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

[dsdmmat]

BTW

M14 Ultimate Battle rifle, M16 Matel Gun
1911 manly, Glock not so much
45 ACP God’s caliber, 9mm Hitler’s caliber.

1911 in 9mm blasphemy
Did I do that right

/sarcasm

 

[cgrutt]

So, Im standing in a deli while oc'ing when the bad guy comes in to rob the place. His watchman came in a few minutes before him and is watching me from a concealed position. This makes me the first target when things go south.

If i wasnt advertising i was armed they wouldnt be the wiser and that gives me a tactical advatage to decide if i need to stay off the radar or dedend myself.

Some will argue that oc'ing will deter a criminal, and that may be true in some circumstances, but imo, not when dealing with irrational individuals or groups of people.

Also better have a good retention holster and/or retention combatives to avoid an opportunistic gun grab while your paying for your coffee; also invites confrontations from lefties who have no intention of grabbing your gun but don't think you ought to be carrying either; also may create stress/intimidation from bystanders who may be uncomfortable around guns and unwarranted calls to 911/interactions with law enforcement; may put you at risk from friendly fire in event situation arises where leo/other carriers don't and/or can't distinguish good guy with gun from bad guy with gun; but yeah, losing tactical advantage is probably number one reason there are many others....

 

[dsdmmat]

So, Im standing in a deli while oc'ing when the bad guy comes in to rob the place. His watchman came in a few minutes before him and is watching me from a concealed position. This makes me the first target when things go south.

If i wasnt advertising i was armed they wouldnt be the wiser and that gives me a tactical advatage to decide if i need to stay off the radar or dedend myself.

Some will argue that oc'ing will deter a criminal, and that may be true in some circumstances, but imo, not when dealing with irrational individuals or groups of people.

Ever see the video where the CC guy figured he would end a shooting in the Walmart type store and started to work his way towards the shooter, not noticing the shooter’s wife/girlfriend entering the store behind him? the CC guy who thinks he has a tactical advantage is shot in the head by the female accomplice who had stopped to pick up a shopping cart. Your CC gun is for you to get you and yours out of a sticky situation, not save the day.

 

[FrankenCub]

So, Im standing in a deli while oc'ing when the bad guy comes in to rob the place. His watchman came in a few minutes before him and is watching me from a concealed position. This makes me the first target when things go south.

If i wasnt advertising i was armed they wouldnt be the wiser and that gives me a tactical advatage to decide if i need to stay off the radar or dedend myself.

Some will argue that oc'ing will deter a criminal, and that may be true in some circumstances, but imo, not when dealing with irrational individuals or groups of people.

This is exactly my point also. Instead some want to pick a cherry when they should be looking for oranges.
Some places I deliver, the last thing I need to do is advertise. I'm not a police officer or armed security with backup.

 

[Jchrisls]

Ever see the video where the CC guy figured he would end a shooting in the Walmart type store and started to work his way towards the shooter, not noticing the shooter’s wife/girlfriend entering the store behind him? the CC guy who thinks he has a tactical advantage is shot in the head by the female accomplice who had stopped to pick up a shopping cart. Your CC gun is for you to get you and yours out of a sticky situation, not save the day.

Slightly off topic i know, but i did see that particular video. I agree with your statement regarding what your CC is for, not saving the day, but i would also say he lost his tactical advantage when he lost his situational awareness, disregarding others with potentially tunnel vision towards the initial aggressor. This additionally caused his undoing. Also, involving yourself in what could be a 3rd party encounter is asking for a ton of problems. You have no idea the entirety of what's at hand or occurring thereby opening up proverbially pandoras box.

 

[Celt]

Ever see the video where the CC guy figured he would end a shooting in the Walmart type store and started to work his way towards the shooter, not noticing the shooter’s wife/girlfriend entering the store behind him? the CC guy who thinks he has a tactical advantage is shot in the head by the female accomplice who had stopped to pick up a shopping cart. Your CC gun is for you to get you and yours out of a sticky situation, not save the day.

Yep, saw it. And most times these criminals do work in teams. The scenario i explained was in a force on force class i attended, fyi i came out "alive".

 

[Rap]

It sounds as though the open carry advocates are fearful of not knowing who around them is armed. Perhaps they should simply assume that everyone is armed.
I am not interested in advertising my capabilities. There is no tactical advantage in providing advance notice to those who would do me harm, about the means by which I may neutralize their threat.
I agree that for those who are inclined to walk around open carrying, the law should allow for them to do so. However equating open carry with a higher degree of honor or courage is laughable.

 

[CaliforniaOpenCarry]

Well, it was impossible to take a deep dive into the ankle-deep Reply Brief filed by the NRA in NYSRPA v. Bruen. The brief barely mentioned concealed carry but where it did, it made the argument that concealed carry is not a right and can be banned.

 

[Acer-m14]

Maybe SCOTUS will rule that shooting people is not a Right and will ban it ..

 

[cgrutt]

Well, it was impossible to take a deep dive into the ankle-deep Reply Brief filed by the NRA in NYSRPA v. Bruen. The brief barely mentioned concealed carry but where it did, it made the argument that concealed carry is not a right and can be banned.

So why exactly do you feel the need to partake in NY Gun Forum? Don't get it (well maybe I do but Forum rules precludes me from saying so). One thing good about NY its not CA. Not yet anyway...

 

[CaliforniaOpenCarry]

So why exactly do you feel the need to partake in NY Gun Forum? Don't get it (well maybe I do but Forum rules precludes me from saying so). One thing good about NY its not CA. Not yet anyway...

I was invited by several people some time ago when they left a similar NY forum.

As a rule, I don't waste much time on gun.nuts forums but since my lawsuit is waiting for SCOTUS to decide what it is going to do with Young v. Hawaii, I thought I would test the waters to see if this forum is different from the rest.

It isn't.


Chief Justice Roberts said concealed carry is not a 2A right.
Justice Thomas said concealed carry is not a 2A right.
Justice Alito said concealed carry is not a 2A right.
Justice Breyer said concealed carry is not a 2A right.
Justice Sotomayor said there is no individual 2A right.
Justice Kavanaugh said concealed carry is not a 2A right.

That leaves three justices who have not expressed an opinion on concealed carry, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Barrett.

It will take the vote of five justices to hold that concealed carry is a right protected by the Second Amendment.

When told to put up or shut up by the justices when they rewrote the question presented in NYSRPA v. Bruen and limited the question to concealed carry. The NRA lawyers, in their main brief and reply brief, did not even try to make the case that the denial of the two petitioners applications for concealed carry licenses violated the Second Amendment,

Instead, every historical case and historical authority they cited, except for one lone case involving a sword cane, upheld prohibitions on concealed carry. Not because Open Carr was allowed, but because concealed carry is evil.

 

[cgrutt]

Yeah, shall not be infringed. Pretty simple isn't it?

 

[Acer-m14]

The Constitution 2A say .. shall not infringe .. they all got it wrong ..

 

[Acer-m14]

50 yrs ,, 100 yrs .. 300 yrs of precedence .. it was all wrong .. at the start ..

 

[cgrutt]

Supposedly fighting for our rights yet feels concealed carry is morally corrupt... yeah no thanks! Personally I think you're a troll but good luck with your lawsuit if legit.

 

[CaliforniaOpenCarry]

50 yrs ,, 100 yrs .. 300 yrs of precedence .. it was all wrong .. at the start ..

The prohibitions on concealed carry date back to at least ca 1260 in England.

 

[spat]

Concealed carriers invariably say they are afraid to Open Carry because someone might take their gun away from them.

This shows two things. The first is that concealed carriers speak before they think. The second is that if you are a coward then you shouldn't oughta be carrying a gun.

A gang banger in NYC who saw you open carrying would shoot you from behind with his one stolen gun, and then he would have 2 guns.

You would never have known you were even in danger.

 

[spat]

The prohibitions on concealed carry date back to at least ca 1260 in England.

Concealed carry has been a fundamental human right since we first climbed down from the trees.

The fact that nearly every government in history has made it a priority to infringe on that right says a lot about the nature of government.

 

[BerettaGuy]

Well, it was impossible to take a deep dive into the ankle-deep Reply Brief filed by the NRA in NYSRPA v. Bruen. The brief barely mentioned concealed carry but where it did, it made the argument that concealed carry is not a right and can be banned.

This is what I have been trying to articulate for years. It seems that only the people from outside NY understand that the NY State CCW Permit scheme or the (Sullivan Law) is unmitigated infringement. NYSPRA doesn't get it. SCOPE didn't get it. Many NY CCW permit holders don't get it. IT is time to review the Catch 22 movie? The law is written in such a manner that YES Ny highly regulates Carrying Concealed. It has been doing so for over 100 years and for 100 years NY has been infringing on the right to purchase, own or even touch a handgun unless you have a Permit to Carry Concealed, and therein lies the rub. This is where the NYSPRA lawsuit missed the mark. IN NY PURCHASING AND POSSESSING A HANDGUN SHOULD BE NO DIFFERENT THAN PURCHASING OR HANDLING A LONG GUN. Now if you want to CCW then get a permit. New York gun advocates seem to think that all the other states are like NY Sullivan laws. NEWS FLASH! THEY ARE NOT!

 

[nortatoga]

Before the McDonald v Chicago case, FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions. in 2010 State Constitutions were the law of the land! I suggest some here read what these State RTKABA had to say about Concealed Weapons.

Second Amendment Foundation

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is dedicated to promoting a better understanding about our Constitutional heritage to privately own and possess firearms. To that end, we carry on many educational and legal action programs designed to better inform the public about the gun control debate.

www.saf.org

And I know some will say the 2A was incorporated by the 14th Amendment, well yes and no.

14th Amendment

www.law.cornell.edu

Did Congress ever enforce it on the States?

Section 5.​

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

 

[Celt]

I was invited by several people some time ago when they left a similar NY forum.

As a rule, I don't waste much time on gun.nuts forums but since my lawsuit is waiting for SCOTUS to decide what it is going to do with Young v. Hawaii, I thought I would test the waters to see if this forum is different from the rest.

It isn't.


Chief Justice Roberts said concealed carry is not a 2A right.
Justice Thomas said concealed carry is not a 2A right.
Justice Alito said concealed carry is not a 2A right.
Justice Breyer said concealed carry is not a 2A right.
Justice Sotomayor said there is no individual 2A right.
Justice Kavanaugh said concealed carry is not a 2A right.

That leaves three justices who have not expressed an opinion on concealed carry, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Barrett.

It will take the vote of five justices to hold that concealed carry is a right protected by the Second Amendment.

When told to put up or shut up by the justices when they rewrote the question presented in NYSRPA v. Bruen and limited the question to concealed carry. The NRA lawyers, in their main brief and reply brief, did not even try to make the case that the denial of the two petitioners applications for concealed carry licenses violated the Second Amendment,

Instead, every historical case and historical authority they cited, except for one lone case involving a sword cane, upheld prohibitions on concealed carry. Not because Open Carr was allowed, but because concealed carry is evil.

Hmm, so people that are passionate about the 2a are gun.nuts? Thats the problem, and what keeps gun owners divided. People like yourself consider anyone that believes the words "shall not be infringed" mean what they say are "nuts". Thats a problem.

To your point about the case, i get where you are coming from but most people arent going to listen to your legal perspective when youre being insulting or talking down to people.

 

[CaliforniaOpenCarry]

This is what I have been trying to articulate for years. It seems that only the people from outside NY understand that the NY State CCW Permit scheme or the (Sullivan Law) is unmitigated infringement. NYSPRA doesn't get it. SCOPE didn't get it. Many NY CCW permit holders don't get it. IT is time to review the Catch 22 movie? The law is written in such a manner that YES Ny highly regulates Carrying Concealed. It has been doing so for over 100 years and for 100 years NY has been infringing on the right to purchase, own or even touch a handgun unless you have a Permit to Carry Concealed, and therein lies the rub. This is where the NYSPRA lawsuit missed the mark. IN NY PURCHASING AND POSSESSING A HANDGUN SHOULD BE NO DIFFERENT THAN PURCHASING OR HANDLING A LONG GUN. Now if you want to CCW then get a permit. New York gun advocates seem to think that all the other states are like NY Sullivan laws. NEWS FLASH! THEY ARE NOT!

NYSRPA is the official state organization of the NRA for New York. CRPA is the official state organization of the NRA for California. It is the NRA that is funding the lawsuits for both states. Back in 2010, when I was younger and a great deal more naive about the NRA, I tried to persuade the NRA to file a lawsuit challenging California's 1967 Loaded Open Carry ban.

The NRA refused of course, but I discovered that when the NRA funds a case, the lawyers have to pay the NRA back if they win.

That means that those NRA lawyers have a financial incentive to lose cases.

California's prohibitions on concealed carry date back to statehood in 1850. One of the first acts passed by the California legislature decreed how the $20 fine for concealed carry was to be allocated. $20 was a lot of money in those days. Those who could not afford to pay the $20 had to spend 20 days in jail. California law quickly changed from "fine or imprisonment" to both "fine and imprisonment" and the penalty for concealed carry likewise increased as to both. The Act of 1923 made concealed carry without a license a hard felony punished by five years in state prison, with no possibility of parole. Off the top of my head, I don't remember what the fine was but it was substantial, especially in 1924 when the California Supreme Court upheld the law.

Today, concealed carry without a license is what is known as a "wobbler." It can be prosecuted as a felony if the handgun is loaded and the handgun does not appear in the DROS (Dealer Record of Sale System). But even a misdemeanor conviction for unlicensed concealed carry of a handgun, regardless of whether or not it is loaded and regardless of whether or not one has in his possession matching ammunition, results in a 10-year prohibition on one's right to possess any firearm if the handgun was carried within 1,000 feet of a K-12 public or private school, and is not unloaded and in a fully enclosed, locked container excluding the console or glove box of a motor vehicle. That exception was added in the late 1980s or early 1990s. Prior to that, a handgun had to be openly carried in a belt holster, inside and outside of a motor vehicle.

The California court of appeals has upheld convictions for concealed carry within 1,000 feet of a K-12 public or private school even in cases where it was not proven that the handgun was carried in the Gun-Free School Zone. "Probably" was good enough for the court of appeals in one case. In another case, the California court of appeals upheld a conviction not because the handgun was within 1,000 feet of a K-12 school but because the rear bumper of the automobile was just over the line. That "expanded" the school zone the additional length of the car. The California court of appeals upheld a conviction for the possession of a handgun in a GFSZ that was carried on private property, an exempt place under the California GFSZ because there was a public easement across the property even though the law, as written, makes no mention of prohibiting the possession of handguns in public places. The law explicitly excludes commercial businesses and parking lots (as well as residential property). Businesses are "public places" according to the California courts.

Long guns are exempt from the California GFSZ Act of 1995. And according to the plain text of a bill that was passed after my appeal was filed, it is still legal to openly carry an unloaded long gun within 1,000 feet of a K-12 public or private school (but not on the grounds of the school) but illegal to carry an unloaded long gun outside of the GFSZ unless one is a licensed hunter traveling to and from his hunting expedition.

I'm sure that was not the intention of the legislature but our elected officials, like the voters who put them into office, are morons.

And, of course, both the California courts and the 9th circuit court of appeals have held that concealed carry, in and out of a motor vehicle, is a crime of moral turpitude. and even for a misdemeanor concealed carry conviction.

Despite all of this and more, the NRA is funding its third lawsuit, in which the CRPA is a plaintiff, and which argues that it is constitutional to ban Open Carry. And since California has banned Open Carry, that somehow entitles them to concealed carry permits. The first two lawsuits were lost in the district court and on appeal. The third lawsuit was lost in the district court and is pending before the court of appeals. Despite my lawsuit being a pure Open Carry lawsuit, and a lawsuit not limited to handguns, the CRPA designated by case as a "related case" which means that a decision in the CRPA concealed carry appeal has to wait until there is a decision in my appeal.

My appeal is on hold pending the SCOTUS decision on whether or not to grant the cert petition in Young v. Hawaii.

It seems to me that the most significant difference in regards to handguns between New York and California is, according to our state supreme court, the possession of a firearm (including handguns) is in itself an innocent act whereas, in New York, the possession of a handgun is by default a criminal act. And no, NYSRPA v. Bruen does not challenge that.

California has always made a distinction between Open Carry and concealed carry. Under California law, it is by default illegal to carry a handgun concealed everywhere including in one's home, unless he has a license to carry the handgun concealed, or he lives in a place where California Penal Code section 25850 (the ban on carrying loaded firearms) does not apply.

PC 25850 applies to all incorporated cities and in unincorporated county territory where the discharge of a firearm is prohibited. The Penal Code (and no California code section for that matter) tells us under what circumstances the discharge of a firearm is prohibited pursuant to the statute. As I argued in my opening brief, it is always legal to discharge a firearm to prevent a murder and it is always illegal to discharge a firearm to commit a murder. Either interpretation renders the statute nugatory which in turn is a textbook case of void for vagueness.

My lawsuit includes a vagueness claim which I narrowed on appeal to exclude incorporated cities because if I had not then the court of appeals could have simply struck down the loaded Open Carry ban on vagueness grounds without ever reaching my Second Amendment challenge.

November 30th marks the beginning of my 11th year of litigation. I am the first and only person to file a lawsuit challenging California's bans on openly carrying loaded and unloaded handguns, rifles, and shotguns.

I announced my intention to file my lawsuit on May 26th, 2011. My appeal was filed on May 27th, 2014. Year in and year out, 62% of appeals filed in the 9th circuit court of appeals are disposed of without briefing or oral argument. In the 20 years prior to my arguing my appeal before my three-judge panel, there were only a few in which someone, such as myself, who is not and has never been an attorney was allowed to argue his case pro se before the 9th circuit court of appeals.

By the way, the district court judge (now retired) who issued the final judgment in favor of the State of California compared firearms to crystal meth and people who carry firearms to dealers in crystal meth.

In all of that time, the only death threats, threats of violence, and personal attacks I have received have come from concealed carriers and concealed carrier wannabes.

 

[CaliforniaOpenCarry]

To your point about the case, i get where you are coming from but most people arent going to listen to your legal perspective when youre being insulting or talking down to people.

Concealed carriers and concealed carrier wannabes are not people.

 

[Celt]

Concealed carriers and concealed carrier wannabes are not people.

Why do you say that? What is your logic for that?

 

[BerettaGuy]

The NRA refused of course, but I discovered that when the NRA funds a case, the lawyers have to pay the NRA back if they win.

That means that those NRA lawyers have a financial incentive to lose cases.

Please explain! This makes no sense.
Part of the reason for this particular lawsuit is that every arrest for violation of the Sullivan Act has been plea-bargained down to as low as community service or time served. Therefore, without a trial and conviction, there can be no appeal. (even though it take millions to run it to the Supreme court)

No conviction, no appeal, no Supreme Court review.
NOw a major defense for NY State is. Your honors, this law has been in effect since 1911 and the people of New York have not only come to live with it, they demand it. Why else would they not appeal if for over 100 years?

 

[BerettaGuy]

t seems to me that the most significant difference in regards to handguns between New York and California is, according to our state supreme court, the possession of a firearm (including handguns) is in itself an innocent act whereas, in New York, the possession of a handgun is by default a criminal act. And no, NYSRPA v. Bruen does not challenge that.

Good analogy but in NY the possession of a handgun, without a Permit is by default a criminal act and yes NYSRPA v. Bruen does not challenge that. That is why I don't have much hope for any change because of this case. If the NY Sullivan law was declared null and void, NYSPRA would be out of business.

 

[Grimscale]

Why do you say that? What is your logic for that?

It's quite simple.

After reading all the bullshit against concealed carry I have come to the conclusion that a certain member is really a gun grabber in disguise. He might as well be on the NRA dole at this point, since he "defends" our Rights about as effectively.

And then calling us "not people". Typical behavior for a closet tyrant. If someone doesn't agree with you they are not people and can be killed with no remorse.

This person is making all of the same arguments our own pseudo-government is to try to restrict our 2nd Amendment Rights.

 

[BerettaGuy]

t seems to me that the most significant difference in regards to handguns between New York and California is, according to our state supreme court, the possession of a firearm (including handguns) is in itself an innocent act whereas, in New York, the possession of a handgun is by default a criminal act. And no, NYSRPA v. Bruen does not challenge that.

Good analogy but in NY the possession of a handgun, without a Permit is by default a criminal act and yes NYSRPA v. Bruen does not challenge that. That is why I don't have much hope for any change because of this case. If the NY Sullivan law was declared null and void, NYSPRA would be out of business.

 

[Celt]

It's quite simple.

After reading all the bullshit against concealed carry I have come to the conclusion that a certain member is really a gun grabber in disguise. He might as well be on the NRA dole at this point, since he "defends" our Rights about as effectively.

And then calling us "not people". Typical behavior for a closet tyrant. If someone doesn't agree with you they are not people and can be killed with no remorse.

This person is making all of the same arguments our own pseudo-government is to try to restrict our 2nd Amendment Rights.

At worst hes an anti gun troll, at best a fudd.

 

[CaliforniaOpenCarry]

Why do you say that? What is your logic for that?

You look need look no further than the comments made here by the concealed carriers and concealed carrier wannabees.