SCOTUS Concealed Carry Case - NYSRPA v. Bruen — Decision … soon
NYSRPA v. Corlett challenges NY’s “proper cause” requirement for a CCW. More at: https://www.nraila.org/articles/2020...-supreme-court
I just read about this case tonight. :popcorn: ETA: here’s a link to its SCOTUS docket https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....ic/20-843.html // ... but since most folks will not click the link, ... // // ____ Petition for certiorari Dec 17 2020 // // ____ Cert granted April 26, 2021 (Court narrows question) // // ____ Oral arguments November 3, 2021 // // and here we are, waiting for the opinion // // Librarian |
NY really wants to make sure that some groups can keep carrying illegally while other groups can't carry.
Homicides in NY are up 95% this year (ie, they have DOUBLED), and yet they continue releasing gun suspects on "supervised release". Shockingly enough, this isn't reducing gun violence. Nearly 90 percent of suspects arrested on gun charges this year are back on the streets, which the NYPD says has fueled a historic spike in shootings that have left more than 1,756 dead or wounded.NY releases nearly everyone who is picked up for violating their "strict" gun laws, because the people doing the crime are favored Democratic groups. Meanwhile they will spend millions on court battles to make sure their disfavored non-Democratic groups can't carry. I hope SCOTUS corrects them. The cert petition: This Court should grant certiorari, resolve this untenable circuit split, and restore to all “the people” protected by the Second Amendment the right to keep and bear arms for their own self-defense. |
Another reason EVERYONE should be a member of the NRA and the CRPA, regardless of how much LaPierre spent for suits.
|
If this case is granted cert before MLK Day (2021 Jan 18), it should be heard and decided by 2021 June 28. If not, it will be held over until fall of 2021.
:popcorn: |
SCOTUS won't take this case. They get 8000 requests per year and grant 80 of them, 1%.
Gun laws are far down that list. |
Quote:
SCOTUS has become corrupted too! So nothing will be ever get done. It’s almost a insurrection in the coming. Never give up your rights, fight to the end. https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...286a78424d.jpg |
Quote:
Also, now with a 5-1-3 court (conservative - swing - liberal), that means that Thomas, as the most senior justice, gets to select who writes the opinion ... unless Roberts decides to vote with the conservatives ... then as Chief Justice, he chooses who writes the opinion. Roberts could decide to vote with the conservative justices simply so he could write the opinion himself ... so he could build enough trap doors and soft definitions into it to again allow lower courts a lot of latitude and a means to circumvent it. Actually, if Democrats win both GA senate seats, this would be more likely. Roberts would feel the court exposed to the political whims of the Democrats if they won the Senate majority, so he would do whatever he could to blunt and weaken any opinion that was favorable to the 2nd amendment in an attempt to placate Senate Democrats. By joining in a conservative opinion, he can exercise more control over it. If Republicans win at least one seat in the GA runoffs, then Democrats can’t do anything to the Supreme Court, at least not for the next two years, probably longer. And 2022 isn’t looking any better for Democrats to retake the Senate majority. In that case, Roberts might join the liberals so he could write his own dissent. |
Wow...this case wasn't on the radar. Doesn't look like its even on the SCOTUS docket yet.
|
There's almost no reason for pessimism in this case.
We have 5.5 conservatives on the court, including several who are openly frustrated about the lack of SCOTUS addressing major outstanding 2A issues we have. The case is an NRA case with Paul Clements. This is all a recipe for success for us. The pessimism: if the Democrats win a Senate majority, SCOTUS might not want to take this case because the Democrats are openly talking about packing the courts. They've done it before. The other issue everyone in CA should consider: even if the court rules this state will be shall-issue, it's still going to be a hard process! In LA the total fees and costs are nearly $1,000, plus three days of time for training, interviews, and all the other hassle, for a process that takes months to finish. Additional litigation might eventually streamline that, or it might not. So even if we get a great ruling, you still need to "man up" and put in the effort. Many aren't willing to. |
Quote:
|
I'm quite sure this will be the case that determines whether or not we will get cert on the 2A with the Supreme Court. After Torres it seems quite clear the justices have zero interest in the felon prohibition cases. This case will beat ANJRPC v Grewal to conference. If a 2nd NYSRPA dies at SCOTUS then it's over, +3 fedsoc justices will mean nothing under Trump.
|
You know, every argument you make comes down to "Open carry is THE right. See Heller!"
And every response to that point is, "ok tell us where in Heller exactly we should look?" And you can never answer. Quote:
Quote:
The question presented is: Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.To paraphrase into more direct plain English: Ordinary citizens should be able to carry a gun outside the home for self defense.That's it. Nothing about open vs. concealed, nothing about permits vs no permits, nothing about good cause. This isn't a concealed carry case. This isn't an open carry case. This isn't a permits case. This is one issue only: ordinary citizens, carrying a weapon outside the home. I predict that, if they take this case, they will say that ordinary citizens (not some small subset of citizens) can carry weapons (guns) outside the home. They will not specify any details of how that will work, and will leave that up to state governments, and all the state governments will take a wide range of approaches, from Alaska "carry whatever you want, however you want, no permit or with permit, it's up to you" to California / NY: "concealed only, must have a permit, must have training, must go through a whole bunch of paperwork". All that is ok! SCOTUS isn't going to define how. By analogy, every state must allow book stores to operate. But SCOTUS isn't going to tell states exactly what the hours of operation of book stores shall be, what their zoning requirements are, etc. Just that they have be allowed in some way that makes it practical for anyone who wants to run a book store to do it. |
Like the court will ever hear the case.
|
Damn MMR..............just what in hell is a NON concealable handgun??
I happen to have a mid length AR that could be easily concealed by merely tucking the bbl in my waist band and closing the retractable stock and holding it under my arm.............truly it's not one lick less or more concealable than any average.....say four or five inch.....revolver or auto pistol Your call on the USSC is truly over the edge! For that matter, what's to stop any jurisdiction from defining 'concealable' as anything less than a 26" bbl, as is now the case in England for shotguns I believe.....or how bout Canada's 5" minimal bbl requirement. Seems to me that THIS is one area we ought to stay far away from. |
Rabbit again with his uneducated drivel.
|
Quote:
The question presented is: Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense. The question says absolutely nothing about any particular mode of carry, or any type of carry regulations. The plaintiffs don't care. They just want to exercise the right to bear (carry) in public. How can it get any more clear than that? This isn't a CCW case! Imagine one state passed a statute that says, "Only bookstores that have a very special need can be open in our state." A book seller sues saying, "I have a 1A right to buy and sell books!" Imagine it somehow makes it to SCOTUS. SCOTUS will issue a broad ruling that says, "yes, you can't pass a law that prevents ordinary book sellers from buying and selling books. You can't limit the book supply to just a few special individuals." You notice what's NOT in that ruling? Nothing about exactly how book stores must operate. States under such a ruling could of course enforce zoning regulations, business hours regulations, health and safety regulations, tax regulations, etc on book sellers. Some states might have more such regulations, some states might have less, all states will have differences in their regulation, and that's all ok. It's not up to SCOTUS to define zoning regs for book stores in every state. That's up to states. The only thing that states couldn't do is create a system that allows only a small subset of book sellers, or some burdensome regulations such as "you can only be open between 1am and 2am on Sunday" which would obviously be an attempt to prevent them from actually exercising their right. That's how it likely will go with the 2A. Just like Heller didn't hand the states a set of statutes that they must pass to be 2A compliant, it will be the same with any future 2A cases. SCOTUS doesn't write statutes. (This is all wasted, he's can't understand any of this.) |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
To put it in more formal terms, { m | all possible methods of carry } Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
By definition in California, a "handgun" is a firearm that is capable of being concealed upon the person. I have no idea what an "unconcealable" handgun is. You can strap a Colt Walker or a DE to your hip, and with a long coat conceal it quite well.
Used to be in Texas, which allowed open carry but punished concealed carry without a permit, that any concealment of an openly carried handgun, e.g., by the top of your shirt or jacket covering a portion of the grip, was a violation of the concealed carry law. But after reading a string or responses from "he who shall not be named," I am convinced he is the only one in this forum who knows what "unconcealable handgun" means and he isn't planning on sharing. I think we should rename him Don Quixote for titlting at so many windmills. P.S.: NYC does not allow the open carriage of handguns without a permit and a showing of just cause, e.g., armed security guard. Same as Hawaii. In fact, until recently, NYC didn't even let people transport their legally owned firearms under a premises permit except to and from an in-town range of gun store. |
Quote:
You mean like Pena v Lindley? Get it together rabbit Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
Quote:
In contrast, PLEASE GO AHEAD AND OPEN CARRY. Do it! You will find out, you will get arrested, and the charges will stick if the prosecutor wants them to. Especially in NYC. Depending on location, between 25% to 60% of people in NYC picked up on gun charges get charged and those charges stick. They don't get appeals. They don't get thrown out on appeals (note they are likely to serve very little time). NY isn't going to care AT ALL if the gun is open carried vs concealed. If it's open carried, it will just make the arrest happen a lot faster. When I say some activity is constitutionally protected, I mean it like voting, where I can do it and not worry about having to make bail, much less find a defense attorney and run a very high likelihood of charges sticking or having to plea bargain, esp. in NYC. For those of us with professional jobs, btw, even a misdemeanor conviction can be a major problem. To take an example from the other direction, tax evasion is ILLEGAL, and yet almost no one is ever charged with it. Convictions are super-rare! Less than 1,000 people per year are convicted of tax evasion that's not connected with drug distribution. That does NOT mean tax evasion is a constitutionally protected activity, hello! You keep posting about how Heller protects open carry. You are adamant. You can't point out where or how but you're sure it does. SO STOP TALKING AND START DOING IT. :lurk5: |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Peruta had some issues in trying to be a general carry case. It was tailored to CC. The 9th jumped on that and played their games turning a blind eye to the standing OC ban. SCOTUS isn't stupid and they don't like games. The only question here is whether SCOTUS believes it's time to address the long-standing "unanswered" question of whether bear extends outside the home. If they take the case, I'd put money on a favorable ruling. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
As an example of a protected right with lots of exceptions, free speech may be the best known. Do you have the right to free speech? Sure. Do you have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater? Absolutely not. That's an exception. Do you have the right to make threats and use "fighting words?" Nope. How about defamation? Deceptive advertising? Exceptions, excepotions, exceptions. Even your example about voting has lots of "exceptions." If you were 17 would you get to vote for anyone? What if you were a convicted felon in a state which bars them from voting? What's that you say? Your original post said "if I have the right to vote...." So the premise already accounts for these exceptions? OK, assume you have the right to vote. Do you get to vote for Supreme Court nominees? Ambassadors? Mayor of Seattle if you don't live in Seattle? Exceptions everywhere. |
Quote:
Think of this in the context of Mr. Rabbit's points. He's saying that open carry is protected by Heller, and you can get charged for it but the charges will probably be dropped on appeal! Ok... do you have your bail money and criminal defense attorney on standby when you go out to vote? Or when you post something on Calguns? Of course not. That's what it means, in practical terms, when something is constitutionally protected, you can do it without needing bail money. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
To abridge means "to curtail." The fact that the Congress used different words suggests they intended a different meaning. |
Quote:
Even in any LEGALESE JARGON dictionaries I've found. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Will be very interesting to see what SCOTUS does now that Barret is on the court with a circuit split on carry. The case isn't a garbage case either.
Regardless of what someone may think Heller means when they talk about open carry, the fact of the matter is, Kavanaugh and probably Gorsuch would never voted to make open carry the law of the land. It just won't happen. You have to factor politics into all of this unfortunately. |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 1:39 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.