The difference being, my dog understands what the howling wolf means...
NYSRPA v. Bruen, NY 2A Case Supreme Court case and decision
- Thread starter ManualF150
- Start date
The entirety of this case has me intrigued due to its personal ramifications because of timing. As of the date of this post, i submitted my permit application 15 days ago. Per information provided by the monroe county clerk's office, it will take approximately 9-16 months for a decision, in which this case will be decided within that timeframe. If my assumptions are correct as to a timeline for reference checks along with all the other procedures involved my permit application it may be right smack dab in the middle or nearing the end of the process of approval or denial, and (possibly???) have an impact ( maybe? someone with greater knowledge of this SCOTUS case/ legal knowledge insert opinions HERE). The "wait and see" portion of this has now gotten scarily and wildly split between optimistic or hugely disappointing personally.
Timing seems not to be a strong point of mine .
"We now return you to your regularly scheduled postings "
Timing seems not to be a strong point of mine .
"We now return you to your regularly scheduled postings "
DrBleachCocktail
.44 mag
People wonder why folks lost faith in government. Why is congress trying to influence the Supreme Court?
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
Exclusive: Gun Owner At Heart Of NY Carry Case Speaks Out
bearingarms.com
Robin
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Yes, 6 months is a state mandate.
Robin
Robin
Shall not be infringed is a Federal mandate just saying....
NYS law does in fact say that they have 6 months to grant or deny your pistol permit application. Of course, now that more applicants are increasingly giving them shit over taking longer to do that, some pistol permit offices are playing even more games, like:
- making you wait months just for an appointment to walk in with your completed application, and
- claiming that the 6 month period actually doesn’t start UNTIL your “file” is actually placed on the judge’s desk
I remember all too well when I applied (about a decade ago). I turned my application in, and having read the law beforehand and knowing about the 6 month requirement, I inquired as to when I could expect a decision. All of the clerks in the office actually laughed out loud over my question. And then they told me what would happen. They said my file would “go on that big pile over there. Then, once it was logged in, it would be put in a storage box for about a year or so. Then, it would be pulled out, and then it would be mailed (snail mailed that is) individually to each agency,- first to the NYS State Police, and then once that whole group of files was returned to them, THEN the snail process would repeat: to the FBI; then to the NYS Dept. of Mental Health; then to my local PD; then back to their offices where it would be put on another pile to be sent to the judge for him to review…” And they told me I would likely hear something in 18 - 24 months! The process was deliberately designed to move as slowly as possible!
Coming from the private sector where we don’t take anywhere close to that long to do anything, I made the mistake of telling them something to the effect that that shit wouldn’t fly.
When I began calling them 1X/month to check the status, of course, - I made their shit list.
When the PPO finally sent it to my local PD, they actually included a separate note to them telling them to ”do an extra thorough investigation of me because as hard as I had been pushing them, - I must be planning to murder someone…” (Think about that logic for a moment: IF I were planning to kill someone, WHY would I plan to do it with a handgun registered to me,… especially since I could have done it with a shotgun obtained in a private sale, and untraceable to me in the first place???)
So, as it happened, the local PD did exactly that. They contacted me; my references; my ex wife; my minor children; some out of state relatives; my neighbors; they even checked my social media; - and they even investigated my business corporations. They even flagged my file for “special treatment”, and noted on the file that under no circumstances was I to be given access to look at my file if I asked to see it. (The only reason I know all of this is because I got the County Executive’s Legal Compliance lawyer to obtain my file and they then provided me with a full copy of it. And they confirmed to me that we have a legal right to see copies of our entire file.)
In the end I got my Unrestricted Permit in 8 months, while others were waiting up to two years. And no, I haven’t killed or even threatened ANYONE for that matter…
And when I moved here to Union County, NC, it took one or two days as I recall to obtain an individual handgun purchase permit (they run a NICS check on you right away, and then they will issue those permits that allow you to purchase a handgun to keep in your home if you don’t already have a concealed carry permit). They cost $5.00 each and you can get as many of them as you want. You can go to a shop or a gun show, and buy something that catches your eye using that permit, and take it home with you,- not at all like in NYS. Or you can also just show your CCP if you have that.
They issued my CCP here in about 4 or 5 WEEKS as I recall. No muss, no fuss. No NYS bullshit either.
I almost forgot to mention this: In Union County, they call people beginning on Friday AM to let them know that their permit is ready to be picked up, or they will mail it if you prefer, but almost everyone comes in and picks them up. And there is only one (1) clerk doing the work! And on average, she told me that they are issuing 200 CCW permits EVERY WEEK HERE! That is her issuing 40 permits per day!!!
Lastly, you don’t need to list every handgun on your permit (NC doesn’t track them like in NY). And my permit doesn’t even have a picture on it!
Just goes to show you what a bunch of shit NY’s handgun permit process is by comparison.
Last edited:
Robin
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Mine was six months to the day, which happened to be my birthday, so many moons ago. A fellow I was working with at the time handed his stuff in the same day I did and got his in about a month or so. Of course I gave him a WTF. He said, you know that blond with the desk outside the judges office? She's my next door neighbor.
Robin
Robin
ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
My NYS permit took 5 or 6 months if I recall correctly. Most of that time was waiting to get my finger printing/application submission appointment with the sheriff's office. Once I got that done it was just the references paperwork (fortunately mine filled the forms out and got them back to me quickly). Once I had all that submitted, it was about another month or so. I ended up getting the worst judge in my county though. I went out and bought my first handgun the day I received my permit, only to wait another month for my judge to sign it, lol.
Here in Utah, you can purchase and possess a handgun, no permit of any kind needed. It used to be you could also open carry here without a permit, but the weird thing was you had to complete two actions with the gun to load it for it to be legal (ie. racking the slide and pulling the trigger counted as the two motions) so you couldn't carry it openly with one in the pipe. I think that all went away recently when they passed Constitutional Carry here.
I got my CCW permit here in about 4 weeks. You have to take a class, which is more about legalities, have your photo taken and finger prints for the FBI. I took a class that did all of this in class for $50. All I had to do was drop my forms off to the Division of Public Safety and pay another $50. We were told to pay with a check because once that check showed up as being cashed, that is when the 60 day time frame for getting your permit started.
Once you have your CCW, you don't go through NICS when you purchase a gun. You fill out your 4473, but that just gets filed with the ffl. The ffl runs your CCW with DPS, then you take your gun home. I guess DPS runs monthly background checks on permit holders.
The permit is valid for 5 years, so you have to renew it, but that is painless. I think you have up to a year after it lapses to start the renewal process before you'd have to start all over. Not that the permit is required anymore thanks to Constitutional Carry (I am very happy for this). I still like to have the permit, however, for the ease of buying new guns as well as to have it for other states or encounters with LEO.
Here in Utah, you can purchase and possess a handgun, no permit of any kind needed. It used to be you could also open carry here without a permit, but the weird thing was you had to complete two actions with the gun to load it for it to be legal (ie. racking the slide and pulling the trigger counted as the two motions) so you couldn't carry it openly with one in the pipe. I think that all went away recently when they passed Constitutional Carry here.
I got my CCW permit here in about 4 weeks. You have to take a class, which is more about legalities, have your photo taken and finger prints for the FBI. I took a class that did all of this in class for $50. All I had to do was drop my forms off to the Division of Public Safety and pay another $50. We were told to pay with a check because once that check showed up as being cashed, that is when the 60 day time frame for getting your permit started.
Once you have your CCW, you don't go through NICS when you purchase a gun. You fill out your 4473, but that just gets filed with the ffl. The ffl runs your CCW with DPS, then you take your gun home. I guess DPS runs monthly background checks on permit holders.
The permit is valid for 5 years, so you have to renew it, but that is painless. I think you have up to a year after it lapses to start the renewal process before you'd have to start all over. Not that the permit is required anymore thanks to Constitutional Carry (I am very happy for this). I still like to have the permit, however, for the ease of buying new guns as well as to have it for other states or encounters with LEO.
Hopefully, this new lawsuit strikes down all of the may issue bullshit that goes on in NY and the other 7 (?) states.
I’m really hoping that SCOTUS crams it up their asses. And if that traitorous prick Roberts ends up on the losing end of a 5-4 pro 2A decision that will just be a bonus as far as I am concerned.
I’m really hoping that SCOTUS crams it up their asses. And if that traitorous prick Roberts ends up on the losing end of a 5-4 pro 2A decision that will just be a bonus as far as I am concerned.
nortatoga
.338 Win Mag
You are correct!!
If Roberts goes with the Lib's that would mean Thomas assigns who writes the opinion ( maybe himself ? ) so that may not be a bad thing???
Last edited:
spat
.700 Nitro Express
By law they only have to make a decision in 6 months.
If you insist, the decision is "no".
nortatoga
.338 Win Mag
Bless your heart!!!
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
i hoping the same with the bonus of Open Carry no permit needed .. that would really shove it up NYS ASS ..
FrankenCub
.338 Win Mag
You got some pretty wet dreams lol.
I'm thinking by time SCOTUS is done with this we'll have more restrictions.
Few people, including lawyers who should know better, fully appreciate the absurdly bureaucratic factors that judges fixate on instead of the constitutional questions plainly laid out before them. Add to that the blinders many if not most judges put on when faced with a case that would require them to issue an opinion they really don't want to issue often results in equally absurd opinions.
Today, I listened to the oral argument in Taveras v. NYC where two of the judges made it pretty clear that they were going to play a variation on the game the 9th circuit court of appeals played in Young v. Hawaii, en banc. Two of the three judges, at least, are going to ignore the fact that Taveras was arrested once in 2011 but never charged with a crime and that arrest was the sole basis for the denial of his license to possess a long gun in his home. They will instead say that Taveras is making a purely facial challenge and there is some contrived circumstance where a person who has been recently arrested can be denied a license and since there is a "set of circumstances" where the denial of a license is constitutional, the denial of Taveras' license is likewise constitutional.
In that sense, the justices in NYSRPA v. Bruen did the petitioners a favor by changing the question presented from a facial challenge to an as-applied challenge. Namely, did the denial of the petitioners' applications for concealed carry licenses violate the Second Amendment?
I am no fan of concealed carry but the Heller opinion left open the door for an exception to prohibitions on concealed carry by travelers while actually on a journey. Someone traveling to and from work is not a traveler on a journey. There was a 19th-century case where a shopkeeper walking from his residence on the outskirts of a city to his shop in town tried to avail himself of the traveler's loophole and lost.
The NRA lawyers could have argued that the concealed carry licenses the petitioners have do not allow them to carry their handguns concealed while actually on a journey and therefore the denial of their licenses violated the Second Amendment.
But they chose not to do that. Instead, the NRA lawyers simply said that the denial of the petitioners concealed carry licenses violated the Second Amendment but instead of making the legal argument as to why, they turned around and argued in support of the question they originally presented, a facial challenge not to concealed carry but to carrying a handgun in public. And Oh!, by the way, the "proper cause" requirement is racist.
This is where those bureaucratic factors come into play -- Supreme Court Rules 24 and 14.1(a). These rules limit the scope of the case to the question presented. The justices did not grant the cert petition on the question as to whether or not there is a right to carry a handgun in public. They granted and limited the question presented to the denial of the petitioners' applications for concealed carry licenses.
Chief Justice Roberts along with Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch have criticized their fellow justices for going beyond the question presented, saying "parties may not change the substance of the question presented once granted, and "The Court will consider an “unpresented question” only in “the most exceptional cases”"
To complicate matters even more, instead of the New York government respondents limiting the scope of their brief to the question presented, they went beyond concealed carry and argued that the right to bear arms, both openly and concealed, is limited to rural, unpopulated places where one is unlikely to encounter other human beings.
The NRA's brief on the merits also argued that the "proper cause" requirement for a concealed carry permit is racist. That is even further removed from the question presented in this case and was not even a claim made by the NYSRPA in the courts below.
But wait, there's less. Although both sides did not comply with the SCOTUS rules, the Court does have jurisdiction to decide at least the Second Amendment claim made by both sides regarding whether or not the Second Amendment applies to populated areas.
The best the NYSRPA could hope for in regards to the claim of racism would be a remand back to the lower courts but since the NYSRPA never raised it in the lower courts, the justices are unlikely to even discuss it, let alone remand the case.
Will Justices Breyer, Kagan or Sotomayor bring up the SCOTUS Rules and remind their fellow justices what they have said in the past about going beyond the question presented to the Court?
I have no idea. We'll find out either in oral argument or in the published opinion.
Today, I listened to the oral argument in Taveras v. NYC where two of the judges made it pretty clear that they were going to play a variation on the game the 9th circuit court of appeals played in Young v. Hawaii, en banc. Two of the three judges, at least, are going to ignore the fact that Taveras was arrested once in 2011 but never charged with a crime and that arrest was the sole basis for the denial of his license to possess a long gun in his home. They will instead say that Taveras is making a purely facial challenge and there is some contrived circumstance where a person who has been recently arrested can be denied a license and since there is a "set of circumstances" where the denial of a license is constitutional, the denial of Taveras' license is likewise constitutional.
In that sense, the justices in NYSRPA v. Bruen did the petitioners a favor by changing the question presented from a facial challenge to an as-applied challenge. Namely, did the denial of the petitioners' applications for concealed carry licenses violate the Second Amendment?
I am no fan of concealed carry but the Heller opinion left open the door for an exception to prohibitions on concealed carry by travelers while actually on a journey. Someone traveling to and from work is not a traveler on a journey. There was a 19th-century case where a shopkeeper walking from his residence on the outskirts of a city to his shop in town tried to avail himself of the traveler's loophole and lost.
The NRA lawyers could have argued that the concealed carry licenses the petitioners have do not allow them to carry their handguns concealed while actually on a journey and therefore the denial of their licenses violated the Second Amendment.
But they chose not to do that. Instead, the NRA lawyers simply said that the denial of the petitioners concealed carry licenses violated the Second Amendment but instead of making the legal argument as to why, they turned around and argued in support of the question they originally presented, a facial challenge not to concealed carry but to carrying a handgun in public. And Oh!, by the way, the "proper cause" requirement is racist.
This is where those bureaucratic factors come into play -- Supreme Court Rules 24 and 14.1(a). These rules limit the scope of the case to the question presented. The justices did not grant the cert petition on the question as to whether or not there is a right to carry a handgun in public. They granted and limited the question presented to the denial of the petitioners' applications for concealed carry licenses.
Chief Justice Roberts along with Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch have criticized their fellow justices for going beyond the question presented, saying "parties may not change the substance of the question presented once granted, and "The Court will consider an “unpresented question” only in “the most exceptional cases”"
To complicate matters even more, instead of the New York government respondents limiting the scope of their brief to the question presented, they went beyond concealed carry and argued that the right to bear arms, both openly and concealed, is limited to rural, unpopulated places where one is unlikely to encounter other human beings.
The NRA's brief on the merits also argued that the "proper cause" requirement for a concealed carry permit is racist. That is even further removed from the question presented in this case and was not even a claim made by the NYSRPA in the courts below.
But wait, there's less. Although both sides did not comply with the SCOTUS rules, the Court does have jurisdiction to decide at least the Second Amendment claim made by both sides regarding whether or not the Second Amendment applies to populated areas.
The best the NYSRPA could hope for in regards to the claim of racism would be a remand back to the lower courts but since the NYSRPA never raised it in the lower courts, the justices are unlikely to even discuss it, let alone remand the case.
Will Justices Breyer, Kagan or Sotomayor bring up the SCOTUS Rules and remind their fellow justices what they have said in the past about going beyond the question presented to the Court?
I have no idea. We'll find out either in oral argument or in the published opinion.
Cavalry
.308 Win
I got mine around that time frame. Less than a month wait, but my county ha always had a reputation of moving things along. My wife 15 years later got hers, about 5 weeks. There is currently a backlog I believe they are at 2-3 months.
That is certainly an interesting thought. Especially if they do something that makes it uniform across the entire state, - no more NYC crap that they are special. Can you imagine if people suddenly had the absolute right to openly carry in NYC?
It would be absolutely wild times, with the libs losing their shit!
Phazer
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Interesting? Sure.
But, it would appear to be tactically inappropriate to openly carry a firearm in a potentially hostile area where you are outnumbered and could have your defensive firearm taken from you. (Numbers always win.)
That must be why soldiers carry their battle rifles in a purse when they are in the field seeking out the enemy.
If you are afraid of somebody taking your gun away from you then you really shouldn't oughta be carrying a gun in the first place.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Soldiers who are behind enemy lines alone or in small teams take great care to conceal their weapons, and their uniforms, and everything else.
If they fail they end up dead fast.
Marksmanship is only a minor part of sniper training...
Phazer
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Soldiers? Battle rifles?
Are you serious?
We're civilians interested in protecting ourselves and our families in potentially dangerous situations. We're not soldiers, with squadmates, in a war zone. There is still a difference, for now.
I train very regularly with my defensive firearms. I'm quite comfortable with them and I can safely, and appropriately, deploy them if necessary. That said, I also understand situational awareness. I have no desire to open carry a pistol and "advertise" to everyone in my vicinity that I am carrying a firearm.
I have no interest in anybody knowing that I am armed. Why would I want to give a small group of bad guys an open invitation to jump me and take my pistol? Even the strongest of us, which is not me, can be overcome by multiple assailants and have their openly carried firearm taken from them.
Concealed carry is the most effective defensive carry position. Mainly, concealed carry prevents a hostile person from easily targeting a law-abiding citizen's firearm. And....concealed carry forces criminals to wonder if a potential victim is armed. So, on a population basis in the civilian environment, concealed carry is a force multiplier. After all, strength is not based only on what power you have, but also on what power your enemy thinks you have.
Last edited:
Moral Turpitude is...
“[M]oral turpitude is evidenced by an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which according to the accepted standards of the time a man owes to his fellowman or to society in general.” US v. Zimmerman, 71 F. Supp. 534, 537 (E.D. Pa. 1947)
For over 400 years under American and English law before Independence, a man has a duty to inform his fellow man that he is armed.
From 1603 to 1825, English law had a simple remedy for a concealed carrier who killed someone, even in self-defense.
The concealed carrier was executed.
There was no possibility of a pardon or leniency of any kind (what was once known as "The Benefit of Clergy.").
Laws punishing concealed carry date back to at least ca 1260 in England where the punishment was life in prison.
On the plus side, one did not live for very long in an English prison in those days.
Despite nearly 800 years of American and English laws punishing concealed carry, some would have you believe that the framers of the 2nd and 14th Amendments and those who voted to enact those amendments into law believed that acts of moral turpitude, specifically concealed carry, are protected by those amendments.
"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.
In what world does the average street criminal actively look for an armed person to attack?
Apparently in your perception of the world. That is reason enough for you not to be allowed to even possess a firearm, let alone carry one concealed in public.
"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
I'm wondering why the difficulty interpreting plain English! No hidden words or obfuscation... Written plain as day, and with intent!
Yet, the scrutiny allowing to be applied to so called "RIGHTS" is the entirety of the issue!
If scrutiny is applied and constraints used, then they aren't RIGHTS...
That is all!
Have a nice day.
I'm wondering why the difficulty interpreting plain English! No hidden words or obfuscation... Written plain as day, and with intent!
Yet, the scrutiny allowing to be applied to so called "RIGHTS" is the entirety of the issue!
If scrutiny is applied and constraints used, then they aren't RIGHTS...
That is all!
Have a nice day.
nortatoga
.338 Win Mag
Was the Bill of Rights Meant to Apply to the States? | Tenth Amendment Center
Most people have never read the preamble to the Bill of Rights. In fact, a lot of people don’t even know it includes one.
tenthamendmentcenter.com
Was the Bill of Rights originally intended to apply to the state governments?
Some people argue that it was. They concoct some interesting arguments based on “rules of construction” or approach it through various philosophies of rights and liberty they attribute to the founders. But there simply exists no founding era evidence that Congress or the state ratifiers intended for the protections included in the Bill of Rights to bind state governments. In fact, doing so would essentially create a federal veto over state laws, a massive expansion of central government authority – the exact opposite of the stated purpose of including a bill of rights.
Most people have never read the preamble to the Bill of Rights. In fact, a lot of people don’t even know it includes one. The preamble makes the purpose of the Bill of Rights very clear.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
The words “its powers” clearly refer back to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was intended to “prevent misconstruction or abuse” of the Constitution’s powers as exercised through “the government” – the federal government. Notice the word government is not plural. The Bill of Rights makes no mention of state governments. In fact, the state ratifying conventions had no intention of restricting their state’s own powers. They already had state constitutions to do that job.
Imagine if somebody from England went before a British court and argued that the Second Amendment gave him the right to own a gun. The judge would laugh him out of the courtroom. The Bill of Rights does not govern in England. Despite the fact that an Englishman has an unalienable right to self-defense, the U.S. Bill of Rights does not prohibit the British government from infringing upon it. England exists as a separate political sphere. A state is no different. Although it has entered a union with the other states as defined by the Constitution, it remains an independent political society, giving up only the powers delegated. Absent specific delegation of power to the federal government authorizing it to police states and force them to abide by itsunderstanding of rights, the power simply does not exist.
Chief Justice John Marshall was an unapologetic advocate for national power, but he explains the limits of the Bill of Rights beautifully in his opinion in Barron v. Baltimore.
Interestingly, when James Madison introduced the Bill of Rights to Congress, he proposed that the equal right of conscience, freedom of the press and the right to a trial by jury should also apply to the states.
Congress explicitly rejected applying those particular amendments to the states, making it abundantly clear that the Bill of Rights was only intended to limit federal power.
Many will agree with this analysis, but argue that the 14th Amendment changed all that and incorporated the protections included in Bill of Rights on state governments.
Stop ignoring History!!
Uninformed and Compliant
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Point of order:
That law was passed to protect the nobility. Commoners don't get to hurt their betters.
That piece of context matters.
I'd consider a more basic argument about concealed carry -
At what point does the State, or anyone for that matter, have any standing
to compel a woman of good character
to ADVERTISE the fact that she is unarmed?
That's what CC bans do. And the concept is ridiculous; nobody can delegate such a power over someone else, because it isn't a right that any of us have. I cannot compel my potential victim to ADVERTISE that they are defenseless.
We aren't England. Rights are innate properties, here. Rights are divine properties of a King that are handed out as favors, there, and so forth. English context matters, some, but the nature of "we ALL have divine rights" changes that context significantly. If a king is trying to rape you, in this country, you kill the son of a bitch. That isn't legal to do in England, and never was. Common Trash is not allowed to stop a rape with force. Can you imagine? A lowly peasant hurting Noble Blood? Preposterous.
Context matters. And THAT IS the context of "concealed carry was illegal in England".
As I said, point of order, nothing more.
Cheers,