2A ruling from SCOTUS

gc70

gc70

Geezer Aspirant
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2016
Messages
6,133
Location
Concord, NC
Rating - 100%
17   0   0
Last edited:
So “may issue” is deemed unconstitutional. Win!

In 43 States, the government issues licenses to carry based on objective criteria. But in six States, including New York, the government further conditions issuance of a license to carry on a citizen’s showing of some additional special need. Because the State of New York issues public-carry licenses only when an applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we conclude that the State’s licensing regime violates the Constitution.
Click to expand...

I have too much work to do right now. I’ll have to keep reading this later, or catch Guns & Gadgets on YT.
 
Last edited:
Guns escape from the home in the first paragraph of Thomas' opinion:

"In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010), we recognized that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right of an ordinary, law-abiding citizen to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense. In this case, petitioners and respondents agree that ordinary, law-abiding citizens have a similar right to carry handguns publicly for their self-defense. We too agree, and now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home."

"Special need" and may-issue licensing are unconstitutional:

"Because the state of New York issues public-carry licenses only when an applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we conclude that the State’s licensing regime violates the Constitution."

End of the "two-step approach" to 2A cases in courts - the new standard is as close as you can get to strict scrutiny:

"In Heller and McDonald, we held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. In doing so, we held unconstitutional two laws that prohibited the possession and use of handguns in the home. In the years since, the Courts of Appeals have coalesced around a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny."

"Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”
 
Last edited:
Chuckman said:
My Magic 8-ball says now New York will make it so onerous as to be almost as hard to get, but juuuuuust within the legal limit. Something like all medical records back 10 years, $500 app fee, etc. A win, yes. But I see some pushback.
Click to expand...
The NY Gov says she won't back down.
 
"Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command."
The left is still going to twist this as much as possible. After all, the majority of the "historic tradition" is to deny access to firearms based on race. Racism is at the root of all gun control laws passed since 1865.
Now we need mag limits overturned.
Hopefully this ruling is accepted by all corrupt may issue states to means what it clearly says. I'm moving behind enemy lines to MD. Already bought 2 tiny 10 rund mags for my P320SC just in case. But this could mean my wife and I can actually get carry permits there without having to pay a cash tip to the issuing authority.
 
There will be another shoe to drop. NY and others will just pull another lawsuit or reg out of the file cabinet and it starts again. The dems do NOT care about the average persons rights, they want to eliminate America. But for right now, carry every step and be very careful.
 
Button Pusher said:
The NY Gov says she won't back down.
Click to expand...
In SFO, is costs over $1000 because they require a complete psychiatric exam by a county approved shrink that the applicant has to pay for. It is an "optional" requirement the the extreme left uses to increase the cost barrier. SFO ruler really want criminals to have a safe work place.
 
Button Pusher said:
The NY Gov says she won't back down.
Click to expand...

So she plans to ignore the ruling?

LOL…that street runs two ways.👍

Words on paper or in a book do not prevent folks from doing what they wish, whether they are the criminal or the free citizen.
 
Last edited:
Jerzsubbie said:
So what happens if you defy a SCOTUS order?? Will we finally see a politician arrested, prosecuted, and jailed for violating rights and a court order? Doubtful.
Click to expand...
It probably means they'll just keep pushing out new, slightly-different laws and keep it tied up in the courts forever.
 
Last edited:
Jerzsubbie said:
So what happens if you defy a SCOTUS order?? Will we finally see a politician arrested, prosecuted, and jailed for violating rights and a court order? Doubtful.
Click to expand...
Exactly. This ruling is definitely positive and good for gun owners. But how and when things change in NY, NJ, MD, IL, DC and CA is up for debate, and not likely anytime soon. Still, very happy to see this basic affirmation of Constitutional rights.
 
Important details from ruling...
To be clear, even if a modern-day regulation is not a dead ringer for historical precursors, it still may be analogous enough to pass constitutional muster. For example, courts can use analogies to “longstanding” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings” to determine whether modern regulations are constitutionally permissible. Id., at 626. That said, respondents’ attempt to characterize New York’s proper-cause requirement as a “sensitive-place” law lacks merit because there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a “sensitive place” simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department



(1) It is undisputed that petitioners Koch and Nash—two ordinary, law-abiding, adult citizens—are part of “the people” whom the Second Amendment protects. See Heller, 554 U. S., at 580. And no party disputes that handguns are weapons “in common use” today for self-defense. See id., at 627. The Court has little difficulty concluding also that the plain text of the Second Amendment protects Koch’s and Nash’s proposed course of conduct—carrying handguns publicly for self-defense. Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, and the definition of “bear” naturally encompasses public carry. Moreover, the Second Amendment guarantees an “individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” id., at 592, and confrontation can surely take place outside the home. Pp. 23–24.
 
Last edited:
I’m was at the gym earlier. CNN was on the tv right in front of me. I got a chuckle watching their heads explode as I read the captions.

As to the ruling. While I don’t think it goes quite far enough I think it is astonishing that we got this much of a confession from the high court that if the gov can’t regulate the first then it can’t regulate the second.

That, IMO, is the biggest part of this ruling. This should lead to all such onerous regulations being struck down like magazine limits etc.

So I’m extremely happy with this ruling.
 
Chdamn said:
I’m was at the gym earlier. CNN was on the tv right in front of me. I got a chuckle watching their heads explode as I read the captions.

As to the ruling. While I don’t think it goes quite far enough I think it is astonishing that we got this much of a confession from the high court that if the gov can’t regulate the first then it can’t regulate the second.

That, IMO, is the biggest part of this ruling. This should lead to all such onerous regulations being struck down like magazine limits etc.

So I’m extremely happy with this ruling.
Click to expand...

As am I, but I sense this is a beginning rather than an end.
 
fishgutzy said:
In SFO, is costs over $1000 because they require a complete psychiatric exam by a county approved shrink that the applicant has to pay for. It is an "optional" requirement the the extreme left uses to increase the cost barrier. SFO ruler really want criminals to have a safe work place
Click to expand...

Nonesense like this will be harder now since it is held to be a constitutional right - will take 5-10 years of suits and appeals until all the lefty bleepholes have to swallow it and go shall issue. They will hold out as long as possible but if they charge $1K for a permit to protest / assemble in public or give a speech in public place etc you can imagine how fast that would get shot down.

No real difference now for gun carry rights vs freedom of speech or religion - God Bless Justice Thomas and his 5 esteemed colleagues !!!
 
fishgutzy said:
"Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command."
The left is still going to twist this as much as possible. After all, the majority of the "historic tradition" is to deny access to firearms based on race. Racism is at the root of all gun control laws passed since 1865.
Now we need mag limits overturned.
Hopefully this ruling is accepted by all corrupt may issue states to means what it clearly says. I'm moving behind enemy lines to MD. Already bought 2 tiny 10 rund mags for my P320SC just in case. But this could mean my wife and I can actually get carry permits there without having to pay a cash tip to the issuing authority.
Click to expand...

Both the California magazine limit case and the Maryland semi-auto ban case are "in conference" at the SCOTUS level. They've neither been granted nor denied cert. There was some speculation that the conservative bloc wanted to make sure Roberts was on board with Bruen before putting the CA and MD cases to a cert vote. The 6-3 ruling indicates that both cases SHOULD be granted cert and mag limits and AWBs could be on next year's docket.
 
musicmax said:
Both the California magazine limit case and the Maryland semi-auto ban case are "in conference" at the SCOTUS level. They've neither been granted nor denied cert. There was some speculation that the conservative bloc wanted to make sure Roberts was on board with Bruen before putting the CA and MD cases to a cert vote. The 6-3 ruling indicates that both cases SHOULD be granted cert and mag limits and AWBs could be on next year's docket.
Click to expand...
I'll store some things with family until all is clear. At least getting a carry permit shoud not be such a big deal now in MD.
 
Alito's concurring opinion (beginning page 70 of the PDF) is well worth everyone's time to read. Not much of the legaleze...just a blazing repudiation of the dissenting opinion.

20-843 New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen (06/23/2022)



In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see what legitimate purpose can possibly be served by most of the dissent’s lengthy introductory section. See post, at 1–8 (opinion of BREYER, J.). Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years? Post, at 4–5. Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atroc- ities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator.

What is the relevance of statistics about the use of guns to commit suicide? See post, at 5–6. Does the dissent think that a lot of people who possess guns in their homes will be stopped or deterred from shooting themselves if they cannot lawfully take them outside?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
More from Alito's concurring opinion....dude knocks it out of the park

20-843 New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen (06/23/2022)



And while the dissent seemingly thinks that the ubiquity of guns and our country’s high level of gun vi- olence provide reasons for sustaining the New York law, the dissent appears not to understand that it is these very facts that cause law-abiding citizens to feel the need to carry a gun for self-defense.

No one apparently knows how many of the 400 million privately held guns are in the hands of criminals, but there can be little doubt that many muggers and rapists are armed and are undeterred by the Sullivan Law.
Click to expand...
 
Kavanaugh's concurring opinion calls out that Shall Issue schemes and requirements for licensing are still valid and constitutional:

20-843 New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen (06/23/2022)



First, the Court’s decision does not prohibit States from imposing licensing requirements for carrying a handgun for self-defense. In particular, the Court’s decision does not af- fect the existing licensing regimes—known as “shall-issue” regimes—that are employed in 43 States.
Click to expand...
 
fishgutzy said:
I'll store some things with family until all is clear. At least getting a carry permit shoud not be such a big deal now in MD.
Click to expand...
Good news in the long run, but it will be years, and still plenty of hurdles to jump before you get a carry permit in MD. Especially if you are moving to the DC-Baltimore region. Might be better in western MD or on the eastern shore.
 
Dale Gribble said:
So she plans to ignore the ruling?

LOL…that street runs two ways.👍

Words on paper or in a book do not prevent folks from doing what they wish, whether they are the criminal or the free citizen.
Click to expand...
She said they will have a special session of the legislature. 😂
 
From the Thomas decision

The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion). The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need. The Second Amendment right to carry arms in public for selfdefense is no different. New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public.
 
The conservative justice also looked at the plain language of the Second Amendment, which protects the right "to keep and bear arms." He described keeping and bearing as two separate things, noting that Heller defines "bear" as "to wear, bear, or carry." This implies public carrying, Thomas said, because someone would not generally wear their gun in a holster at home, but would "keep" it somewhere.

says who?
 
musicmax said:
Both the California magazine limit case and the Maryland semi-auto ban case are "in conference" at the SCOTUS level. They've neither been granted nor denied cert. There was some speculation that the conservative bloc wanted to make sure Roberts was on board with Bruen before putting the CA and MD cases to a cert vote. The 6-3 ruling indicates that both cases SHOULD be granted cert and mag limits and AWBs could be on next year's docket.
Click to expand...
I doubt Roberts was initially on board with the NY case. If he had been, I don't think he would have trusted Thomas to write the opinion. If Roberts started on the other side, Thomas would have been assigning the writing and would probably have assigned it to himself. That makes me believe Roberts changed sides late in the case (Roberts tries really hard to be on the winning side and has been for 98% of the cases this term).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom