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

[bushmaster1313]

With no decision from Supreme Court on Tuesday June 21 the earliest date for a decision in the New York State carry permit case is now Thursday June 23.

Decisions on June 23 will be announced between 10 and 11 AM
I think there are about 11 cases waiting to be decided between now and the end of June. No way to know which decisions will be announced on which day. My guess is about 6-8 decisions on June 23 and the rest next week.

[smoothshooter]

The 3 or 4 most anticipated ones ( including the 2A and Roe ) will be announced at the last possible moment.

Perhaps to give city officials more time to prepare for riots?

[bushmaster1313]

Originally Posted by smoothshooter

The 3 or 4 most anticipated ones ( including the 2A ) will be announced at the last possible moment.

Perhaps to give city officials more time to prepare for riots?

The most closely watched cases always seem to be left for the very end of June. On the one hand it sort of makes sense - Let’s take our time to get this right. On the other hand, especially when the Petitioner is asserting a violation of civil rights (as in the 2A case), it does not - Justice delayed is Justice denied.

(Please note that I am trying hard to avoid all banned subjects)

[Kevin J.]

Looks like we have a win. The Supreme Court rules against the NY concealed carry gun law in a 6-3 decision, even Roberts voted in favor. This is great news. Right up there with Heller and McDonald and will have repercussions across the country.

[bushmaster1313]

New York has frozen over
New York's may issue violates the Second Amendment
Decision here https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...0-843_7j80.pdf

(c) The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is
not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules
than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780
(plurality opinion). The exercise of other constitutional rights does not
require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special
need. The Second Amendment right to carry arms in public for selfdefense is no different. New York’s proper-cause requirement violates
the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with
ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and
bear arms in public. Pp. 62–63

[444 Magnum]

This will have ramifications in several states with restrictive gun laws. Good to see.

[bushmaster1313]

Decision here
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...0-843_7j80.pdf

Language from syllabus:

From the syllabus

With all due humility, I had this pegged last August

http://smith-wessonforum.com/141233927-post9.html

From my post last August

To get the three liberal Justices to vote against the Right to Bear Arms it is enough for NYS to simply argue as follows: "Guns are Bad. NYS can do whatever it wants to keep guns off the street and out of New York City subways." That gives the Anti's three votes. Therefore, the NYS Brief will be aimed at getting two of the Conservative Justices to vote against the Right to Bear Arms.

Chief Justice Roberts is the most likely of the Conservative Justices to be the fourth vote against the Right to Bear Arms. Based on my amateur reading of Justice Roberts' most controversial opinions, it seems to me that his philosophy is to keep the Court out of a political fight and not invalidate a law if it is at all reasonable to conclude that the government has the authority under the Constitution to regulate the conduct at issue. This is not a terrible philosophy because in the first instance it puts the People ahead of the Courts, and if the People are behaving civilly, this is the way it should be. If Justice Roberts believes that it is at all reasonable to conclude that keeping concealed carry guns off the streets and out of the subways is a political and not a Constitutional question he will vote to uphold the NYS law.

On the other hand, it seems to me that the other five Conservative Justices will be inclined to look at the "true" Constitutional issue, namely: The Constitution protects the Right to Bear Arms and the government cannot make this right contingent on a person showing that they have a special need to exercise this right. An analogy would be to ask an accused criminal: "What is so special about YOU and YOUR case that YOU need a lawyer or that YOU need to exercise YOUR right to keep silent."

So I expect a 5-1-3 decision, with 5 justices holding the NYS law is unconstitutional because you cannot make a person prove why he or she needs to exercise a right guaranteed by the Constitution, especially a right that is in the Bill of Rights. Roberts will join part but not all of the majority opinion, and three liberal Justices will join a small part of the Roberts opinion, but otherwise they will complain that guns are so dangerous that states should be able to do whatever is reasonably necessary to keep the number of guns in circulation at a minimum.

[Kevin J.]

Thanks Bushmaster. I saw the announcement on the news but in my rush to post the great news couldn’t find a link to the actual ruling.

[GaryS]

This is a huge win for residents of "May Issue" states, but it's not the end of the battle. States such as MA will continue to ignore the Constitution and the Opinions of the Court.

[NYlakesider]

Originally Posted by Kevin J.

Looks like we have a win. The Supreme Court rules against the NY concealed carry gun law in a 6-3 decision, even Roberts voted in favor. This is great news. Right up there with Heller and McDonald and will have repercussions across the country.

Watch this close our "beloveded" governess Kathy Hockul has said she had plans formulated in case this decision came down on their onerous "common sense gun laws". Sounds like she has a plan similar to when the Heller decision first came down.

[old bear]

Kevin thank you. I just picked up the news from CNN, and was going to Post it hear.

[bushmaster1313]

Originally Posted by GaryS

This is a huge win for residents of "May Issue" states, but it's not the end of the battle. States such as MA will continue to ignore the Constitution and the Opinions of the Court.

They will
But let them try
Permit applicants who are now wrongly denied will have an action in Federal Court against the permit denying agency and will get their attorneys fees when they win.

IMHO, persons in government in the anti-states who band together to prevent the issue of carry permits will be personally liable for violation of civil rights under color of law and for criminal conspiracy to violate civil rights.

[HeyJoe]

Originally Posted by NYlakesider

Watch this close our "beloveded" governess Kathy Hockul has said she had plans formulated in case this decision came down on their onerous "common sense gun laws". Sounds like she has a plan similar to when the Heller decision first came down.

there will be such onerous training requirements and so many restricted " sensitive" places where you cannot carry that it won't be worth it having a shall issue concealed carry permit.

[HeyJoe]

They will add onerous training requirements and have such a laundry list of restricted " sensitive" places that this ruling will be all but meaningless.

[bushmaster1313]

Originally Posted by HeyJoe

there will be such onerous training requirements and so many restricted " sensitive" places where you cannot carry that it won't be worth it having a shall issue concealed carry permit.

I respectfully beg to differ.

D.C. and Illinois now have shall issue carry because of Appeals court decisions. Now we have the Supreme Court on our side.

[ladder13]

Woo freakin hoo

[ladder13]

Originally Posted by NYlakesider

Watch this close our "beloveded" governess Kathy Hockul has said she had plans formulated in case this decision came down on their onerous "common sense gun laws". Sounds like she has a plan similar to when the Heller decision first came down.

Lee Zeldin may differ

[NYlakesider]

Originally Posted by HeyJoe

there will be such onerous training requirements and so many restricted " sensitive" places where you cannot carry that it won't be worth it having a shall issue concealed carry permit.

Contrary to what a lot of people are thinking this is far from over.

As a 77 YO I have seen much done wrong in the gun control saga in this state.

I have been licensed to carry for over 50 years and tend to understand this state.

[NYlakesider]

Originally Posted by ladder13

Lee Zeldin may differ

I think you know that I would love nothing better than to be proved wrong

[robertrwalsh]

This is definitely a blow struck for freedom and individual liberty. That being said I would bet money that New York, California and Hawaii especially will slow-drag, obfuscate and pile on "reasonable restrictions" add infinitum until a follow-up ruling, with money damages, forces them to do otherwise. CA has huge budget surplus this year and the God-Emperor of California, Gavin Newsom, HATES guns and hates gun owners. He will be happy to spend some of that money to pee on the parade and to make himself the next Presidential nominee for the Democrat-Socialist party.

[Borderboss]

Originally Posted by bushmaster1313

I respectfully beg to differ.

D.C. and Illinois now have may issue carry because of Appeals court decisions. Now we have the Supreme Court on our side.

No, Illinois is a "shall issue" state. Always has been after they lost their suit and were required to come up with a CCW. They didn't even bother to try a "may issue" because it would be a loser.

[Borderboss]

Originally Posted by HeyJoe

there will be such onerous training requirements and so many restricted " sensitive" places where you cannot carry that it won't be worth it having a shall issue concealed carry permit.

It depends on how you look at it. When Illinois finally passed a CCW law, it was "shall issue". Sure, they added a bunch of places you can't carry such as parks, the public transportation system, etc. But who in their right mind pays attention to those restrictions? Really, I'm more than happy to be the guy that challenges that in federal court. It's a loser for the same reason that "may issue" is a loser.

As to training, you're right. Illinois requires 16 hours every five years, more than any other state. While I don't like that on principle, the people I see in those classes are such lousy shots that I'm almost glad that they have to shoot the course to get their CCW.

[otis24]

Let Freedom Ring!!!!!

[ladder13]

Originally Posted by bushmaster1313

Decision here
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...0-843_7j80.pdf

Language from syllabus:



With all due humility, I had this pegged last August

http://smith-wessonforum.com/141233927-post9.html

From my post last August

From the makeup of the court it was going 5-4 or 6-3 in favor. Elections have consequences.

[GaryS]

Even after Heller, MA refused to allow civilians to possess and carry Tasers, even if they held a CCW permit. It took an order from SCOTUS on an appeal of a felony conviction to change that. That was within the past 5 or so years, so well after Heller.

I expect your state will be like mine and resist as much as possible.

ETA: Am I the only one who reads Justice Thomas' opinion rejecting intermediate scrutiny as a stinging rebuke of the actions of lower federal courts?

Originally Posted by bushmaster1313

They will
But let them try
Permit applicants who are now wrongly denied will have an action in Federal Court against the permit denying agency and will get their attorneys fees when they win.

IMHO, persons in government in the anti-states who band together to prevent the issue of carry permits will be personally liable for violation of civil rights under color of law and for criminal conspiracy to violate civil rights.

[SAFireman]

The devil is serving Blue Bell in Hades right about now

[ladder13]

So NY is going Shall Issue? Who has a problem with that?

[dockmurgw]

Gun owners across the country owe a debt of gratitude to NEW YORK GUN OWNERS!!!

[Beemerguy53]

Originally Posted by sjbrdn

This will have ramifications in several states with restrictive gun laws. Good to see.

My state of Maryland is one of those which should be affected by this ruling. In order to get a carry permit here, you have to demonstrate a "good and substantial reason" why you need to carry a concealed weapon. If you carry cash, can document a history of threats being made against you, etc., etc., you might be able to get a permit. If you simply want to be able to defend yourself when you're out in public, you're out of luck. It's highly discriminatory and discretionary, and makes no sense.

There are heads exploding in Annapolis right now...

[bushmaster1313]

Originally Posted by Borderboss

No, Illinois is a "shall issue" state. Always has been after they lost their suit and were required to come up with a CCW. They didn't even bother to try a "may issue" because it would be a loser.

You are correct
I had a typo in my excitement
Illinois and DC are very much shall issue because of the Appeals Court decisions

[biku324]

Pay attention, folks - NYC has one of the very lowest homicide rates of any major US city, usually between 2.7 and 3.5 per 100,000 population. Guess what will get blamed if it suddenly goes substantially up?

[vt_shooter]

I predict we'll see armed robberies and assaults go down in the hitherto mostly legal-gun free cities as the risk factor goes up for criminals.

[delcrossv]

Originally Posted by HeyJoe

there will be such onerous training requirements and so many restricted " sensitive" places where you cannot carry that it won't be worth it having a shall issue concealed carry permit.

Don't think so. Thomas covered that:

"And they likewise appear to contain only “narrow, objective, and definite standards” guiding licensing officials, Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U. S. 147, 151 (1969), rather than requiring the “appraisal of facts, the exercise of judgment, and the formation of an opinion,” Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 305 (1940)—features that typify proper-cause standards like New York’s. That said, because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry. "

[HeyJoe]

Originally Posted by ladder13

So NY is going Shall Issue? Who has a problem with that?

I am for the first part of the decision, striking down may issue, however, the second part of the decision going into allowing restrictions in "sensitive" places was not part of the case and will muddy the waters and allow the formerly may issue states to severely restrict carry rights. Much as in the Heller decision, Scalia going into reasonable restrictions being permitted still, when reasonable restrictions were not part of the case has led to a decade of lower court decisions limiting, carry outside the home, capacity restrictions . etc being upheld.

[GaryS]

For Biku324's edification,

NYC murders in 2021 to near 500 for first time in a decade

Finally, the Court makes it clear that the Second Amendment is not a second class right.

The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely
different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion). We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self defense.

[edwardyoung]

Originally Posted by old bear

Kevin thank you. I just picked up the news from CNN, and was going to Post it hear.

Originally Posted by dockmurgw

Gun owners across the country owe a debt of gratitude to NEW YORK GUN OWNERS!!!

To Trump, also. As happy as I was with most everything Trump did in office, his most enduring achievement was his Judiciary appointments. Along with Mitch McConnell, whoever he really is

[ladder13]

Oh, and HAPPY BIRTHDAY today to Clarence Thomas.👍

[RCL-09]

Originally Posted by GaryS

For Biku324's edification,

NYC murders in 2021 to near 500 for first time in a decade

They have seen a large increase (5.4/100K) but still are under the national rate (6.9/100K).

They were sub 4/100k for several years 2015-2020

[ACORN]

Thank you, President Trump!

[ladder13]

Been saying this forever in this forum, and always will. RKBA is plain as it could be.

The Second Amendment’s plain text thus presumptively guarantees petitioners Koch and Nash a right to ‘bear’ arms in public for self-defense,” Thomas wrote.

[bushmaster1313]

Originally Posted by ladder13

Been saying this forever in this forum, and always will. RKBA is plain as it could be.

The Second Amendment’s plain text thus presumptively guarantees petitioners Koch and Nash a right to ‘bear’ arms in public for self-defense,” Thomas wrote.

However, it is a rebuttable presumption, meaning the state had its chance to show that its may issue scheme was constitutional.

Here is the full statement from the Court

Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. In
keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its
regulation, the government may not simply posit that the
regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the
government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this
Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the
individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s
“unqualified command.” Konigsberg v. State Bar of Cal.,
366 U. S. 36, 50, n. 10 (1961).

Sort of like "May Rebut"

[ladder13]

Originally Posted by bushmaster1313

However, it is a rebuttable presumption, meaning the state had its chance to show that its may issue scheme was constitutional.

Here is the full statement from the Court

They didn’t, they couldn’t, case closed, for me.

[stansdds]

Originally Posted by ladder13

So NY is going Shall Issue? Who has a problem with that?

Based on released statements, NYS governor Kathy Hochul and President Biden. I'd like to think this is now a settled case in favor of the 2A and law-abiding firearms owners, but odds are there will future attempts at unconstitutional restrictions.

[ladder13]

I will not be deterred.

[GaryS]

That appears to be a restatement of what the Court said in Heller. It doesn't change anything.

Originally Posted by HeyJoe

I am for the first part of the decision, striking down may issue, however, the second part of the decision going into allowing restrictions in "sensitive" places was not part of the case and will muddy the waters and allow the formerly may issue states to severely restrict carry rights. Much as in the Heller decision, Scalia going into reasonable restrictions being permitted still, when reasonable restrictions were not part of the case has led to a decade of lower court decisions limiting, carry outside the home, capacity restrictions . etc being upheld.

[Borderboss]

Originally Posted by edwardyoung

To Trump, also. As happy as I was with most everything Trump did in office, his most enduring achievement was his Judiciary appointments. Along with Mitch McConnell, whoever he really is

What's funny is that McConnell didn't push all of Trump's judicial nominees through because he likes Trump. McConnell hates Trump. McConnell did it as a "stick it" to Schumer for him holding up so many of Bush 43's nominees, include a black woman Bush nominated to SCOTUS.

[biku324]

Originally Posted by GaryS

For Biku324's edification,

NYC murders in 2021 to near 500 for first time in a decade

Here's the long view - the 2021 homicide rate DID rise to 5.5 per 100,000.

[GaryS]

Both are shall issue, try as they did to resist.

It took several supplementary law suits after Heller for the DC Circuit to require them to stop the overly restrictive requirements. A DC Circuit decision that is not reviewed by SCOTUS has the effect of being a SCOTUS decision. It's just an oddity of how the DC Circuit works.

IL has shall issue because the 7th Circuit ordered them to come up with a licensing plan within something like 90 days or IL would become a Constitutional Carry state.

IL declined to appeal to SCOTUS and the legislature came up with a shall issue law. My pet theory is that they were pressured by the may issue states not to bring this to SCOTUS in fear that it would result in a ruling like today's.

That's also why NYC changed their law when that case went to SCOTUS.

Note that the standard IANAL disclaimer applies.

Originally Posted by bushmaster1313

I respectfully beg to differ.

D.C. and Illinois now have shall issue carry because of Appeals court decisions. Now we have the Supreme Court on our side.

[WCCPHD]

This ruling will just make the left more determined to take our rights.

The leftist/anti-gun people operate on emotion, not reason. Losing makes them emotional. Emotional people are a danger.

They look at everything as a win/lose situation. They will always try to win and will always try to make those they hold in contempt lose.

As I have said many times before: the anti's are patient. They are determined. They will never stop. Even if they obtain a full firearms ban and confiscation they will not be satisfied. This is because their goal is control, guns are just in the way.

[JDBoardman]

Caj and ICS Yoda in particular:
SCOTUS has spoken, and for better or worse, the decision has been made and the opinion handed down. Do we now consider this as big a win for the 2nd as Heller or McDonald and await sweeping changes, or is it just a hohum local issue, and the"carbuncle on the Constitution" still needs to be lanced. Inquiring minds want to know...