New York has frozen over-New York's May Issue for Good Cause violates 2A

[WR Moore]

Maybe the most interesting part of oral arguments is the questioning by the Justices. Give them a chance to explore/illuminate absurdities in the agrgument. The rather droll "question" during Heller about having the guns locked up, etc is a good example. Words to the effect that: "Let's see if I have this straight. I hear a noise that wakes me up, I turn on the night stand light, reach for the gun safe, put on my reading glasses......." the court erupted in laughter.

[bushmaster1313]

On October 18 2921
Supreme Court fairly allocated argument time as follows
Petitioner 35 minutes
NY State 20 minutes
United States 15 minutes

[bushmaster1313]

Originally Posted by WR Moore

Maybe the most interesting part of oral arguments is the questioning by the Justices. Give them a chance to explore/illuminate absurdities in the agrgument. The rather droll "question" during Heller about having the guns locked up, etc is a good example. Words to the effect that: "Let's see if I have this straight. I hear a noise that wakes me up, I turn on the night stand light, reach for the gun safe, put on my reading glasses......." the court erupted in laughter.

Transcript from Heller Argument here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_ar...007/07-290.pdf

Above exchange about turning on the light and putting on the reading glasses starts at top of page 83 and carries on to page 84:

[page 83]
8 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So how long does it
9 take? If your interpretation is correct, how long does
it take to remove the trigger lock and make the gun
11 operable.
12 MR. DELLINGER: You -- you place a trigger
13 lock on and it has -- the version I have, a few -- you
14 can buy them at 17th Street Hardware -- has a code, like
a three-digit code. You turn to the code and you pull
16 it apart. That's all it takes. Even -- it took me 3
17 seconds.
18 JUSTICE SCALIA: You turn on, you turn on
19 the lamp next to your bed so you can -- you can turn the
knob at 3-22-95, and so somebody --
21 MR. DELLINGER: Well --
22 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Is it like that? Is
23 it a numerical code?
24 MR. DELLINGER: Yes, you can have one with a
25 numerical code.
[page 84]
1 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So then you turn on
2 the lamp, you pick up your reading glasses --
3 (Laughter.)

And for good measure, at page 88 Justice Scalia also plays with the government attorney:

[page 88]
7 JUSTICE SCALIA: You mean you can't have any
8 more arms than you would need to take with you to the
9 militia? You can't have a -- you can't have a -- you
know, a turkey gun and a duck gun and a 30.06 and a 270
11 and -- you know, different -- different hunting guns for
12 different --
13 MR. DELLINGER: Well --
14 JUSTICE SCALIA: You can't do that? I mean
a State could say you don't --
16 MR. DELLINGER: Of course you could do that.

[smoothshooter]

Originally Posted by bushmaster1313

Not true

If Supreme Court says that New York must be Shall Issue something will change, at least in New York. Happened in D.C.

I would welcome anyone who posts here to comment on how easy it is to get a CCW Permit in DC since the SC ruling in favor of the 2nd Amendment.

[bushmaster1313]

Originally Posted by smoothshooter

I would welcome anyone who posts here to comment on how easy it is to get a CCW Permit in DC since the SC ruling in favor of the 2nd Amendment.

This article from early 2020 says that thousands of permits were issued in DC.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.was...outputType=amp

BTW and FYI
The decision in D.C. in favor of shall issue was by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Not the Supreme Court. It was widely reported that under pressure from anti-carry groups in New York and elsewhere, D.C. declined to appeal to the Supreme Court for fear the Supreme Court would take the case, uphold Shall Issue and set precedent across the country. IMHO, once the D.C. case was final, the Supreme Court was ready to decide shall issue for the rest of the country and that is why it decided to hear the New York State case

[bushmaster1313]

Oral argument in the New York carry permit case starts Wednesday November 3 at 10 AM ET

Later in the day on Wednesday the audio of the Oral argument will be available here:

Argument Audio

[vt_shooter]

"Why isn’t it good enough to say I live in a violent area and I want to defend myself?" Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked.

"How many muggings take place in the forest?" Roberts asked.

Supreme court justices are asking great questions. Perhaps someday my Constitutional rights will be allowed to come with me when I visit NY.

[ISCS Yoda]

The good news there is that Roberts seems to have his head on straight for a change. He often doesn't.

[bushmaster1313]

Link to audio and transcript

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_ar...io/2021/20-843

Link to transcript
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_ar...0-843_8n5a.pdf

This question from Justice Roberts will hopefully tell the story. He asked to the effect. “If I follow your logic then the place where it is most likely to need a permit is the place where you are least likely to get one.

Justice Roberts:

Now I would think that arises in more
5 populated areas. If you're out in the woods,
6 presumably, it's pretty unlikely that you're
7 going to run into someone who's going to rob you
8 on the street. On the other hand, there are
9 places in a -- in a densely populated city where
10 it's more likely that that's where you're going
11 to need a gun for self-defense and, you know,
12 however many policemen are assigned, that, you
13 know, there are high-crime areas.
14 And it seems to me that what you're
15 saying is that's probably the last place that
16 someone's going to get a permit to carry a gun.
17 How is that -- regardless of what we
18 think of the policy of that, how is that
19 consistent with Heller's reasoning that the
20 reason the Second Amendment applies a -- a
21 direct personal right is for self-defense?

[Capt. F.]

Originally Posted by smoothshooter

Not with this case.
New York will do what it wants.
A 2’nd Amendment friendly ruling will make no difference at all.

I tend to agree with you.
A case in point? The FOPA of 1986. New York sez if you’re stopped by law enforcement while traveling through the state with a gun in your car, you can use that when your case comes to trial- and after you’ve hired a law firm for $50K to represent you.
Of course you’ll win the case, but that’s after you’ve cooled your heels in jail for a year, lost your job and suffered financial ruin.

[WR Moore]

Mr Justice Thomas proved he read the US Attorney's brief-and fact checked it- when he observed that he hoped he wasn't trying to mislead the court with one of his case citations by leaving out important content.

They went on to discuss the citation in detail.

I don't expect that went over well with the court.

[dockmurgw]

Some might find this to be interesting reading.

SCOTUS Second Amendment Hearing Signals Justices Think There Are Too Many Gun Control Laws

[1075tech]

To be honest, I did not read the entire preceding posts.

What no one seems to understand, save maybe a few members here, is that in NYS, you cannot own a handgun unless you have a permit. It is not like some other states where you can buy but not carry unless you have a permit. You cannot purchase or possess a handgun unless you get the state's permission.

[sigp220.45]

Originally Posted by Capt. F.

I tend to agree with you.
A case in point? The FOPA of 1986. New York sez if you’re stopped by law enforcement while traveling through the state with a gun in your car, you can use that when your case comes to trial- and after you’ve hired a law firm for $50K to represent you.
Of course you’ll win the case, but that’s after you’ve cooled your heels in jail for a year, lost your job and suffered financial ruin.

They said the same thing about LEOSA, but I know plenty of cops and retirees from outside NYC who regularly carry there with no problems. LEOSA has been around for 17 years and I haven’t heard any horror stories yet.

Have there been FOPA horror stories? I looked but all I could find were the usual “don’t be a test case!” and “I called a cop he said not to” warnings. Has someone actually been arrested while in compliance with the law?

The closest I can find to a LEOSA horror story is a prison employee who was caught with a gun in her car and claimed LEOSA protection. She worked as a recreational aide but said all prison employees technically had the power to arrest inmates. She was never issued a gun, had no firearms training, and had never qualified with anything, yet the court was actually considering her defense. Not sure how it turned out for her - not well, I guess.

I bet NY will comply with the Supremes.

[luvsmiths]

Originally Posted by 1075tech

To be honest, I did not read the entire preceding posts.

What no one seems to understand, save maybe a few members here, is that in NYS, you cannot own a handgun unless you have a permit. It is not like some other states where you can buy but not carry unless you have a permit. You cannot purchase or possess a handgun unless you get the state's permission.

Same in CT.

[wessonblitzar]

Originally Posted by bushmaster1313

^^^ This is certainly correct

However, my experience is that the Supreme Court typically takes cases to tell the lower courts that they are getting something wrong.

In this case, the lower Courts are treating the Second Amendment as a second class right and requiring citizens to prove that they can be forced to show why they should be allowed to exercise that right.

I see good reason to think there could be a resounding win for the Second Amendment.

But of course, we have no way of knowing in advance of the actual decision

Spot on from what I have seen as well.

[1075tech]

Originally Posted by sigp220.45

They said the same thing about LEOSA, but I know plenty of cops and retirees from outside NYC who regularly carry there with no problems. LEOSA has been around for 17 years and I haven’t heard any horror stories yet.

Have there been FOPA horror stories? I looked but all I could find were the usual “don’t be a test case!” and “I called a cop he said not to” warnings. Has someone actually been arrested while in compliance with the law?

The closest I can find to a LEOSA horror story is a prison employee who was caught with a gun in her car and claimed LEOSA protection. She worked as a recreational aide but said all prison employees technically had the power to arrest inmates. She was never issued a gun, had no firearms training, and had never qualified with anything, yet the court was actually considering her defense. Not sure how it turned out for her - not well, I guess.

I bet NY will comply with the Supremes.

I wouldn't bet on NY complying with anything. The communists that run this state do what they want with impunity.

As far as FOPA goes - a few years ago not too far from me, there was a lady traveling through the area from Texas to New England. She was transporting a handgun in a locked case, etc., etc.

She ran short on money for gas and stopped at a gun store to see if they (FFL) would buy the pistol. I won't get into the bs that immediately followed, but she was ultimately arrested and charged by the state gestapo for having a pistol without a permit. I don't know the ultimate outcome. Most of these types of cases are pled down to some bs misdemeanor because NY knows they stand a good chance of losing if the case should make it to a higher court.

The last case involving NYC was ruled moot because they changed the law before the hearing because they knew they were wrong and would lose

[bushmaster1313]

Virginia changes it’s position under the new Governor

Following the change in Administration on January 15, 2022, the Attorney General has reconsidered Virginia’s position in this case. The purpose of this letter is to notify the Court that Virginia no longer adheres to the arguments contained in its previously filed brief. Virginia is now of the view that New York’s handgun permit regime is irreconcilable with the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which secures an individual right to bear arms outside the home for self-defense.

[gerhard1]

Originally Posted by bushmaster1313

Not true

If Supreme Court says that New York must be Shall Issue something will change, at least in New York. Happened in D.C.

Good point.

[2152hq]

Originally Posted by 1075tech

I wouldn't bet on NY complying with anything. The communists that run this state do what they want with impunity.

As far as FOPA goes - a few years ago not too far from me, there was a lady traveling through the area from Texas to New England. She was transporting a handgun in a locked case, etc., etc.

She ran short on money for gas and stopped at a gun store to see if they (FFL) would buy the pistol. I won't get into the bs that immediately followed, but she was ultimately arrested and charged by the state gestapo for having a pistol without a permit. I don't know the ultimate outcome. Most of these types of cases are pled down to some bs misdemeanor because NY knows they stand a good chance of losing if the case should make it to a higher court.

.........

I know this is an old posting,,but to clarify something about NYS FFL holders and handgun transactions in NYS,,
When you have an FFL in NYS and want to also deal in Handguns,,you need to have a separate 'NYS Dealers License'.
OK, now you have both an FFL and a NYS Firearms Dealers License.

BUT, as a NYS Dealer license holder, you can only buy or accept for transfer a handgun within NYS from another NYS Dealer License holder or a NYS P/P holder. The handgun in the latter instance must show on the Permit holders NYS P/P.
If the handgun is coming in from out of state,,it must come to you from an FFL source out of State. Include valid FFL license copy

(FWIW,,NYS Gunsmiths (Handgun) can only accept handguns from NYS P/P holders, NYS Dealer License holders or other FFL's from out of state.
Gunsmithing Handguns requires yet another NYS Gunsmithing License along with an 01 FFL.)

So the NYS Gunshop FFL could not legally 'buy' the handgun from the lady from Texas over the counter.
The FFL's NYS Handgun records would have had to show the aquisition being from a NYS P/P holder or another NYS Dealer or an out of state FFL.

Sorry Ma'am, can't help you with your $$ issue.

...Who & why the cops were called on her is another story.

[Miami_JBT]

Originally Posted by bushmaster1313

Not true

If Supreme Court says that New York must be Shall Issue something will change, at least in New York. Happened in D.C.

And like Washington DC, NYC will make the vast majority of NYC a gun free zone.



Sure, you can apply for a permit in Washington DC after jumping through the multitude of hoops But you can't actually carry it anywhere.

[Miami_JBT]

Originally Posted by 1075tech

I wouldn't bet on NY complying with anything. The communists that run this state do what they want with impunity.

As far as FOPA goes - a few years ago not too far from me, there was a lady traveling through the area from Texas to New England. She was transporting a handgun in a locked case, etc., etc.

She ran short on money for gas and stopped at a gun store to see if they (FFL) would buy the pistol. I won't get into the bs that immediately followed, but she was ultimately arrested and charged by the state gestapo for having a pistol without a permit. I don't know the ultimate outcome. Most of these types of cases are pled down to some bs misdemeanor because NY knows they stand a good chance of losing if the case should make it to a higher court.

The last case involving NYC was ruled moot because they changed the law before the hearing because they knew they were wrong and would lose

FOPA is useless.... it is an Affirmative defense much like LEOSA. You might beat the rap, but your won't beat the ride. And in FOPA's case, you won't even beat the rap due to the fact that FOPA is so poorly written, to include the fact that if you are flying from Florida to Maine and due to weather, you are detoured to New York and land there and the airline puts you in a hotel and you go back to check your gun at the luggage terminal. Congrats, you're under arrest.

Yes, they rendered the case moot.

[wellthought1]

This case could very well establish Constitutional Carry in every state if presented and decided correctly to the SCOTUS.

[bushmaster1313]

No decision as of May 23

[Racer X]

Originally Posted by bushmaster1313

No decision as of May 23

is there a timeline, or is it a some day or maybe never situation?

[bushmaster1313]

Originally Posted by Racer X

is there a timeline, or is it a some day or maybe never situation?

The next possible day for a decision is Tuesday May 31

After that, the possible days are:
June 6
June 13
June 21 and
June 27.

For some reason the decisions in the big important cases at the Supreme Court seem to wait until June. But we have every reason to expect a decision before the end of June.

Supreme Court Schedule published here

[ladder13]

It’s pretty obvious that with all the Constitutional Carry states, now the majority in America, having to show you have some special need to carry is out of the norm.

[smoothshooter]

I would like to see the Court rule our way, but in reality, if that happens NYC will ignore it and do as they please. They know lawsuits against NY State or NYC for non-compliance with the Court’s ruling can take years to wind their way thru the legal system.

[bushmaster1313]

Originally Posted by ladder13

It’s pretty obvious that with all the Constitutional Carry states, now the majority in America, having to show you have some special need to carry is out of the norm.

Add to the Constitutional carry states all the shall issue states and it is up to about 41 states where anyone allowed to possess a gun can carry without a permit or get a permit to carry.

In this sense, the delay in having this case heard has helped push the needle towards a decision that “May issue” is unconstitutional.

But the real question before the Supreme Court is much deeper:

Can the government require a person to show a special need over and above the public’s average need as a condition to receive a permit to exercise a right enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

[GaryS]

And that is what "may issue" states do. Some set an almost impossibly high requirement for issuing a permit to make it effectively impossible.

I won't be surprised if this decision isn't released until the last day of the session in June. The Roe v. Wade controversy may well be upsetting the normal order of releasing decisions.

Both are huge decisions regarding Constitutional Law.

Originally Posted by bushmaster1313

Add to the Constitutional carry states all the shall issue states and it is up to about 41 states where anyone allowed to possess a gun can carry without a permit or get a permit to carry.

In this sense, the delay in having this case heard has helped push the needle towards a decision that “May issue” is unconstitutional.

But the real question before the Supreme Court is much deeper:

Can the government require a person to show a special need over and above the public’s average need as a condition to receive a permit to exercise a right enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

[smoothshooter]

The recent school shooting has effectively spiked any attempt to force NYC to allow gun owners any additional leeway.
Could even go the opposite direction.

[smoothshooter]

Roberts will likely rule in the State’s favor.
He does not like being the focus of the wrath of The Left.

[smoothshooter]

Roberts will likely rule in the State’s favor.

[GaryS]

Wrong. The decision is already made and no votes will change just as the Roe leak won't change anything.

Originally Posted by smoothshooter

The recent school shooting has effectively spiked any attempt to force NYC to allow gun owners any additional leeway.
Could even go the opposite direction.

[ladder13]

Originally Posted by smoothshooter

Roberts will likely rule in the State’s favor.

Won’t be enough.

[GaryS]

I expect a 5-4 decision as Roberts tries and fails to convince the majority to seek some sort of "middle ground."

Originally Posted by ladder13

Won’t be enough.

[bushmaster1313]

Originally Posted by GaryS

I expect a 5-4 decision as Roberts tries and fails to convince the majority to seek some sort of "middle ground."

Justice Roberts is in a difficult position.
He was in the majority for Heller and McDonald so he will not be able to join the minority in a 5-4 decision without reversing himself.

My guess:
5 votes overturning the New York law and broadly supporting the 2A in a strong opinion by Justice Thomas.

Justice Roberts, if he does not write the decision, will seek some middle ground.

3 votes that the 2A does not protect the right of ordinary people to bear arms outside the home for self defense.

[bushmaster1313]

June 8 is now earliest day for a possible decision
Decisions on June 8 will be announced between 10 and 11 AM
I think there are almost 30 cases waiting to be decided between now and the end of June. No way to know which decisions will be announced on which day.

[marinevet]

The Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Does it really matter what the Supreme Court decides?

I understand that this is a God given right............

[ArchAngelCD]

Originally Posted by marinevet

The Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Does it really matter what the Supreme Court decides?

I understand that this is a God given right............

According to the Founding Fathers all our rights are God given. The Bill of rights was only meant to spell out and affirm those rights, not grant rights. According to the Founders they state our rights are God given because that which is given to us by God cannot be taken away by man.

[bushmaster1313]

Originally Posted by ArchAngelCD

According to the Founding Fathers all our rights are God given. The Bill of rights was only meant to spell out and affirm those rights, not grant rights. According to the Founders they state our rights are God given because that which is given to us by God cannot be taken away by man.

I respectfully disagree.

Although the Founding Fathers believed and proclaimed to the entire world that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, some of the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights do not fall into this category. For example, the Right to an indictment by a Grand Jury before being held to answer for certain crimes (Fifth Amendment) and the Right to a jury trial in a civil suit with more than $20 in controversy (Seventh Amendment) help to ensure ordered Liberty, but they cannot be fairly argued to be unalienable God given rights.

Of course, many Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights do fall into the God given category, one of the most important being the Right of the people to keep and bear arms.

In truth, the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to make it absolutely clear - for as long as our republic survives - that certain Rights are not subject to the whim of politics or even a majority vote. This is because the Founders understood that the tyranny of the majority is just as vile as a tyrant's rule. The Bill of Rights protects us against both.

[ladder13]

Some rulings coming out @10 am this morning.

[ladder13]

Originally Posted by marinevet

The Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Does it really matter what the Supreme Court decides?

I understand that this is a God given right............

Nothing is more God given, outside life itself, than the right to self preservation.

[Muss Muggins]

Originally Posted by bushmaster1313

I respectfully disagree.

Although the Founding Fathers believed and proclaimed to the entire world that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, some of the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights do not fall into this category . . .

Just a minor point of parliamentary procedure, but the point to which you refer was mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, and although there are some common denominators, the signatories of that document were not all involved in the creation of the Constitution. Only six men signed both documents . . .

[John_M52]

OP: "On April 26, 2021 New York State froze over"

Hahahah

[bushmaster1313]

No decision on June 8
Next possible date is Monday June 13

[bushmaster1313]

Originally Posted by Muss Muggins

Just a minor point of parliamentary procedure, but the point to which you refer was mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, and although there are some common denominators, the signatories of that document were not all involved in the creation of the Constitution. Only six men signed both documents . . .

^^^Correct

However, when the Preamble of the Constitution lists as one of its purposes: “secure the Blessings of Liberty,” with a capital “B,” I take that as an affirmation of certain unalienable Rights endowed by the Creator.

[Muss Muggins]

Originally Posted by bushmaster1313

^^^Correct

However, when the Preamble of the Constitution lists as one of its purposes: “secure the Blessings of Liberty,” with a capital “B,” I take that as an affirmation of certain unalienable Rights endowed by the Creator.

Well, interpretations vary. I guess that's why we have the Supreme Court . . .

[bushmaster1313]

Next possible day for decision is June 15.

[bushmaster1313]

With no decision from Supreme Court on Wednesday June 15 the earliest date for a decision in the New York State carry permit case is now Tuesday June 21.