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

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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
smoothshooter said:
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?
Click to expand...

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)
 
Last edited:
Supreme Court Rules on NY

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.
 
Last edited:
New York has frozen over
New York's may issue violates the Second Amendment
Decision here https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_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
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Decision here
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

Language from syllabus:

From the syllabus
(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
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Kevin J. said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
GaryS said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
NYlakesider said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
Last edited:
HeyJoe said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.:mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

timjake
SCOTUS rules in unanimous decision in NRA vs New York 1st Amendment case
Replies
12
Views
1K
LoboGunLeather
LoboGunLeather
bwade
NRA victory in NY supporting Bruen case!
2
Replies
20
Views
1K
SMSgt
SMSgt
L
State v Wilson….Hawaii
Replies
15
Views
2K
Racer X
R
Miami_JBT
GOA's lawsuit forces NYC to allow Non-Residents to apply for CCW Permits.
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
The Big D
T
R
prelim injunction California SB2 sensative places
Replies
3
Views
984
ISCS Yoda
ISCS Yoda

Latest posts

Back
Top