JTHunter
Member
I don’t see constitutional carry coming to NY anytime soon.
Or IL-ANNOY.
I don’t see constitutional carry coming to NY anytime soon.
Zero chance of that happening. The votes just aren't there in Congress.
Not even close this case is about criteria for issuing a carry permit not about carrying without a permit.It seems it would be very close possibly becoming the 28th state to have constitutional carry, if it happens.
I would actually expect it to be even narrower than that.What you're saying is that the ruling will result in nationwide "shall issue." I wouldn't call that "narrow,"
I think that all of the ideas tossed around so far are great, but I still think that it’s a bit of a reach to think that the ruling will go after “show cause” clauses and such. What this case actually boils down to is that the system that is in place is a convoluted and inconsistent system. The fact that it is so inconsistent from county to county means that essentially the laws which are on the books in NY allow for favoritism just the same as they allow for discrimination without notable cause. I suspect that the ruling will be that the law has to be enforceable consistently. Period. Eliminate the arbitrary discrimination. Provide a path that is consistent… whatever that path may be.
Doing it this way would leave the buck firmly passed to and residing at the state level, would not touch the shall/may issue, and would not really have much of an impact outside of NY.
Exactly. That means nationwide "shall issue." It will have immediate effects on states like Maryland, California, etc.My best guess is they strike down the subjective test and instruct so long as one is not a prohibited person, they must issue.
The level of scrutiny is just a way of getting at a result, not the result itself.
Since judges may have a preconceived ideology about the RKBA, an anti judge does not care about the level of scrutiny. They will find a basis for their decision. The strict scrutiny folks seem to think that such an application means they will all of a sudden say: Oh, My Lord - Shall Not Be Infringed - let's ditch all gun laws.
That is not going to happen.
"Compelling State Interest" maybe? But no; that test comes from the tired scrutiny standard established in Heller, Kavanagh and Barrett prefer the "text, history, tradition" standard of review and I would expect to see a shift in the court towards that standard at least for 2a related cases where their votes are needed.I would disagree. The elephant in the room is “justifiable need” or however they word it. The issuing authority asks why and you give an answer. Your answer and the subjective whim of a judge determines everything. SCOTUS will answer whether that violates a protected right. Of course, it does.
My best guess is they strike down the subjective test and instruct so long as one is not a prohibited person, they must issue. My second guess is that my state, NJ, will have to issue as well.
I don't see the difference between a tank and a machine gun, from the point of view of the 2nd Amendment. (Both are protected, or neither is.)If the question is "dose the 2a protect my right to own a functioning tank?" you probably have a weaker position under text history tradition analysis than you would under tiered scrutiny. If the question is "dose the 2a protect my right to own machineguns and 'military style' firearms?" you probably have a much stronger argument under text history tradition than you would under tiered scrutiny.
I don't see the difference between a tank and a machine gun, from the point of view of the 2nd Amendment. (Both are protected, or neither is.)
From the point of view of current legislation, you can own a new tank (including the main gun), while you cannot own a new machine gun. Odd, isn't it?
I wish you were right, but I don't think so. I think there's a big gap between just not being a prohibited person and having to meet some objective criteria set by the state. AFAIK, the Supreme Court has said that "reasonable" restrictions and criteria are acceptable. The point is that now in NY there aren't any objective criteria; a county judge can deny you a permit just because he/she feels like it. What I see coming out of this is a set of criteria that you have to meet (above and beyond not being a prohibited person), such as some of the current stuff, like character references, as well as a training requirement. If you meet those criteria, the judge must issue.My best guess is they strike down the subjective test and instruct so long as one is not a prohibited person, they must issue.
Onerous "objective" criteria are exactly what New York can be expected to enact. Gov. Kathy Hochul said as much, in her press conference yesterday following the Buffalo shootings. This has been clear for a long time, so the Supreme Court would be remiss if they don't address this in the forthcoming opinion. I would expect the SC to slap NY down proactively.I expect such objective criteria to be such as to yield the same result, near impossibility. Simplifying the next round of challenges, just replace subjective with onerous and repeat the same argument.
As it should. Courts should not be making expansive rulings. They need to rule on the issue brought to court, and only that issue.Very, extremely, not even in the ballpark.
The ruling will address solely the may issue provision of the law.
The main gun qualifies as a DD, if with working breech (rifled > 1/2" bore; you might have an argument about a smooth bore, but they'd apply the "no sporting purpose" language).you can own a new tank (including the main gun)
And that is a STATE RIGHT and it is how it was intended by the founding fathers.The Attoney General of the State of New York - Leticia James - responded to the 'leaked' report of the potential reversal of Roe V Wade. In short, she says the State of New York will in essence ignore the ruling and continue to do what they want.
Should anything different be expected to be received differently?
Onerous "objective" criteria are exactly what New York can be expected to enact. Gov. Kathy Hochul said as much, in her press conference yesterday following the Buffalo shootings. This has been clear for a long time, so the Supreme Court would be remiss if they don't address this in the forthcoming opinion. I would expect the SC to slap NY down proactively.