Plaintiffs needed to sue NYS over ban on non NY residents getting NY CCW permits

[VietnamEraVet]

You are not addressing the points I made at all.

How can a suit by plaintiffs asking a court to force NY to allow them to apply for a CWP as non-residents "blow up" NY's permiting scheme, when they plaintiffs are NOT asking the court to strike down the scheme in the first place, and are expressing their desire to willingly participate in that permitting scheme?

Plaintiff: "Your honor, we would like to be able to ask NY for permission through their permitting scheme to conceal carry when we are in NY."

Judge Option 1: "It is my opinion that you have the "right" to ask NY for permission to carry there."

Judge Option 2: "It is my opinion that you DO NOT have the "right" to ask NY for permission to carry there."

Judge Option 3: "It is my opinion that the NYS permitting scheme is unconstitutional and unlawful, even though you didn't ask me to rule on that."

Option 3 almost certainly will NOT happen. That is not how the courts work, period end of story.

The way to go after permitting schemes is to petition a court on those grounds. That is how courts of law work.

It is feckless to petition a court on certain grounds, expecting that the judge or judges to rule on something they are not being asked to rule on.

When a judge (rarely) goes beyond the grounds brought by the petitioner, ruling on questions that are not pertinent to the actual facts in the lawsuit, it greatly increases the risk that the judge's decision will be overturned on appeal by the State.

Furthermore, if a plaintiff asks the court to address their desire to ask for permission to carry NY, but then tries to turn the case into an attack on permitting schemes, the judge could, and probably should, consider the plaintiffs of acting in bad faith, and rule against their petition without even bothering to considering the merits of their case at all. The judge could call the suit frivolous and rule against the plaintiffs with prejudice. Not a good place to be in any lawsuit.

Striking down permits to Keep and Bear is only going to be accomplished by actually, you know, submitting a petition to that effect.

The courts work in a certain way. Its not unheard of for a judge to help a plaintiff to clarify exactly what they are seeking in court, but they are almost never going to allow plaintiffs to change the fundamental nature of their complain to rule on things the plaintiffs did not ask for in their original petition.

Finally, as a point of clarity and order, it ought to be noted that the only successful SCOTUS rulings achieved so far (Heller, McDonald, and Bruen) with regards to the 2A have done nothing but actually uphold permitting schemes, with nary a hint from the Supremes that they have any interested in overturning those schemes.

In part that might be because Scalia in Heller essentially upheld the power of states to requiring licensing for concealed carry; however, the bare and obvious fact that NO 2A organization or lawsuit has even bothered to ask the Court whether permitting schemes are lawful in the first place might be an indicator that plaintiffs are not asking the Court the right questions in the first place.

When you say, "I want to blow it (NY's permitting scheme) up,- however it gets done...." I can only respond to you with facts and principle: the way it gets done is by ACTUALLY going after the permitting scheme, and not dancing around the subject.

Petititioners who ask a court to decide whether NY government has an obligation to give non-residents the opportunity to ask permission to Keep and Bear when in NY are going to get a ruling on the petition they make, not on some other matter.

That is the reality of filing lawsuits, and winning does not come about by placing our hopes on hopium and pie in the sky "however it gets done." Results in courts happen when plaintifss follow the rules and are clear and concise in their pleadings.

So let me be perfectly clear on this: this suit will NOT get rid of any permitting schemes, in NY or otherwise. Given the parameters of the suit as it was presented, it CAN NOT.

John,

I admire your passion on this and countless other threads, and agree with you quite often. I despise all of the unconstitutional BS that we endure in the 2A arena.

That said, if you or others out there file lawsuits to fight it as you describe, I would help support that. But I have not seen anyone trying to flat out wipe things out as you passionately suggest.

In this case, as my original post linked to, there is an effort underway to further chip away at NY's laws. My view is that anything that helps our cause is a good thing. And so I put the word about what I heard. You could also write to Jared at Guns and Gadgets, as he gives his email in that video, and tell them what you think they should be doing instead.

As I recall there was an old saying that I am reminded of that went something like this: "When it comes to trying to eat an elephant, you need to take smaller bites, and not try to swallow it all at once".

Now I am certain that you can run circles around my post and tell me that I'm wrong, and that we are trying to kill the elephant, and not to eat it...

If and when you and others decide to file a lawsuit as you suggest, as I said, I will help support that effort.

 

[Acer-m14]

need a suit permits were not needed in 1791 ..

same for 4473 ..

the criminals do not do either ..

 

[Uninformed and Compliant]

need a suit permits were not needed in 1791 ..

same for 4473 ..

the criminals do not do either ..

Meh. People can get any gun they want, for free, inside every 10lb box of heroin that they buy.

 

[Truebeliever]

You are not addressing the points I made at all.

How can a suit by plaintiffs asking a court to force NY to allow them to apply for a CWP as non-residents "blow up" NY's permiting scheme, when they plaintiffs are NOT asking the court to strike down the scheme in the first place, and are expressing their desire to willingly participate in that permitting scheme?

Plaintiff: "Your honor, we would like to be able to ask NY for permission through their permitting scheme to conceal carry when we are in NY."

Judge Option 1: "It is my opinion that you have the "right" to ask NY for permission to carry there."

Judge Option 2: "It is my opinion that you DO NOT have the "right" to ask NY for permission to carry there."

Judge Option 3: "It is my opinion that the NYS permitting scheme is unconstitutional and unlawful, even though you didn't ask me to rule on that."

Option 3 almost certainly will NOT happen. That is not how the courts work, period end of story.

The way to go after permitting schemes is to petition a court on those grounds. That is how courts of law work.

It is feckless to petition a court on certain grounds, expecting that the judge or judges to rule on something they are not being asked to rule on.

When a judge (rarely) goes beyond the grounds brought by the petitioner, ruling on questions that are not pertinent to the actual facts in the lawsuit, it greatly increases the risk that the judge's decision will be overturned on appeal by the State.

Furthermore, if a plaintiff asks the court to address their desire to ask for permission to carry NY, but then tries to turn the case into an attack on permitting schemes, the judge could, and probably should, consider the plaintiffs of acting in bad faith, and rule against their petition without even bothering to considering the merits of their case at all. The judge could call the suit frivolous and rule against the plaintiffs with prejudice. Not a good place to be in any lawsuit.

Striking down permits to Keep and Bear is only going to be accomplished by actually, you know, submitting a petition to that effect.

The courts work in a certain way. Its not unheard of for a judge to help a plaintiff to clarify exactly what they are seeking in court, but they are almost never going to allow plaintiffs to change the fundamental nature of their complain to rule on things the plaintiffs did not ask for in their original petition.

Finally, as a point of clarity and order, it ought to be noted that the only successful SCOTUS rulings achieved so far (Heller, McDonald, and Bruen) with regards to the 2A have done nothing but actually uphold permitting schemes, with nary a hint from the Supremes that they have any interested in overturning those schemes.

In part that might be because Scalia in Heller essentially upheld the power of states to requiring licensing for concealed carry; however, the bare and obvious fact that NO 2A organization or lawsuit has even bothered to ask the Court whether permitting schemes are lawful in the first place might be an indicator that plaintiffs are not asking the Court the right questions in the first place.

When you say, "I want to blow it (NY's permitting scheme) up,- however it gets done...." I can only respond to you with facts and principle: the way it gets done is by ACTUALLY going after the permitting scheme, and not dancing around the subject.

Petititioners who ask a court to decide whether NY government has an obligation to give non-residents the opportunity to ask permission to Keep and Bear when in NY are going to get a ruling on the petition they make, not on some other matter.

That is the reality of filing lawsuits, and winning does not come about by placing our hopes on hopium and pie in the sky "however it gets done." Results in courts happen when plaintifss follow the rules and are clear and concise in their pleadings.

So let me be perfectly clear on this: this suit will NOT get rid of any permitting schemes, in NY or otherwise. Given the parameters of the suit as it was presented, it CAN NOT.

Death of a thousand cuts . The same way they try to take away the 2nd amendment.
First, Heller for the recognition of the right to have a gun in the home. Then McDonald to have it apply to the states. Now Bruen for outside the home .
Now, they should be forced to recognize someone’s right if they jump thru all the hoops even if they live out of state . Win that , then the next is national reciprocity etc.

 

[Acer-m14]

Death of a thousand cuts . The same way they try to take away the 2nd amendment.
First, Heller for the recognition of the right to have a gun in the home. Then McDonald to have it apply to the states. Now Bruen for outside the home .
Now, they should be forced to recognize someone’s right if they jump thru all the hoops even if they live out of state . Win that , then the next is national reciprocity etc.

but MS13 has guns and do not follow the law

and they have national reciprocity per defacto ... lol

so all this is null and void ..

2A .. shall not Infringe

 

[Truebeliever]

but MS13 has guns and do not follow the law

and they have national reciprocity per defacto ... lol

so all this is null and void ..

2A .. shall not Infringe

View attachment 220055

The lawmakers do not care.