New York State rifle SCOTUS case granted certiorari

[Twangbanger]

How did I miss hearing that the current US Solicitor General is requesting to participate in the Oral Arguments?

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen - SCOTUSblog

Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court

www.scotusblog.com

http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/193218/20210921145008841_20-843%20Bruen%20Divided%20Argument%20Motion.pdf

Which strike will this be?

Some here voted for this.

Sure hope the conservative justices have their security details well-provided-for, and that Clarence Thomas is taking his One-A-Days.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Guy mentioned this earlier. First 2A case since McDonald v Chicago 2010.

 

[indykid]

It seems like the Supreme Court Justices are afraid of offending someone or some organization as they are constantly afraid to rule that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[Twangbanger]

It seems like the Supreme Court Justices are afraid of offending someone or some organization as they are constantly afraid to rule that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy had an agreement not to take any more 2A cases. They felt they had settled it at McDonald, and were perfectly content to let the rest of the 2A be hashed out by the states, like Abortion. Your 2A rights would depend on where you live, and that would be that. They wanted to move on to the real business at hand, expanding the power of corporations.

Anthony Kennedy leaving was a god-send. There was a reason Democrats went after Kavanaugh so viciously. They knew that Kennedy seat was almost as useful to them as another "Democrat justice." John Roberts is now no longer in charge of deciding which 2A cases to hear (at least until Thomas dies).

 

[tbhausen]

The lib’s are shakin’ in their boots over this one, folks!

The two newest Supreme Court justices could redraw the road map for the Second Amendment in courts | CNN Politics

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday in a case that could broaden gun rights nationwide and transform how the Second Amendment is interpreted in the United States.

www.cnn.com

 

[KellyinAvon]

The lib’s are shakin’ in their boots over this one, folks!

The two newest Supreme Court justices could redraw the road map for the Second Amendment in courts | CNN Politics

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday in a case that could broaden gun rights nationwide and transform how the Second Amendment is interpreted in the United States.

www.cnn.com

 

[MCgrease08]

Mark W. Smith: Clever but Wrong -- Inside the Anti-Gun Arguments at the Supreme Court

Anti-gun lawyers are clever and relentless. That’s a key point to understand as the Supreme Court takes up a major Second Amendment case.

www.breitbart.com

 

[tbhausen]

I don't quite know what to make of this. Obviously, I hope the author's (who clerked at SCOTUS) analysis is wrong. It's written with a clear anti-gun bias (revealed by the supposition that more guns on the streets is an inherently bad thing). In any case, it deserves careful reading and consideration by all of us:

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[KLB]

Looks like they weren't going to rule on nationwide constitutional carry, which is basically what the original question was. Instead they chose to have a hearing on may issue licenses. I think that author is reading what he wants to into the analysis though.

 

[manifest destiny]

The MSN article is very contorted by the author. NY doesn't have an 'open carry license'.
From the article, by Aaron Tang

"The rewritten question focuses the court’s review first to the matter of concealed-carry, rather than open-carry, licenses — a sensible move because that is the type of license for which the petitioners originally applied."

 

[04FXSTS]

As most here know Illinois only got CCW because of the court. It has been long enough ago I may be a little fuzzy on some details but I do remember the main points quite well. There were two petitioners one was IIRC a retired correctional officer who now retired could not carry. The other was an older lady that was an officer in her church and held a couple non-resident CCW's which were no good in Illinois, and still aren't. She was alone in the church when it was robbed and she was beaten within an inch of her life.
Two good people unable to carry a gun for their protection as in New York. What is different is that Illinois had NO provision for anyone to carry a loaded gun in public open or concealed. There was no request for a concealed permit, just that a total ban on carrying a loaded weapon in public was unconstitutional.
The judge in 2nd district court of appeals agreed and this forced Illinois to remedy this situation by allowing the carrying of weapons in public. There was no mention by the judge of open or concealed carry, just that the total ban was unconstitutional. Side note, the judge was actually not a pro-gun type judge.
This put the state in the position of passing a law to allow some type of carry or having all restrictions on carry being null and void. No one knows how that would have ended up but many pro-gun groups wanted the state to do nothing and end up with possibly unrestricted carry.
This was a big win for 2A supporters and it it went the other way at the appeals court it would have went to the USSC and should have had a very good chance of winning there. The Illinois attorney general wanted to appeal to the USSC but from what I was told by those in a position to know there was pressure from other states like NY, California and other restrictive states not to do so. The fear was even in that time 2013 it would have almost assuredly have won and affected the entire US. Jim.

 

[KLB]

The MSN article is very contorted by the author. NY doesn't have an 'open carry license'.
From the article, by Aaron Tang

"The rewritten question focuses the court’s review first to the matter of concealed-carry, rather than open-carry, licenses — a sensible move because that is the type of license for which the petitioners originally applied."

Not really. The court did rewrite the question to include "concealed carry".

NEW YORK STATE RIFLE, ET AL. V. CORLETT, KEITH M., ET AL.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is 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.

as opposed to the original question

“Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.”

I think the author misconstrues what the court was more narrowly defining though. It wasn't to remove open carry, but to narrow it to denying the license. Again IMO, the original question if upheld by the court would seem to make Constitutional carry the law of the land. I do not think the court will ever go there.

 

[manifest destiny]

Not really. The court did rewrite the question to include "concealed carry".


as opposed to the original question



I think the author misconstrues what the court was more narrowly defining though. It wasn't to remove open carry, but to narrow it to denying the license. Again IMO, the original question if upheld by the court would seem to make Constitutional carry the law of the land. I do not think the court will ever go there.

I agree with your last point. I'm not confident that USSC will every directly rule in favor of constitutional carry. But my point about the author and article stands. My quote was from the article where the author stated the rewritten question focused on concealed carry and not open carry licenses. There are no open carry license in NY. The author appears to have created contention where there is none. Further, he created whole cloth the idea that NY has open carry licensing.

 

[indyblue]

Opinion | If the New Supreme Court Stymies Gun Safety Laws, What Comes Next?

If gun safety activists want their agenda to survive, they will have to stop trying to ban guns — and focus instead on reducing the violence those guns bring.

www.nytimes.com

BREAKING! Did The NY Times just give up on Gun Control as we know it?!!​

 

[KLB]

I agree with your last point. I'm not confident that USSC will every directly rule in favor of constitutional carry. But my point about the author and article stands. My quote was from the article where the author stated the rewritten question focused on concealed carry and not open carry licenses. There are no open carry license in NY. The author appears to have created contention where there is none. Further, he created whole cloth the idea that NY has open carry licensing.

The author was thinking in terms of the affect of a ruling nationwide, not what is in affect in NY today. This goes far beyond NY's may issue law at this point.

 

[cbhausen]

Opinion | If the New Supreme Court Stymies Gun Safety Laws, What Comes Next?

If gun safety activists want their agenda to survive, they will have to stop trying to ban guns — and focus instead on reducing the violence those guns bring.

www.nytimes.com

BREAKING! Did The NY Times just give up on Gun Control as we know it?!!​

One editorial writer for NYT seems to come around and this guy thinks all the other antis are with him? He needs to wake up and throttle his YT video gush-fest back a bit. It quickly got tiresome to watch.

 

[NewPerson556]

We read all the amicus briefs in New York State Rifle so you don’t have to - SCOTUSblog

More than 80 amicus briefs were filed in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the major Second Amendment challenge to a New York law that requires people to show “proper cause” for a license to carry a concealed handgun in public. The briefs come from professors, politicians, stat

www.scotusblog.com

 

[bwframe]

Supreme Court looks to medieval England in gun rights case

The court's originalists look to history to determine the meaning of the 2nd Amendment and the right to 'keep and bear arms.'

www.latimes.com

 

[manifest destiny]

From the LAT article:

"In a dispute to be argued Wednesday, a newly strengthened conservative Supreme Court majority will have an opportunity to go even further in broadening the rights of gun owners."

-It isn't broadening gun rights. It's pushing back against illegitimate gun laws & restrictions.

"And in 1328, the parliament adopted the statute of Northampton which said “no man great nor small ... except the King’s servants in his presence” shall “go nor ride armed by night nor by day, in fairs, markets ... nor in no part elsewhere” or “forfeit their armour ... and their bodies to prison at the King’s pleasure.”"

-Tyranny, anyone? Eph the king. That war was fought. America won. Suck it England.

"Not all the history in this case is of medieval vintage. A brief filed by retired Judge J. Michael Luttig and several top Washington lawyers urged the court to focus on the Jan. 6 insurrection by supporters of President Trump, and to imagine thousands of armed protesters descending on the Capitol."

-If only that had happened... I know, next we can make up laws about other **** that didn't happen!

 

[manifest destiny]

Just a few gems I plucked from the comment section of the LAT article. Enjoy!


-A shotgun for home protection and a single acton bolt rifle for hunting is all one needs. Anything beyond that should not be allowed. Men walking around in public armed look ridiculous. If you are that much of a ‘fraidy cat, lock yourself in a closet and stay there. There is no need for anyone to walk around armed but to illustrate one’s cowardice.

-Actually, being able to vote out a tyrannical government made the 2nd amendment completely moot and it should be repealed immediately. Our government currently has a standing army that would decimate any armed militia or an armed individual. So, there's no reason to be armed to overthrow our government (the original idea for the 2nd amendment). our armed forces have tanks and ships and planes and nuclear bombs. No armed citizen or militia is going to win any type of war. Besides, all American citizens have something a billion times more powerful than any gun or nuclear weapon to fix our government. It's called a vote. With a vote, you and your fellow citizens can simply replace any government you don't like and replace it with one you do like. Every 4 years or so. So, once again, repeal the 2nd amendment as it is completely useless in today's society.

-"Well regulated militia" refers to slave patrols.
The 2nd Amendment is about protecting slavery, not freedom.