned ones that there is a real market for them complete with a website.

Here's a sweet one for sale in CA.

1997 Leopard 1A5 – Uhrig Military Vehicle Sales

Fighter planes too.

Hard to get US planes, but there's plenty of MiGs around.

Just look at FAA registrations, I think there's something like 60 privately owned airworthy MiGs in the US, and at least one F104 starfighter.

 

[spat]

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.

None of that contradicts what I said.

If you allow OC, you can ban CC, but you can't ban them both.

That's what SCOTUS said. Some of them said you can't ban OC at all, but you can ban CC. That is just a subset of what I set.

It's true that some courts have upheld bans on both, but that's clearly wrong. Bear clearly means carry and anyone who suggests otherwise is not arguing in good faith.

The question of whether you can ban OC if you allow CC is unsettled, but It is a lot less important than establishing that you can't ban both IMHO.

 

[libertysnake]

Well, you can own a tank. Now. Legally.

Since your post, I've been frantically searching for an intact WW2 Tiger tank that I can buy, but it seems only the Bovington Museum in the UK has one in stock and when I asked the bank about financing they hung up on me.

 

[Acer-m14]

get in touch with Alex Zedra

 

[CaliforniaOpenCarry]

The question of whether you can ban OC if you allow CC is unsettled, but It is a lot less important than establishing that you can't ban both IMHO.

And yet in every Federal circuit where the argument has been made that it is constitutional to ban Open Carry in favor of concealed carry that argument has lost, which makes it well settled at both the Federal circuit level and the Supreme Court level.

The Reid opinion, cited by SCOTUS in District of Columbia v. Heller, considered a hypothetical case where a state had banned Open Carry in favor of concealed carry and rejected that scenario as unconstitutional.

In the history of our nation, no Federal court has ever held that Open Carry can be banned in favor of concealed carry. That should not surprise you given that it wasn't until the 1990s that the NRA began peddling the snake oil that concealed carry is a right protected by the Second Amendment.

But who knows, if SCOTUS can invent a right to abortion then it can invent a right to concealed carry.

If the Supreme Court invents a right to concealed carry that is protected by the Second Amendment then we will know soon enough, by the end of next June if not sooner.

 

[libertysnake]

get in touch with Alex Zedra

Personally, I think she should go with the T-34. The Leopard 1A1 has a good suspension, but personally I think most of her fan base would prefer she take the bumpier ride.

 

[Acer-m14]

SCOTUS invented qualified immunity

 

[CaliforniaOpenCarry]

SCOTUS invented qualified immunity

SCOTUS also invented "absolute immunity" for prosecutors and judges in the 1970s.

 

[spat]

And yet in every Federal circuit where the argument has been made that it is constitutional to ban Open Carry in favor of concealed carry that argument has lost, which makes it well settled at both the Federal circuit level and the Supreme Court level.

The Reid opinion, cited by SCOTUS in District of Columbia v. Heller, considered a hypothetical case where a state had banned Open Carry in favor of concealed carry and rejected that scenario as unconstitutional.

In the history of our nation, no Federal court has ever held that Open Carry can be banned in favor of concealed carry. That should not surprise you given that it wasn't until the 1990s that the NRA began peddling the snake oil that concealed carry is a right protected by the Second Amendment.

But who knows, if SCOTUS can invent a right to abortion then it can invent a right to concealed carry.

If the Supreme Court invents a right to concealed carry that is protected by the Second Amendment then we will know soon enough, by the end of next June if not sooner.

Look. It's quite clear that the constitution guarantees a right to carry, irrespective of anything any court says about the matter.

"The right to ... bear arms cannot be infringed" couldn’t be clearer about the mattter.

It doesn’t matter what the politics of the matter are, the plain text is clear. They can claim it doesn't say what it obviously says, but that doesn't make it so.

Now, I can't say that means you can carry in any manner you want. Maybe it does, or maybe there are some restrictions that are permissible.

But I can say that you obviously must be allowed to carry in some useful manner unencumbered by any significant infringements.

Now, I can't see any argument that would privilege open carry over concealed, but it's quite obvious that in the very least one must be allowed without any infringement.

If a poll tax is an infringement on the right to vote, then certainly most of the CC permit schemes are an infringement on the RKBA.

Now, requiring voter registration is not generally considered an infringement on the right to vote, but the RKBA is a *more* protected right than voting, so even a permit scheme with no fee is probably an infringement.

 

[CaliforniaOpenCarry]

Now, I can't see any argument that would privilege open carry over concealed, but it's quite obvious that in the very least one must be allowed without any infringement.

The "argument" (more specifically the holdings of the courts for over 200 years) is that concealed carry is an evil, vile practice and Open Carry is noble.

A modern, morally neutral explanation came from the California court of appeals.

"The policy underlying the prohibition against concealed weapons is based on the protection of those persons who may come into contact with a weapon bearer. If a weapon is not concealed, one may take notice of the weapon and its owner and govern oneself accordingly, but no such opportunity for cautious behavior or self-preservation exists for one encountering the bearer of a concealed weapon." People v. Mitchell, 209 Cal. App. 4th 1364 (2012) at 1371.

That California court of appeals opinion in no way detracts from the Heller opinion which held that, "[A] right to carry arms openly: "This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations."

And for the benefit of those for whom the citations to Nunn and Likewise Chandler wasn't clear enough, the Heller opinion spelled it out for them in its opening to Section III of the opinion:

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students' Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884)."

Justice Kavanaugh certainly understood that concealed carry is not a right as per the Heller opinion, he said so in his confirmation hearings.


But you are free to file your own lawsuit and make that argument. The SAF did in Kachalsky and lost. It would take either an en banc panel or a decision of the Supreme Court to overrule the Kachalsky opinion.

Or you could file a lawsuit challenging New York state's ban on the Open Carry of handguns and New York City's ban on all Open Carry. Not only would you have two Supreme Court opinions in your favor, but you would also have this citation from the Kachalsky opinion to lean on:

"Notably, Chandler and Reid conflict with Plaintiffs' position, at least in part. Plaintiffs contend that a state may choose to ban open carrying so long as concealed carrying is permitted. But both Chandler and Reid suggest that open carrying must be permitted. The Reid court explained:

Under the provision of our constitution, we incline to the opinion that the Legislature cannot inhibit the citizen from bearing arms openly, because it authorizes him to bear them for the purposes of defending himself and the State, and it is only when carried openly, that they can be efficiently used for defence.

1840 WL 229, at *5; see also Chandler, 1850 WL 3838, at *1." Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F. 3d 81 [fn 13]

 

[spat]

The "argument" (more specifically the holdings of the courts for over 200 years) is that concealed carry is an evil, vile practice and Open Carry is noble.

A modern, morally neutral explanation came from the California court of appeals.

"The policy underlying the prohibition against concealed weapons is based on the protection of those persons who may come into contact with a weapon bearer. If a weapon is not concealed, one may take notice of the weapon and its owner and govern oneself accordingly, but no such opportunity for cautious behavior or self-preservation exists for one encountering the bearer of a concealed weapon." People v. Mitchell, 209 Cal. App. 4th 1364 (2012) at 1371.

That California court of appeals opinion in no way detracts from the Heller opinion which held that, "[A] right to carry arms openly: "This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations."

And for the benefit of those for whom the citations to Nunn and Likewise Chandler wasn't clear enough, the Heller opinion spelled it out for them in its opening to Section III of the opinion:

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students' Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884)."

Justice Kavanaugh certainly understood that concealed carry is not a right as per the Heller opinion, he said so in his confirmation hearings.


But you are free to file your own lawsuit and make that argument. The SAF did in Kachalsky and lost. It would take either an en banc panel or a decision of the Supreme Court to overrule the Kachalsky opinion.

Or you could file a lawsuit challenging New York state's ban on the Open Carry of handguns and New York City's ban on all Open Carry. Not only would you have two Supreme Court opinions in your favor, but you would also have this citation from the Kachalsky opinion to lean on:

"Notably, Chandler and Reid conflict with Plaintiffs' position, at least in part. Plaintiffs contend that a state may choose to ban open carrying so long as concealed carrying is permitted. But both Chandler and Reid suggest that open carrying must be permitted. The Reid court explained:

Under the provision of our constitution, we incline to the opinion that the Legislature cannot inhibit the citizen from bearing arms openly, because it authorizes him to bear them for the purposes of defending himself and the State, and it is only when carried openly, that they can be efficiently used for defence.

1840 WL 229, at *5; see also Chandler, 1850 WL 3838, at *1." Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F. 3d 81 [fn 13]

The court ruled that escaped slaves needed to be returned to their owners too.

They get things wrong.

Sometimes on purpose.

Most of them ruled that the 2A was some bizzare sort of "collective right" that didn't actually mean anything for most of the 20th century.

Do not mistake the power of SCOTUS for infallibility.

It doesn’t matter who or how many of them rule that 2+2=5. They are all wrong.

 

[CaliforniaOpenCarry]

Do not mistake the power of SCOTUS for infallibility.

I never have.

I've never read any court opinion that did not have some error in it. But if one is in a court of law and asserts some position contrary to established law then unless the Court overrules established law then his contrary position will lose.

You have asserted a position that the Second Amendment requires that either concealed carry or Open Carry must be allowed but you are unable to make a legal argument as to why you are correct and why 200+ years of American law was wrong. And because you are unable to make that legal argument, you now simply attack the Supreme Court for conducting an in-depth analysis of the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment and then coming to an informed opinion you do not agree with.

Your inability to make a legal argument in support of your position does not mean that the Supreme Court was wrong. It means that you are unable to make a legal argument in support of your position.

And that is a very different thing.

 

[spat]

I never have.

I've never read any court opinion that did not have some error in it. But if one is in a court of law and asserts some position contrary to established law then unless the Court overrules established law then his contrary position will lose.

You have asserted a position that the Second Amendment requires that either concealed carry or Open Carry must be allowed but you are unable to make a legal argument as to why you are correct and why 200+ years of American law was wrong. And because you are unable to make that legal argument, you now simply attack the Supreme Court for conducting an in-depth analysis of the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment and then coming to an informed opinion you do not agree with.

Your inability to make a legal argument in support of your position does not mean that the Supreme Court was wrong. It means that you are unable to make a legal argument in support of your position.

And that is a very different thing.

Have made the argument many times in this thread.

It is very simple, and undisputable.

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

It's right there in black and white.

Infringements on the right to carry are not allowed by our constitution. Period. Anyone claiming otherwise is wrong, no matter who they are.

You can get a gaggle of lawyers to debate the meaning of the word "is" if you want, and you can blackmail or bribe all the judges, but that *still* doesn't change the clear and indisputable meaning of that sentence.

 

[Acer-m14]

i think the legality of all the 2A cases .. they did not read the plain language of the law .. they looked for backdoors and loopholes

as in this traffic case below .. starting at were he explains plain language ..

 

[CaliforniaOpenCarry]

The deadline for New York to submit its brief on the merits to SCOTUS in NYSRPA v. Bruen was Tuesday, September 14th. The brief submitted on the 14th was rejected by the Clerk of the Court for some unknown reason. The brief was resubmitted the next day but languished on the docket as "submitted" until today when the status of the brief was changed to "filed" and backdated to the 14th.

Amicus briefs in support of the New York respondents are due within seven days of September 14th. So far, there have been two Amicus briefs filed. There will undoubtedly be many Amicus briefs submitted in support of the respondents on the very last day they can be submitted because such is the nature of lawyers.

The NYSRPA reply brief is due within 30 days of September 14th.

The oral argument is calendared to take place on November 3rd.

 

[gunpoliticsny]

Biden administration urges Supreme Court to uphold New York's handgun restriction.​

 

[Bob]

Holy crap.
The number of briefs filed yesterday in support of the respondents is nuts, as are some of the arguments.

 

[tirwin1]

Of course they did. It's not enough to destroy the economy and open the borders. They need to disarm citizens as well.

 

[kev74]

Yeah... Cause there wouldn't still be restrictions on handguns if NYSRPA wins.

 

[MothMan]

And more restrictions in red and purple states if they lose.

 

[nortatoga]

Holy crap.
The number of briefs filed yesterday in support of the respondents is nuts, as are some of the arguments.

 

[dsdmmat]

They would be best to sue the state using the Heller v DC case as outlawing handguns unless a license to own one is issued.
the problem is not concealed carry the problem is common use weapons are illegal in NY unless exempted bu a special license.

 

[Saltwater60]

I thought it wasn’t political? This should be illegal.

 

[Uninformed and Compliant]

I'm still trying to figure out why the default un-permitted woman can be compelled, by the state, to ADVERTISE the fact that she is defenseless.

But, that's just me.

 

[gunpoliticsny]

New York City Files Amicus Brief in Major Second Amendment Gun Case Before the U.S. Supreme Court.​

 

[gunpoliticsny]

NYCLU, ACLU SUBMIT SCOTUS AMICUS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF NEW YORK CONCEALED CARRY RESTRICTIONS.​

 

[libertysnake]

NYCLU, ACLU SUBMIT SCOTUS AMICUS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF NEW YORK CONCEALED CARRY RESTRICTIONS.​

I mean that just doesn't fly. If anything we've seen how our government does not protect innocent people that are conservative when antifa attacks them with bike locks in the middle of the fucking street / was bringing violence to Trump rallies.

If government cannot protect people, then if anything allowing people to be armed achieves that goal better than allowing an ineffectual police force to just sit there and watch people get their heads bashed in.

This is horse shit reasoning, and the ACLU is a horse shit organization that is liberal in nature first, and pro-rights second.