New York State rifle SCOTUS case granted certiorari

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • DoggyDaddy

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    73   0   1
    Aug 18, 2011
    68,720
    77
    Southside Indy
    The new talking point for today is below. I had never once seen this argument made in all my time wading around in anti-gun twitter. Today I'm seeing it everywhere.

    "In 1789, the Second Amendment was written.

    In 1847, the bullet was invented.

    Thus, the Second Amendment only applies to muskets."
    So muskets only used pixie dust as projectiles?
     

    KG1

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    66   0   0
    Jan 20, 2009
    17,310
    149
    This is such a remarkable weirdness that freedom of speech is coast to coast, but 2a is not. And what of the three judges that dissented? They have every right to not like guns, wish guns were illegal for the masses. But to dissent on shall/may issue would demonstrate their disdain for my personal freedoms. Which of my rights aren't malleable according to the three dissenters? Three supreme justices believe a bureaucrat can dictate which citizens have value enough to exercise personal freedoms.
    Well it's like Justice Thomas said. The 2nd Amendment should not be treated like a second class right. It should be an equal right on the same footing of other rights such as the 1st Amendment. I have the same 1st Amendment right in all other States as i do here in Indiana. Again, why then should that not be equally applicable to the 2nd Amendment?
     

    DoggyDaddy

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    73   0   1
    Aug 18, 2011
    68,720
    77
    Southside Indy
    Well it's like Justice Thomas said. The 2nd Amendment should be treated like a second class right. It should be an equal right on the same footing of other rights such as the 1st Amendment. I have the same 1st Amendment right in all other States as i do here in Indiana.
    Did you leave out a "not"?
     

    littletommy

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 29, 2009
    10,423
    113
    A holler in Kentucky
    Oh Lord! Does this numb nuts have a brain lol. Does she not she what's happening in NYC with violent felons and gangs :ugh:.Her stupidity even thinks NYC is safer then any Rural part of our Country which sees very little to no crimes... These people live in a bubble full of fantasy and make believe lol.
    It’s all part of the game plan the dims have relied on for ages. This dumb **** KNOWS that the sky screaming useful idiots are even dumber than she is, and will swallow that garbage hook, line, and sinker.

    I guarantee you, within minutes of this moron spouting off, mouth breathing libtards were repeating it to anybody that would listen.
     

    carry205

    Plinker
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 6, 2017
    49
    18
    Florissant
    So…best case scenario, when can we expect the decision to be released? I would LOVE for the leftists to finally get the message that the 2nd Amendment is a REAL amendment. I want to see their tears on the national news.
    Let the tears begin! New York City, and the Federal Department of Justice already declaring that nothing changes. Same old democrat tactic: ”Lie, lie, deny.” Sounds like some people may be facing contempt of court charges. Stick it to them!
     

    KG1

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    66   0   0
    Jan 20, 2009
    17,310
    149
    Did you leave out a "not"?
    You were too fast. I was in the process of correcting it when you noticed it. Glad I did because that would've been a whole new meaning to what Justice Thomas actually said. The way I mistakenly left out the word "not" would make it sound the opposite of what he said that it should be a second-class right. Whoops.
     

    rosejm

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Nov 28, 2013
    1,249
    129
    NWI
    The 2nd Amendment should not be treated like a second class right. It should be an equal right on the same footing of other rights such as the 1st Amendment. I have the same 1st Amendment right in all other States as i do here in Indiana.
    While I agree, our rights should be protected similarly in every State there are some nuances to 1A as well.

    Some States have different restrictions on when/where/how you may express yourself, or assemble for example. There's a fine line to be threaded there and likely more litigation will be coming as to the specifics on allowable time/manner/place restrictions.

    In this point, the majority called out NY's subjective reasoning in their restrictions. Specific, objective limitations to 2A rights are still on the table (at least for the moment).
     

    KG1

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    66   0   0
    Jan 20, 2009
    17,310
    149
    While I agree, our rights should be protected similarly in every State there are some nuances to 1A as well.

    Some States have different restrictions on when/where/how you may express yourself, or assemble for example. There's a fine line to be threaded there and likely more litigation will be coming as to the specifics on allowable time/manner/place restrictions.

    In this point, the majority called out NY's subjective reasoning in their restrictions. Specific, objective limitations to 2A rights are still on the table (at least for the moment).
    Well I would agree that States have different restrictions on where you can exercise those rights within their State but should they be able to restrict law abiding peoples right to carry for self defense from other States into their State?

    I mean once they enter into their State they can then restrict them from carrying in certain places just like anyone else in their State.
     

    yote hunter

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    14   0   0
    Dec 27, 2013
    6,121
    113
    Outside Middletucky
    Now what will happen is a gang banger will try to rob someone and the good guy pulls their gun shots fired both ways and a bystanders gets hit and they (the left) will be all over it, “see what happens when everyone has a gun”

    They will twist it all around.
     

    rosejm

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Nov 28, 2013
    1,249
    129
    NWI
    Well I would agree that States have different restrictions on where you can exercise those rights within their State but should they be able to restrict law abiding peoples right to carry for self defense from other States into their State?

    I mean once they enter into their State they can then restrict them from carrying in certain places just like anyone else in their State.
    Residency is one of those specific, objective factors in restricting who may carry.
    Background checks, licensing, training/proficiency requirements (or mostly similar to another State's) are other factors currently in use.

    Both of those examples are specific and objective, and enacted by State legislatures.

    While Constitutional Carry should be accepted everywhere, from this opinion and precedent on 1A limitations, it seems they're willing to allow for some restrictions as decided by the States.
     
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 7, 2021
    783
    93
    central indiana
    Nuance to carry locations within a particular state, maybe each state has authority, maybe. But should residency be considered? I believe in states rights. Frankly if states started standing up for their resident citizens, some politics might improve. But residency for inalienable rights?
     

    BigRed

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Dec 29, 2017
    12,500
    149
    1,000 yards out
    Well it's like Justice Thomas said. The 2nd Amendment should not be treated like a second class right. It should be an equal right on the same footing of other rights such as the 1st Amendment. I have the same 1st Amendment right in all other States as i do here in Indiana. Again, why then should that not be equally applicable to the 2nd Amendment?

    I have said it before, I will say it again....Thomas was endowed by his creator with a brilliant mind.....Very rare on that bench.
     

    KG1

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    66   0   0
    Jan 20, 2009
    17,310
    149
    Residency is one of those specific, objective factors in restricting who may carry.
    Background checks, licensing, training/proficiency requirements (or mostly similar to another State's) are other factors currently in use.

    Both of those examples are specific and objective, and enacted by State legislatures.

    While Constitutional Carry should be accepted everywhere, from this opinion and precedent on 1A limitations, it seems they're willing to allow for some restrictions as decided by the States.
    This guy gives a similar take on what you are saying and he thinks that States like California are already ramping up more stringent legislation along the lines that you have described in response to this decision.. Even though they cannot require anyone to show things like just cause to carry for self defense they can still make other requirements more stringent before a permit is issued and that's what it looks like they are aiming to do.

    It's about a 10 min clip but he does a pretty good take on what you are saying.

     

    Cameramonkey

    www.thechosen.tv
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    32   0   0
    May 12, 2013
    23,332
    77
    Camby area
    Residency is one of those specific, objective factors in restricting who may carry.
    Background checks, licensing, training/proficiency requirements (or mostly similar to another State's) are other factors currently in use.

    Both of those examples are specific and objective, and enacted by State legislatures.

    While Constitutional Carry should be accepted everywhere, from this opinion and precedent on 1A limitations, it seems they're willing to allow for some restrictions as decided by the States.
    It does seem rather odd to treat the 2nd different to residents vs visitors.


    "Step out of the vehicle. Im going to search it. I dont care that I dont have probable cause. I only need probable cause for residents. You're not a resident so I can search you whenever I feel like it."

    "And while I'm at it, I'm considering holding you indefinitely, and possibly torturing you because you left those rights at the border as well. If you want to use ALL of your constitutional rights, I guess you'll stay in your home state from now on, huh?"
     

    rosejm

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Nov 28, 2013
    1,249
    129
    NWI
    I hear you both. I for one would welcome the legal ability to carry in Chicago. I don't spend time there anymore, and when I did it wasn't in the "bad" parts. But things have gotten more desperate all over and the criminals DGAF about the law anyway.

    Simply stating that States currently have some limitations on shall-issue license to carry, and the court seems to have opined that some specific, objective limitations on issuing licenses is acceptable. Especially as it pertains to the oh so dangerous handgun.
    :dunno:
     

    rebase

    Marksman
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Feb 25, 2019
    151
    28
    Indianapolis
    What does this ruling mean for other states with similar laws as New York? Will they all immediately dissolve their may issue status and go to shall issue? Will those states have reciprocity with Indiana? Too early?

    Kavenaugh’s opinion in the pdf I linked has clarification. Basically the direct outcome of this case is that NY and the 6 other states with may issue requirements are affected by this ruling.

    The other huge outcome of this ruling is the removal of the two step analysis that appeals courts used following Heller. Thomas argues in the majority opinion that the proper framework is the “history, text, and tradition” which appearantly is a more strict framework than intermediate or strict scrutiny frameworks which have been used in the past for other 2A cases. No doubt the 9th and 2nd circuits will do everything they can to take their own liberty in how the evaluate cases but it’ll be interesting to see how litigation plays out
     
    Last edited:

    KG1

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    66   0   0
    Jan 20, 2009
    17,310
    149
    Kavenaugh’s opinion in the pdf I linked has clarification. Basically the direct outcome of this case is that NY and the 6 other states with may issue requirements are affected by this ruling.

    The other huge outcome of this ruling is the removal of the two step analysis that appeals courts used following heller. Thomas states that the proper framework is the “history, text, and tradition” which appearantly is a more strict framework than intermediate or strict scrutiny frameworks which have been used in the past for other 2A cases. No doubt the 9th and 2nd circuits will do everything they can to take their own liberty in how the evaluate cases but it’ll be interesting to see how litigation plays out
    Yep, They have to come up with reasoning for their decisions that coincides with history, text and tradition consistent within the framework of the 2nd Amendment.

    I've heard it said by a number of individuals who have reviewed this decision that this standard should also apply to cases that involve things like AR bans and magazine capacity restrictions. Is there a reason to be found within that framework to uphold those restrictions?

    Appellate courts would have to find history text and tradition consistent within the framework of the 2nd Amendment that indicates there was a restriction on keeping and bearing arms that are commonly in use. if they were in common use then they obviously weren't restricted and for that reason arms that are commonly in use today such as an AR should not be restricted.

    That also apples to common standard capacity magazines and ammunition. There weren't any restrictions back then found within the language of the 2nd Amendment on how much ammunition they could carry.

    If it's not found within that framework they are not at liberty to just make up any other reason that they want to form their decisions.
     
    Last edited:
    Top Bottom