Is this what we have been waiting for? Updated 4/26

[ladder13]

The SCOTUS is in discussion to see if there is currently a case making its way through the lower courts that will advance our 2A rights.
A case in NY may be the one they make take. It involves the need to show a “actual and articulable” need to conceal carry in that state.
I believe we will never have a court like this one in the foreseeable future.

Supreme Court to discuss case that could expand Second Amendment rights - CNNPolitics

[moosedog]

I'm praying.

[Nedroe]

Sadly, I doubt the current court will do much for us. They have proven themselves to be spineless.
I will be absolutely shocked if they take any truly meaningful case, & even more so if they would actually do their jobs correctly.

Sorry, buddy, we have no help there.


Ned

[SMSgt]

Don't be surprised if the outcome is not what you hope for.

[fordson]

Originally Posted by SMSgt

Don't be surprised if the outcome is not what you hope for.

My thoughts also. I hope to be proven wrong.

[delcrossv]

Haven't shown much spine to date, so I'm not holding my breath hoping to be pleasantly surprised.

[robertrwalsh]

hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

[bushmaster1313]

Here is a link to the Supreme Court Docket for the case:

Supreme Court of the United States

The question presented is:

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

[Buzzzer]

Originally Posted by robertrwalsh

hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

Hope for the best, "expect" the worst...

[stansdds]

I am not holding my breath and there may be a reason they are jonesing for such a case to rule on.

[ladder13]

Wow.............

[bushmaster1313]

On March 29 2021 it was pushed to the Conference of April 1 2021

We know the Petition was not officially Denied
Anything else is speculation
We have no clue whatsoever whether SCOTUS will take the case

[glowe]

I am not surprised by the cases turned down so far by the Court. In my opinion, the Supreme Court has not yet been given a case that can impact the issue regarding suppressing the 2nd Amendment on a National basis. I feel that individual state cases will never be accepted by the Court, since they would result, at best, in affecting one state's laws. We need a case that can and will be leveraged across all states. Unfortunately, that would most likely be contesting a law passed by US Congress that negatively impacts our 2nd Amendment rights . . . just guessing.

[Johnrh]

For fun, read the brief by Neal Goldfarb about the linguistics used at the time of the Amendment. He argues the only interpretation of the Second applies to militia service. Funny how after that Amendment was approved there was no effort to remove all guns from people and even allowed guns to be carried for self protection all well into the 20 century. So linguistics aside, this argument doesn't hold water to the actual events that occurred. I guess you can make up anything you want to justify yourself. Problem is, will the Court accept it?

[fordson]

Not to sidetrack this important thread, but the “militia” argument just doesn’t hold water. All males 18-45 (in summary, except Quakers) were members of the militia. As such, they were required to bring their own weapons (rifles), shot and powder with them when called to duty. This was their personal property, it wasn’t issued to them by the government. Government shot and powder followed afterward. Upon aging out of the militia (at age 45+) did the government “buy back” their rifles? Were 45+ year olds no long able to “legally “ own a firearm? Were Quakers not allowed to own firearms at all, since they were not members of the militia?
Of course not. They kept their firearms, because the firearms were their personal property. They had a right to own them - a Constitutional Right, a Second Amendment right, an Individual right.
All this militia argument is hogwash, and I don’t want to disrespect hogs. Some talking heads will argue their point, regardless of how weak that argument is, just to make their point.
Now back to our regularly scheduled posting.........

[bushmaster1313]

Originally Posted by glowe

I am not surprised by the cases turned down so far by the Court. In my opinion, the Supreme Court has not yet been given a case that can impact the issue regarding suppressing the 2nd Amendment on a National basis. I feel that individual state cases will never be accepted by the Court, since they would result, at best, in affecting one state's laws. We need a case that can and will be leveraged across all states. Unfortunately, that would most likely be contesting a law passed by US Congress that negatively impacts our 2nd Amendment rights . . . just guessing.

I think the above ^^^ is wrong.
The case out of New York would allow SCOTUS to decide two important nationwide issues:

1) Does the 2A protect a right to bear arms outside the home, and if so:
2) The level of scrutiny for laws infringing this right

[ISCS Yoda]

Thank you fordson for that brief but quite correct summary of the militia argument.

I won't be surprised to see SCOTUS duck this case because of it being local in nature.

[Racer X]

Originally Posted by fordson

Not to sidetrack this important thread, but the “militia” argument just doesn’t hold water. All males 18-45 (in summary, except Quakers) were members of the militia. As such, they were required to bring their own weapons (rifles), shot and powder with them when called to duty. This was their personal property, it wasn’t issued to them by the government. Government shot and powder followed afterward. Upon aging out of the militia (at age 45+) did the government “buy back” their rifles? Were 45+ year olds no long able to “legally “ own a firearm? Were Quakers not allowed to own firearms at all, since they were not members of the militia?
Of course not. They kept their firearms, because the firearms were their personal property. They had a right to own them - a Constitutional Right, a Second Amendment right, an Individual right.
All this militia argument is hogwash, and I don’t want to disrespect hogs. Some talking heads will argue their point, regardless of how weak that argument is, just to make their point.
Now back to our regularly scheduled posting.........

honestly, this went back to medieval times. the freemen owned their own weapons, with family swords handed down through the generations. Bowmen owned their bows. When not at war, they provided food for their families.

[Racer X]

Originally Posted by Johnrh

For fun, read the brief by Neal Goldfarb about the linguistics used at the time of the Amendment. He argues the only interpretation of the Second applies to militia service. Funny how after that Amendment was approved there was no effort to remove all guns from people and even allowed guns to be carried for self protection all well into the 20 century. So linguistics aside, this argument doesn't hold water to the actual events that occurred. I guess you can make up anything you want to justify yourself. Problem is, will the Court accept it?

imagine the second Civil War in 1866 if they dissarmed everyone who served before they returned home? I have the family 1858 Remington Army my ancestor carried. That wouldn't be possible if a "well armed militia" only existed in war time, and everything was either returned or confiscated.

[WuzzFuzz]

Hmmmm...I don't know, but, so far the assumption is or has been for the concealed carry outside the home..correct?

However, does that not discriminate against the homeless people from carrying concealed, since they have no home????

Is living in a tent considered a home?

Must a home have a address?...A mobil home only has a lic plate, only registered to a address...

Also, in some cities, or it used to be, to be considered to even be able to carry a gun, it was required to show that it was necessary, such as carrying large sums of money from their place of business to the bank.

However, is not my life more valuable than money?

It puzzles me, if the 2nd amendment says says I have the right to possess a gun, but does not stipulate under what conditions I may posses it, my thinking goes, if it does not say specifically I cannot, therefore I can.


Just wondering out loud..


WuzzFuzz

[glowe]

Originally Posted by bushmaster1313

I think the above ^^^ is wrong.
The case out of New York would allow SCOTUS to decide two important nationwide issues:

1) Does the 2A protect a right to bear arms outside the home, and if so:
2) The level of scrutiny for laws infringing this right

Ok, but that the case is about a specific New York law, not a Federal law and I do not believe you can leverage a state law ruling across any other states. California and other anti-gun states will not be affected and even if the inference is that the law is unconstitutional, these states will not be adjudicated by a New York ruling.

[stansdds]

Originally Posted by glowe

Ok, but that the case is about a specific New York law, not a Federal law and I do not believe you can leverage a state law ruling across any other states. California and other anti-gun states will not be affected and even if the inference is that the law is unconstitutional, these states will not be adjudicated by a New York ruling.

Except for the fact that states are prohibited from enacting laws that violate the constitution. So if NY's law is found to be unconstitutional, identical laws in other states would also be unconstitutional. At least in theory, but it seems that states, counties, and cities like to test such things and tie up the courts with litigation and re-litigation... at taxpayer expense, of course.

[bushmaster1313]

CORRECTED to say that the case finding that the 2A did not apply to bearing arms outside the home was out of the Ninth Circuit

Originally Posted by stansdds

Except for the fact that states are prohibited from enacting laws that violate the constitution. So if NY's law is found to be unconstitutional, identical laws in other states would also be unconstitutional. At least in theory, but it seems that states, counties, and cities like to test such things and tie up the courts with litigation and re-litigation... at taxpayer expense, of course.

The Supreme Court isn't set up to address individual state laws. Rather, the Supreme Court will use a dispute over a particular law in a particular state to set precedent for all courts in all states.

For example, in the Hawaii [New York] case, the Ninth [Second] Circuit held that the Second Amendment did not apply at all to an ordinary person bearing arms outside the home. If the Supreme Court took a [the] case and decided as a threshold issue that the Ninth [Second] Circuit was wrong on this point, then every court in the United States when considering any right to carry case would have to start from the position that the Second Amendment did apply to the right of an ordinary person to bear arms outside the home.

Also, in cases that hinge on whether a law violates the Constitution, after determining that the Constitution is relevant to the law, the court must decide what level of "scrutiny" to apply. In deciding the New York case the Supreme Court has three choices: 1) decide that the law violates the Constitution under any level of scrutiny; 2) decide that the law does not violate the Constitution under any level of scrutiny; or 3) decide what level of scrutiny applies and go on from there.

1) and 2) are simple and lead to a yes or no answer. If the Supreme Court proceeds under 3) to decide the level of scrutiny, the Supreme Court could apply this level of scrutiny to the state law and decide if it violated the Constitution, or the Supreme Court could order the case back to the lower courts to apply the level of scrutiny announced by the Supreme Court

[glowe]

Here's the rub with that logic.

The Supreme Court currently has no enforcement powers. The Supreme Court relies on the executive branch for enforcement of its decisions. So what happens to states depend highly on what President is in office at that time. Occasionally, even the President will simply ignore decisions. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen.

[Johnrh]

I was ready to argue your point but after researching your post I found you to be absolutely correct. Scary stuff.

[smithman]

Ballot box, jury box...

[bushmaster1313]

We will find out this morning at 9:30 AM ET if the Supreme Court is taking any action on this case following the Conference of March 29. In my humble opinion it’s about time for the Supreme Court to hear a Right-To-Carry case. But alas — my opinion carries little weight with the Justices.

[ladder13]

If they take it, imo, it’s good for us.

I don’t think Thomas and Alito, two known quantities, would wait this long to stick it to us.
ACB also has a pro 2A track record.

Kavanaugh and Gorsuch appear to be originalists.

[bushmaster1313]

Very unusual
Today they did nothing at all
Did not even move it to the next Conference
My guess is that maybe they prefer the Hawaii case or maybe they want to consider them together before deciding what to do.

[llowry61]

Sometimes no news is good news. There is only one bite at this apple.

[YeshuaIsa53]

We, the people of the United States...
the pursuit of happiness

[bushmaster1313]

I have corrected post 23 to show that it was the Ninth Circuit which held that there is no right under the 2A to bear arms outside the home.

[bushmaster1313]

On April 12 it was redistributed for Conference of April 16

This does not mean anything of substance. All it means is that the question of whether to grant the Petition for Certiorari (i.e. decide to hear the case) was put on the Supreme Court's Calendar for the Conference of April 16.

We are still in wait and see mode. All we know is that the Supreme Court has not announced whether it will or will not hear this case. If the Supreme Court decides to not hear this case, the lower court ruling from the Second Circuit remains good law in the Second Circuit and the Supreme court could decide in the future to hear the right to carry question in another case. If the Supreme Court decides to hear this case -- it will be be off to the races and hold on to your hat!

[s&wchad]

Keep this discussion focused on the 2A.

Leave general political discussion, election rigging/stealing, etc... out of it.

[Bucher33]

Originally Posted by Johnrh

For fun, read the brief by Neal Goldfarb about the linguistics used at the time of the Amendment. He argues the only interpretation of the Second applies to militia service. Funny how after that Amendment was approved there was no effort to remove all guns from people and even allowed guns to be carried for self protection all well into the 20 century. So linguistics aside, this argument doesn't hold water to the actual events that occurred. I guess you can make up anything you want to justify yourself. Problem is, will the Court accept it?

I thought District of Columbia vs. Heller decided once and for all the 2nd amendment applied to individuals regardless of militia service.

[Rolex28]

200 years ago the conditions under which the 2A was written were a whole lot different.. Imagine 200 years from now what the types of weapons available will be???? But no matter what safety, will always be a concern for many folks...

[Riverboys]

Roberts will never take the case. He is a coward.

[ggibson511960]

Chief Justice Roberts has shown himself to be guilty of the worst misstep imaginable by the judiciary, bowing to political pressure. His capitulation to the Democratic senator's open letter threatening re-structuring is abominable. President Biden has taken up the mantle of politically threatening the court. After repeatedly making campaign statements against court packing, he has buckled to party political pressure by appointing a commission to study the issue. This is how court intimidation works. Franklin Roosevelt did the same thing. He threatened court packing after his command-and-control economic policies were slapped down by the Supreme Court. FDR couldn't get court packing Congress, but the court buckled to political pressure and began letting FDR's New Deal programs pass constitutional muster. Roberts should heed Ruth Bader Ginsburg's regret when she bad-mouthed Donald Trump. Hope this post isn't too political, but the intrusion of politics into the judiciary is inflaming what ought to be a scholarly judicial reconciliation of constitutional rights.

[crankyoldlady]

Originally Posted by Rolex28

200 years ago the conditions under which the 2A was written were a whole lot different.. Imagine 200 years from now what the types of weapons available will be???? But no matter what safety, will always be a concern for many folks...

Technology changes. Human nature does not. The genius of the founders was their understanding of power in human hands.

[bushmaster1313]

At today’s morning session of the Supreme Court there was no mention of this Petition

Later today the Petition was listed as being distributed for the Conference of April 23

Therefore, still in limbo

[ladder13]

BREAKING NEWS.

Looks like SCOTUS is taking up the NY case. More to follow.

[FlyFish]

Originally Posted by Rolex28

200 years ago the conditions under which the 2A was written were a whole lot different.. Imagine 200 years from now what the types of weapons available will be???? But no matter what safety, will always be a concern for many folks...

When the Constitution was written and ratified, private citizens were allowed, and in many cases expected, to own and carry exactly the same types of arms carried by the military, just as it should be today. Yes, technology changes. There was no TV, radio, or internet in the late 18th Century. Would anyone today use that to argue that the freedom of speech guaranteed by the 1st Amendment should not extend to those media?

There is a procedure for changing the Constitution via Amendment or Constitutional Convention. Those opposed to our 2A rights are entitled to use it if they don't like our current Constitutional guarantees. Good luck with that.

[ladder13]

You can come up for air now.

[dockmurgw]

Originally Posted by FlyFish

When the Constitution was written and ratified, private citizens were allowed, and in many cases expected, to own and carry exactly the same types of arms carried by the military, just as it should be today.

I never gave much thought to this argument in the past, but then I read this...now I wonder what we will need to protect ourselves from governors that want to keep us safe.

California National Guard put fighter jet on alert in March 2020 for '''possible domestic mission''': report | Fox News

[ISCS Yoda]

Both FOX and CNN commence their online coverage of this case with this:

The Supreme Court announced Monday that it will hear a major gun rights case over whether ordinary citizens can be legally prohibited from carrying concealed handguns for self-defense outside their homes.

This appears to be a very narrow issue and in my opinion will not have a significant impact overall on gun rights. They can use Heller and McDonald to narrowly rule on New York's concealed carry permits without broadly ruling on anything else.

[bushmaster1313]

Originally Posted by ISCS Yoda

This appears to be a very narrow issue and in my opinion will not have a significant impact overall on gun rights. They can use Heller and McDonald to narrowly rule on New York's concealed carry permits without broadly ruling on anything else.

I respectfully disagree.

The Supreme Court will need to answer the following questions:

1) Does the right to bear arms include the right to carry a gun outside the home. My take: Duh. If the 2A protects the right to keep a handgun in the home it must protect the right to bear it outside the home.

2) If yes to the above, the next question is: Can a State force an ordinary individual to show a special need before being allowed to exercise this right. My take: This is an important issue going to the foundation of our Constitutional Liberties. Can the Goverment force a person to show why they need to exercise a Right protected by the Constitution more than the average Joe or Jane. Imagine a court saying to an individual: Why do you need to practice religion; Why do you need to read a newspaper; What’s so special about your case that you need a lawyer; Why do you need Due Process; What’s so special about your privacy. Of course, this would be preposterous. And that is why this is an important case.

[GaryS]

This is the quote from the grant of certiorari .

"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. "

The question itself is narrowly worded, which is fairly typical of the way the the Court likes to operate.

This will mostly effect not only New York, but other "may issue" states since those are the ones that are problematic. My state is one of those and I expect our anti 2A Attorney General to petition to file an Amicus brief.

The problem with your argument (as of now) is that the standard for reviewing Second Amendment cases is "Intermediate Scrutiny." That's unlike the First which is reviewed under "Strict Scrutiny."

The effect is that the Second Amendment is treated as a second class civil right. I don't like it, but that's the way it is. It would be nice if the Court decided to apply strict scrutiny and change the standard.

At the least, I expect Justice Thomas to bring that up.

Originally Posted by bushmaster1313

I respectfully disagree.

The Supreme Court will need to answer the following questions:

1) Does the right to bear arms include the right to carry a gun outside the home. My take: Duh. If the 2A protects the right to keep a handgun in the home it must protect the right to bear it outside the home.

2) If yes to the above, the next question is: Can a State force an ordinary individual to show a special need before being allowed to exercise this right. My take: This is an important issue going to the foundation of our Constitutional Liberties. Can the Goverment force a person to show why they need to exercise a Right protected by the Constitution more than the average Joe or Jane. Imagine a court saying to an individual: Why do you need to practice religion; Why do you need to read a newspaper; What’s so special about your case that you need a lawyer; Why do you need Due Process; What’s so special about your privacy. Of course, this would be preposterous. And that is why this is an important case.

[bushmaster1313]

I expect the court to dodge the scrutiny test and say it violates any level of scrutiny for a state to force an ordinary person to justify why they need to exercise a Constitutional right.

[LostintheOzone]

The case basically addresses may issue and shall issue. Where some states have no permits for open or even concealed carry and most states have shall issue, the states with may issue, which are few, are behind the curve and normal acceptance of carry outside the home.

My feeling is when most states accept something as the norm, the SC follows their lead and makes the outliers conform. It happened with SSM.

The constitutional 2A question is unanswerable because it was directed to a situation that no longer exists. One's RKBA is a situation that does exists and state constitutions and legislation has addressed it just about every way imaginable.

I'm not a proponent of the federal gov't or the SC dictating to states what they should and shouldn't be doing but ones RKBA is a fundamental right that they need to accept. They can fashion any restrictions they want but in the end they need to recognize that they need to issue permits based on background checks and not some elected or appointed LEO.

The fact is concealed carry has not increased crime and persons that do conceal carry legally have a very low rate of convictions for violent crime. Actually less than LEO's.

My guess is that if the SC does take a case for shall issue it will be a big win for RKBA.

[The.Doctor]

I'm getting involved late here and I didn't read every post.

The Militia question was addressed in the Heller decision.

"District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia"