SCOTUS: New York State Rifle Pistol Assn. v. Bruen

[jerry_r60]

Wednesday 11/3 is slated for SCOTUS oral arguments to begin on New York State Rifle Pistol Assn. v. Bruen. Should produce some interesting transcripts. The first major gun case heard by the SCOTUS in a long time and the first with the new court makeup.

This one revolves around the ristrictive / discretionary NY laws regarding LTC.

[puma guy]

Wednesday 11/4 is slated for SCOTUS oral arguments to begin on New York State Rifle Pistol Assn. v. Bruen. Should produce some interesting transcripts. The first major gun case heard by the SCOTUS in a long time and the first with the new court makeup.

This one revolves around the ristrictive / discrecionary NY laws regarding LTC.

I read part of the brief filed by the NAACP proporting that gun post Civil War gun restrictions were for the protection of freed slaves. That is laughable and historically incorrect. The opposite is the truth. Read "Negroes and The Gun" by Nicholas Johnson

[jerry_r60]

If i understand it correctly, the Cert granted by the court is limited to Concealed carry however, if you already ban open carry, then concealed carry is all that's left. Not allowing that either becaums a total restriction.

From Scotus Site: https://www.supremecourt.gov/

20-843 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. V. BRUEN
DECISION BELOW: 818 Fed.Appx. 99
GRANTED LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER THE STATE'S
DENIAL OF PETITIONERS' APPLICATIONS FOR CONCEALED-CARRY LICENSES
FOR SELF-DEFENSE VIOLATED THE SECOND AMENDMENT.
CERT. GRANTED 4/26/2021

QUESTION PRESENTED:
New York prohibits its ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying a handgun
outside the home without a license, and it denies licenses to every citizen who fails to
convince the state that he or she has “proper cause” to carry a firearm. In District of
Columbia v. Heller, this Court held that the Second Amendment protects “the individual
right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” 554 U.S. 570, 592 (2008),
and in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Court held that this right “is fully applicable to
the States,” 561 U.S. 742, 750 (2010). For more than a decade since then, numerous
courts of appeals have squarely divided on this critical question: whether the Second
Amendment allows the government to deprive ordinary law-abiding citizens of the right
to possess and carry a handgun outside the home. This circuit split is open and
acknowledged, and it is squarely presented by this petition, in which the Second Circuit
affirmed the constitutionality of a New York regime that prohibits law-abiding individuals
from carrying a handgun unless they first demonstrate some form of “proper cause” that
distinguishes them from the body of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment.
The time has come for this Court to resolve this critical constitutional impasse and
reaffirm the citizens’ fundamental right to carry a handgun for self-defense.

The question presented is:
Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary lawabiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self- defense.

GRANTED LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER THE STATE'S
DENIAL OF PETITIONERS' APPLICATIONS FOR CONCEALED-CARRY LICENSES
FOR SELF-DEFENSE VIOLATED THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

[srothstein]

If i understand it correctly, the Cert granted by the court is limited to Concealed carry however, if you already ban open carry, then concealed carry is all that's left. Not allowing that either becaums a total restriction.

<snip>

The question presented is:
Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary lawabiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self- defense.

I could be wrong, but I did not think carry method was involved. I understood it to be more a question of whether a state could have may issue licenses instead of shall issue. Reading the question as you posted it, I think it might devolve into can a state license handgun carrying at all. If it goes that far, I think we will lose (not that we should, just that I don't see the court saying no to licensing yet). I also do not think the petitioner is asking for that or will argue it, but answering the justices questions under pressure someone can slip up sometimes.

If it stays at may the state deny the license or not, I think we will win. This could be seen as very similar to the right to vote. You cannot deny it, but you can make them register in advance for it. That would be the same as still allowing shall issue licensing and checking for the prohibited persons as a means of denial.

[RoyGBiv]

Correct date is Wednesday 11-3, not the 4th.

[K.Mooneyham]

If i understand it correctly, the Cert granted by the court is limited to Concealed carry however, if you already ban open carry, then concealed carry is all that's left. Not allowing that either becaums a total restriction.

<snip>

The question presented is:
Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary lawabiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self- defense.

I could be wrong, but I did not think carry method was involved. I understood it to be more a question of whether a state could have may issue licenses instead of shall issue. Reading the question as you posted it, I think it might devolve into can a state license handgun carrying at all. If it goes that far, I think we will lose (not that we should, just that I don't see the court saying no to licensing yet). I also do not think the petitioner is asking for that or will argue it, but answering the justices questions under pressure someone can slip up sometimes.

If it stays at may the state deny the license or not, I think we will win. This could be seen as very similar to the right to vote. You cannot deny it, but you can make them register in advance for it. That would be the same as still allowing shall issue licensing and checking for the prohibited persons as a means of denial.

I believe (though I might be flat out wrong, of course) that the problem at hand is denying the majority of New Yorkers their right to not only KEEP, but to BEAR arms. I don't think the courts have a problem with LTC programs, but hopefully the SCOTUS will find severe fault with may-issue, and order the State of New York (and all others) that LTC must be shall-issue, barring the usual felony convictions, domestic assault convictions, or adjudicated mentally deficient. Some 2A advocates won't like that, but considering how things are now, that would be a huge step in the right direction.

[jerry_r60]

If i understand it correctly, the Cert granted by the court is limited to Concealed carry however, if you already ban open carry, then concealed carry is all that's left. Not allowing that either becaums a total restriction.

<snip>

The question presented is:
Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary lawabiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self- defense.

I could be wrong, but I did not think carry method was involved. I understood it to be more a question of whether a state could have may issue licenses instead of shall issue. Reading the question as you posted it, I think it might devolve into can a state license handgun carrying at all. If it goes that far, I think we will lose (not that we should, just that I don't see the court saying no to licensing yet). I also do not think the petitioner is asking for that or will argue it, but answering the justices questions under pressure someone can slip up sometimes.

If it stays at may the state deny the license or not, I think we will win. This could be seen as very similar to the right to vote. You cannot deny it, but you can make them register in advance for it. That would be the same as still allowing shall issue licensing and checking for the prohibited persons as a means of denial.

I believe (though I might be flat out wrong, of course) that the problem at hand is denying the majority of New Yorkers their right to not only KEEP, but to BEAR arms. I don't think the courts have a problem with LTC programs, but hopefully the SCOTUS will find severe fault with may-issue, and order the State of New York (and all others) that LTC must be shall-issue, barring the usual felony convictions, domestic assault convictions, or adjudicated mentally deficient. Some 2A advocates won't like that, but considering how things are now, that would be a huge step in the right direction.

It's my understanding as well that it's about the "bear arms" beyond the home that's at issue.
It should be interesting. I hope to listen to the oral arguments. I see they are posted online so even if I can't listen live it will be available. It looks like live arguments start at 10:00am EST.

[jerry_r60]

If i understand it correctly, the Cert granted by the court is limited to Concealed carry however, if you already ban open carry, then concealed carry is all that's left. Not allowing that either becaums a total restriction.

<snip>

The question presented is:
Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary lawabiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self- defense.

I could be wrong, but I did not think carry method was involved. I understood it to be more a question of whether a state could have may issue licenses instead of shall issue. Reading the question as you posted it, I think it might devolve into can a state license handgun carrying at all. If it goes that far, I think we will lose (not that we should, just that I don't see the court saying no to licensing yet). I also do not think the petitioner is asking for that or will argue it, but answering the justices questions under pressure someone can slip up sometimes.

If it stays at may the state deny the license or not, I think we will win. This could be seen as very similar to the right to vote. You cannot deny it, but you can make them register in advance for it. That would be the same as still allowing shall issue licensing and checking for the prohibited persons as a means of denial.

Yes I agree it's about the licensing. I think I'm reading in a bit more with it being a concealed carry license and open carry not an option therefore all carry is in essense illegal. I agree, it's about giving some way to bear arms outside the home.

[RoyGBiv]

Orals broadcast live. Link near bottom of the page. Audio only.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/

[RoyGBiv]

Orals broadcast live. Link near bottom of the page. Audio only.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/

Live now.

[jerry_r60]

Orals broadcast live. Link near bottom of the page. Audio only.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/

Live now.

It sure can be frustrating listening. I know it's just getting going and we have not heard much from all the justices yet.

[RoyGBiv]

Clement with an excellent rebuttal.

[jerry_r60]

Lots of interesting discussion. Listening to these, like listening to our TX legislature is always interesting and educational. There is just no way to tell where this goes based on the arguments. I have not listened to or read enough of the oral arguments from other cases to know if this is typical but I assume it is.

[jerry_r60]

Clement with an excellent rebuttal.

Yes, good closing.

[J.R.@A&M]

Up on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgzqGj_kuq4