Biden Admin. on NY

[AlexanderA]

In NY you cannot buy a gun unless the state issues a permit for you to purchase the gun. That is another way to limit who carries a gun.. if they do not issue they have effectively banned a person buying. Just a different kind of ban. We’ll be waiting a long time for an assault rifle ban at SCOTUS which has recently turned down assault rifle gun cases. Heller case was 13 years ago. The New York case is likely not to be followed by another big case for another decade.

Generaly speaking, we are winning and winning big gun rights wise across the country especially more so than in the 1980s-2010s. It's been getting better and better and more and more Americans regardless of sex and race have been becoming pro gun. With that said, Rome was not built in a day.

Yes, I agree that the trajectory is pro-gun. By the same token, the Supreme Court rarely takes a gun case. We have to make those cases that they do take count.

Given this, I think it was a strategic mistake to have the one SC gun case this decade involve the "carry" issue. As 1942bull points out, a state can negate "carry" rights simply by denying purchase permits, or by banning whole categories of weapons. For example, let's say NY passes a law that only revolvers (among handguns) will be permitted to be purchased. That means that legal carriers -- assuming that the "carry" case goes as expected -- will be severely outgunned by the lawbreakers.

The first case after the Heller/McDonald cases should have been one challenging purchase limits and/or bans of classes of weapons. We ended up putting the cart before the horse.

 

[Styx]

Yes, I agree that the trajectory is pro-gun. By the same token, the Supreme Court rarely takes a gun case. We have to make those cases that they do take count.

Given this, I think it was a strategic mistake to have the one SC gun case this decade involve the "carry" issue. As 1942bull points out, a state can negate "carry" rights simply by denying purchase permits, or by banning whole categories of weapons. For example, let's say NY passes a law that only revolvers (among handguns) will be permitted to be purchased. That means that legal carriers -- assuming that the "carry" case goes as expected -- will be severely outgunned by the lawbreakers.

The first case after the Heller/McDonald cases should have been one challenging purchase limits and/or bans of classes of weapons. We ended up putting the cart before the horse.

Would you rather them to not have taken this case AND refused to hear the other cases as well because that would have been result? We do not get to pick and choose what cases they take, nor do we know the reasons why they choose to hear some cases over others. The conservative Justices may be doing us a favors by not hearing them for all we know.

Heller already stated that weapons in common use are protected even though that's ignored and spun by the left when it comes to "assult weapons." If NYC creates another unconstitutional law in the future in responce to a SCOTUS lost in this case, e.i., only legalizing revolvers, that specific law will have to be litigated. Even if they go that route, law abiding citizens will be better off carrying revolvers in the interim vs the nothing at all that they are carrying now.

If the court says that NYC must allow carry outside of the home and inside of the home, not issuing ANY permits clearly will violate that ruling. I doubt NYC will go that far.

Honestly, IMHO, no matter what case they chose to take, someone would be unhappy about it.