ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
Good read.
Supreme Court will hear New York gun rights case on transporting unloaded handguns
- Thread starter Blimey
- Start date
Steal2B
.700 Nitro Express
The Second Circuit Judges involved, (Rosemary POOLER, Gerry LYNCH, and Sue CARNEY) are three progressive arrogant ivy league Clinton/Obama appointed activists, who were born (NYC, NYC, Boston), raised/worked/lived (NYC, NYC, Boston/LA/DC/NYC) exclusively in democratic liberal hellholes, were so self rightously arrogant and anti-constitution they did not even bother to develop a cohesive logical judgement.
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
Supersizing the Second Amendment
The Supreme Court just took a case that could lead to yet more guns on the streets
“It appears the votes are now there to supersize the Second Amendment’s protection for guns,” Adam Winkler, a law professor at UCLA and the author of Gun Fight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, told me.
He was referring to the Supreme Court’s decision on Tuesday to grant review in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York.
The Rifle & Pistol case begins, then, with four virtually certain votes against the New York law—the two newcomers, Thomas, and Alito. Chief Justice John Roberts voted for the gun owners in Heller and McDonald. He may have been trying to keep the Court out of the Second Amendment area for institutional reasons since then, but that’s not likely to make him go back on his earlier votes when the time comes to throw down.
“The impact of this case could be huge,” Winkler told me, because the Court may decide that the right to gun possession extends outside the home. The Court could undermine long-standing restrictions on concealed carry in America’s major cities, leading to hundreds of thousands more guns on the streets of Los Angeles, New York, and Washington, D.C.
Court Hears NY Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of NY - The Atlantic
The Supreme Court just took a case that could lead to yet more guns on the streets
“It appears the votes are now there to supersize the Second Amendment’s protection for guns,” Adam Winkler, a law professor at UCLA and the author of Gun Fight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, told me.
He was referring to the Supreme Court’s decision on Tuesday to grant review in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York.
The Rifle & Pistol case begins, then, with four virtually certain votes against the New York law—the two newcomers, Thomas, and Alito. Chief Justice John Roberts voted for the gun owners in Heller and McDonald. He may have been trying to keep the Court out of the Second Amendment area for institutional reasons since then, but that’s not likely to make him go back on his earlier votes when the time comes to throw down.
“The impact of this case could be huge,” Winkler told me, because the Court may decide that the right to gun possession extends outside the home. The Court could undermine long-standing restrictions on concealed carry in America’s major cities, leading to hundreds of thousands more guns on the streets of Los Angeles, New York, and Washington, D.C.
Court Hears NY Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of NY - The Atlantic
dwa12479
.338 Win Mag
If the precedent set by this case gets all gun rights cases from here on out subjected to strict scrutiny then this case will be a landmark decision. Until then.....
Ugh combine these threads please. This is where the Slate article was.
People who think this is not an important case for the rest of the country need to understand the order of events of building precedent...
Heller and McDonald affirmed that:
Owning a gun is a fundamental individual right
Mandating it be locked up and unloaded / unusable at all times in the home is unconstitutional, because what is the point of an unloaded locked up gun?
THIS case will affirm that it is unconstitutional to not allow the legal (unloaded) transport of said gun, outside the home.
The next case will affirm that it is unconstitutional to not allow the legal LOADED transport of said gun...because that is the core purpose of the 2nd amendment and what is the point of an unloaded locked up gun?
This is the start of a constitutional carry case people...
Heller and McDonald affirmed that:
Owning a gun is a fundamental individual right
Mandating it be locked up and unloaded / unusable at all times in the home is unconstitutional, because what is the point of an unloaded locked up gun?
THIS case will affirm that it is unconstitutional to not allow the legal (unloaded) transport of said gun, outside the home.
The next case will affirm that it is unconstitutional to not allow the legal LOADED transport of said gun...because that is the core purpose of the 2nd amendment and what is the point of an unloaded locked up gun?
This is the start of a constitutional carry case people...
Blimey
.450/400 Nitro Ex
I'll address the two bolded. You are right this case addresses the first point.
But if this reaffirms the importance of the 2nd as some think, is it not a fine line to say one can transport an unloaded, but not a loaded? Some appear to believe this could go past the first bolded into the second, which would be constitutional carry. It could be too much to ask for, though.
Absolutely, depends on how they write the decision. Thomas could use this case to write a scathing decision flat out saying that the 2nd Amendment means what it says and NO gun laws are legal. Wishful thinking of course.
It is much more likely that in going "radical" the majority author will stick to transport outside the home BUT set up the next case as Dave just said: actual loaded carry, whether open or concealed. In the least, I don't see how a decision on this case doesn't affect non-NYC residents positively. It will likely affirm that federal law and the 2nd Amendment allows ANYONE to travel lawfully with a secured, unloaded firearm between two places where that gun is and will be legal and that NYC's law cannot say a gun leaving or entering its administrative boundaries is inherently illegal.
There is long precedent which implies we may eventually get open carry nationwide but concealed will still be regulated. Concealed carry of weapons was considered the criminal and thieves lot for centuries. Most Founders likely would have agreed with that sentiment.
nortatoga
.338 Win Mag
See that is the thing...according to NYS law, a premise permit is only valid at the listed address. So a NYC premise holder IS breaking NYS law because the gun is not legal at their destination in NY (outside NYC).
So if NYC loses, NY will have to re-write NY PL400 to make premise permits valid for transport AND USE outside of the home. And if one can carry a loaded handgun hunting or at a range or at a home upstate, why not everywhere?
Next step is constitutional carry...and it's not a giant leap from unloaded transport to loaded transport...as having a loaded gun has already been affirmed as the core purpose of the 2nd amendment.
Last edited:
S
stuck in ny
Guest
The arrogance of these people to think that they define normalcy is hilarious.
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
I still don't understand what "danger" is being prevented by prohibiting the transportation outside of the home of what amounts to an expensive hammer.
Steal2B
.700 Nitro Express
I'll bet it is because you are looking at this logically and assume that the progressives' motives are truthful. A more cynical perspective might recognize it's about power, and the mean spirited micro managing control of the lives and liberties for both the serfs or the opposition.
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
Supreme Court to Review NYC Gun Law, Could Expand Second Amendment – Rolling Stone
For Years, the Supreme Court Has Been Silent on Gun Rights — Until Now
By taking its first Second Amendment case in eight years, the Supreme Court could show just how conservative it is
Since those cases, though, the Court has been silent on gun rights. Lower courts around the country have followed those precedents with respect to handgun bans, but have largely refused to expand them to strike down other forms of gun restrictions, such as waiting periods or restrictions on other kinds of guns. Those cases have been appealed to the Supreme Court, but until now, the Supreme Court has refused to hear them. In fact, last year Justice Clarence Thomas grew so frustrated by this pattern that he wrote a long dissent to yet another refusal from the Court to get involved, accusing his colleagues of viewing the Second Amendment as a “constitutional orphan” and the lower courts as acting in “defiance” of the Supreme Court.
For Years, the Supreme Court Has Been Silent on Gun Rights — Until Now
By taking its first Second Amendment case in eight years, the Supreme Court could show just how conservative it is
Since those cases, though, the Court has been silent on gun rights. Lower courts around the country have followed those precedents with respect to handgun bans, but have largely refused to expand them to strike down other forms of gun restrictions, such as waiting periods or restrictions on other kinds of guns. Those cases have been appealed to the Supreme Court, but until now, the Supreme Court has refused to hear them. In fact, last year Justice Clarence Thomas grew so frustrated by this pattern that he wrote a long dissent to yet another refusal from the Court to get involved, accusing his colleagues of viewing the Second Amendment as a “constitutional orphan” and the lower courts as acting in “defiance” of the Supreme Court.
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-342_4hd5.pdf
Justice Clarence Thomas dissent ....
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Justice Clarence Thomas dissent ....
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Everyone needs to read this dissent. It will only take about 10 minutes. Besides the obvious point of showing you were Thomas stands on this issue, you will learn a lot about how court decisions are arrived at and how detailed Thomas' argument is (and obviously correct).
Please read it. I refer to this dissent a lot when speaking about the 2nd Amendment.
IrishMick
.44 mag
Good Read ABG.
ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
Yeah, I agree. It sounds like he is ready to lay the law down for lower courts to stop treating the 2nd as a lesser right. This could really be a big win if we win.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
@Airborneguy , @nortatoga
Except, none of that matters. It's what is written that counts and the fact of the matter is that the Constitution doesn't differentiate between bearing openly or concealed.
Regardless of what some thought about concealed carry when it was written, some people did conceal carry back then and the Constitution wasn't written to specifically prohibit it.
What we do know based on the founder's quotes is that it was written to preserve one's right for personal defense and to dispose of a tyrannical government. That method of carrying is crucial for both.
It was also cowardly to shoot officers in guerilla warfare rather than standing in a line at an open battlefield yet it was done anyway because it was necessary to accomplish the end goal. Concealed carry is the same thing. It's cowardly to go concealed up to a government official to take him out but it's a necessary part of guerrilla warfare especially in this day and age of cameras and tracking. And while we are at it for personal defense, it creates a target on your back. I couldn't imagine being on a packed subway train in Brooklyn open carrying at 1am trying to go home while a group of six thugs mark me because I was carrying openly in the only method the government allowed me to while they plot to take me out and take away my weapon by overwhelming me. Denying me to bear concealed is an infringement on my right to self-defense because it makes me a target certain areas.
And while we are at it, let's look at the equal protection clause. As per the Constitution, "no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." That in itself is a violation when one person is protected from a state's laws because he has a concealed carry license or a badge and can legally conceal carry compared to a person who doesn't have one or is denied one for any reason whether it's because they did or didn't apply and get permission or because they live in a certain jurisdiction that prohibits it or lives out of state and can't get one for when they come into the state.
Except, none of that matters. It's what is written that counts and the fact of the matter is that the Constitution doesn't differentiate between bearing openly or concealed.
Regardless of what some thought about concealed carry when it was written, some people did conceal carry back then and the Constitution wasn't written to specifically prohibit it.
What we do know based on the founder's quotes is that it was written to preserve one's right for personal defense and to dispose of a tyrannical government. That method of carrying is crucial for both.
It was also cowardly to shoot officers in guerilla warfare rather than standing in a line at an open battlefield yet it was done anyway because it was necessary to accomplish the end goal. Concealed carry is the same thing. It's cowardly to go concealed up to a government official to take him out but it's a necessary part of guerrilla warfare especially in this day and age of cameras and tracking. And while we are at it for personal defense, it creates a target on your back. I couldn't imagine being on a packed subway train in Brooklyn open carrying at 1am trying to go home while a group of six thugs mark me because I was carrying openly in the only method the government allowed me to while they plot to take me out and take away my weapon by overwhelming me. Denying me to bear concealed is an infringement on my right to self-defense because it makes me a target certain areas.
And while we are at it, let's look at the equal protection clause. As per the Constitution, "no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." That in itself is a violation when one person is protected from a state's laws because he has a concealed carry license or a badge and can legally conceal carry compared to a person who doesn't have one or is denied one for any reason whether it's because they did or didn't apply and get permission or because they live in a certain jurisdiction that prohibits it or lives out of state and can't get one for when they come into the state.
Last edited:
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
Love his dissent .. at right at the end .. using the fourth .. a 10 min delay at traffic stop , .. the 4473 and filling out the CCW form is a delay ...
hummmm .. wounder if we can get a law where LEO has to have a 10 day cool off period when you drive by at 20 over the limit LOL ..
ok you live in NYShitty and have a premise permit ... then you get your Florida non res PP .. and now you want to drive and take your pistol to FL ... humm
hummmm .. wounder if we can get a law where LEO has to have a 10 day cool off period when you drive by at 20 over the limit LOL ..
ok you live in NYShitty and have a premise permit ... then you get your Florida non res PP .. and now you want to drive and take your pistol to FL ... humm
Found out at the range today that my club's president is one of the plaintiffs in this case. I had no idea previously.
Robin
.577 Tyrannosaur.
I've been waiting over seventy years for some good news. Here's hoping.
Robin
Robin
M_F
.45 acp
I can't wait to read the ridiculous amicus briefs submitted by FUAC, brady bunch, giffords, California and the other enemies of the bill of rights. Will FUAC cite "mother jones" again?
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
Not necessarily true.
A premises permit holder in NYC might use FOPA to shoot in NJ or PA and not change the law if the SCOTUS decides against the administrative restrictions
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
don't you have to get a permission slip first from the king just to take it out of the home ?? LOL ..
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Truebeliever is correct. If using FOPA, you are legal at your start point (your driveway) and legal at your end point. (Whatever state that is where it's legal.) The NYPD will tell you otherwise though.
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
The people in NYC with premise permits currently need it.
And case law with the hunting green card can take it up state to hunt.
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
thats what i'm sayin .. and not just NYPD .. NYC convoluted unreadable laws ..
ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
If they rule against administrative restrictions would that not do away with hunting/target as well? Would it not affect the whole state so judges cannot restrict permits?
RBean
.40 S&W
Basically we don't know how the Court is going to treat this. It could take an expansive view, require strict scrutiny of gun laws etc. Or I could easily produce a very narrow decision. On commerce clause or a just plan ultra vires act. What is the city doing? Using the unlimited discretion of the licensing officer to control what people do out side of New York City and beyond it's jurisdiction. The city of New York has no power to pass laws making acts outside it's boundaries illegal. But the licensing office has the power to revoke your NYC permit if you don't do what they say. Another example of the blatant unconstitutional nature of Arts. 265 and 400.