SCOTUS accepts first major 2nd Amendment Gun case in over a decade - NY State Rifle & PA v. Corlett

[Styx]

Question for the naysayers. Why do you believe they would finally take this case after punting all others for a decade or so if they weren't planning on ruling in our favor?

 

[WestKentucky]

Question for the naysayers. Why do you believe they would finally take this case after punting all others for a decade or so if they weren't planning on ruling in our favor?

That’s a simple one. To rule against us. Thankfully I’m on the side thinking they are going to rule for us, but I fully expect the decision to be a minefield of good news sprinkled with bad. Words “may, can, shall” are the triggers to these mines.

 

[230RN]

Also, "reasonable," "common sense," "military style," "fire in crowded theatres," et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

 

[Styx]

That’s a simple one. To rule against us. Thankfully I’m on the side thinking they are going to rule for us, but I fully expect the decision to be a minefield of good news sprinkled with bad. Words “may, can, shall” are the triggers to these mines.

If that was the case, logically, they had the numbers and more votes to rule against when it was 4-4 split with Roberts being the wildcard. Why wait until it's basically a 5-3 split with Roberts being the wildcard? Doesn't make much sense IMHO.

 

[Spats McGee]

Some states require training in order to get a concealed permit. Today, those that do require a short, affordable, and sensible training that can be completed at effectively any gun range.

I can see NY requiring you to get expensive training from a police instructor, where there are very few slots available, and has to be renewed annually.

SC took off the table whether the permit itself is necessary, and isn't discussing what the terms or conditions of the permit are, other than whether the applicant needs to demonstrate a need.

Just for clarity (you know, because I'm old and easily confused), when you say "SC," I presume you mean the Supreme Court? Not South Carolina?

 

[WestKentucky]

If that was the case, logically, they had the numbers and more votes to rule against when it was 4-4 split with Roberts being the wildcard. Why wait until it's basically a 5-3 split with Roberts being the wildcard? Doesn't make much sense IMHO.

But since they narrowed the ruling they could be specifically trying to set a basis for what “reasonable measures” should be taken for a person to carry a firearm “safely amongst the public”.

 

[danez71]

But since they narrowed the ruling they could be specifically trying to set a basis for what “reasonable measures” should be taken for a person to carry a firearm “safely amongst the public”.

I think similar but different.

IMO, in keeping with SCOTUS tradition, the likely outcome could be that they will rule in such a way that says that while the Govt can have regulations, the net results of the regulations at hand are not reasonable. ... and then provide little to no guidance as to what regulations should be as that is the job of Legislatures to figure out.

Again IMO, the best realistic outcome we may possibly get is a ruling that says the Govt can regulate but/if they do regulate, not deny. That would hint at 'Shall Issue' but they wont actually say it.


Imo, SCOTUS will serve up meal that has side dishes we like with a heaping of a mashed mystery meat as the main protein.

 

[Styx]

But since they narrowed the ruling they could be specifically trying to set a basis for what “reasonable measures” should be taken for a person to carry a firearm “safely amongst the public”.

Okay, still would be a favorable ruling nonetheless and would not be a ruling against us IMHO. A favorable ruling that would remove the century old law that prevents many NY residents from carrying outside of the home, as well as would force other states with simular regime to follow suit. Even with stipulations added to the ruling, those in May-Issue state will be better off from where they have been over the last century or so. I fail to see how that's a bad thing.

Also, if they wanted to rule against us, they simply could have denied taking the case which would have allowed the lower court's ruling to stand and become case law.

Did we forget about Wrenn v. District of Columbia? DC strategically didn't appeal the case to a 5-4 SCOTUS because they feared a ruling that would affect May Issue states nationwide. The result of the was that DC not only did away with the Good Cause standard, but also allowed out of state residents to apply for carry permits. If NY loses and follows in DC's footsteps for the first time in over a century, citizens from the other 49 states would be able able to step foot into NY while armed.

Rome wasn't built in a day. Heller and McDonald weren't 100% what the absolutists wanted, but we've been moving in the right direction. People don't usually fight for rights they never had or experienced. If the government was to ban, for example, Lamborghinis and the like tomorrow, the main people who would be upset would be those who owned one or forseen themselves owning one. No one else would take off work, donate money to fight, contact their representatives, etc over it. My point is, a ruling, even one with "reasonable measures" added to it, would open the flood gates to give millions of people who never had the opportunity to or forseen themselves carrying a firearm to finally exercise that right which inturn will give them something to lose and a reason to want to fight other gun control messures. As a side effect, people who are antigun and only believe red neck, gun nut, Republicans and criminals have them might see friends, family members, and other people they respect with them. That will give them a new perspective.

 

[WestKentucky]

Okay, still would be a favorable ruling nonetheless and would not be a ruling against us IMHO. A favorable ruling that would remove the century old law that prevents many NY residents from carrying outside of the home, as well as would force other states with simular regime to follow suit. Even with stipulations added to the ruling, those in May-Issue state will be better off from where they have been over the last century. I fail to see how that's a bad thing.

Also, if they wanted to rule against us, they simply could have denied taking the case which would have allowed the lower court's ruling to stand and become case law.

Did we forget about Wrenn v. District of Columbia? DC strategically didn't appeal the case to a 5-4 SCOTUS because they feared a ruling that would affect May Issue states nationwide. The result of the was that DC not only did away with the Good Cause standard, but also allowed out of state residents to apply for carry permits. If NY loses and follows in DC's footsteps for the first time in over a century, citizens from the other 49 states would be able able to step foot into NY while armed.

Unless they change to SHALL issue following a 160 hour training program (that’s ONLY a months working hours, with no absences) with limit to class size of 5 (because instructor needs to be able to ensure his pupils are adequately attentive) and pay a small fee of $5000 to apply with a 20 page questionnaire (gotta pay people to process paperwork, it’s not a fee to apply, it’s a fee to process). The last hurdle to jump is a fingerprint and overly thorough background check run signed off by law enforcement officials. All of this must be done within 45 days of start of the class (a month for the class and 2 weeks to finish paperwork seems reasonable on the face of it at least) and you have to show proof of concealed carry liability insurance to your sheriffs office when you pick up your license after a period of time for processing not to exceed 1 year, with no lapses from the date of application until current date.

All of those things seem reasonable when applied to other things, so it’s not a stretch to apply them to firearms. Want to drive?- Get insurance. Want to carry?- Get insurance. Want to practice medicine? Here’s a packet to fill out for verification purposes... Want to carry? Here’s that packet. They could easily be trying to frame up some guardrails to keep the states on track, but that’s not typically how SC works. They will likely say in some fashion that limitations and permitting are legal and provisions for making those happen are therefore legal, but SC likely will not say where the boundary is between reasonable and unreasonable which in reality turns into reasonable encroachment on the rights or blatantly unconstitutional limitations. Even a ruling “in our favor” may be a slap in the face to the 2A and to gun owners as it may create as much confusion as it clarifies.

Don’t get me wrong, the justices that are in place currently seem like they are 2A friendly and may be swinging for the fences on this one, but more realistically I expect a middle of the road decision with long term pitfalls.

 

[Styx]

Unless they change to SHALL issue following a 160 hour training program (that’s ONLY a months working hours, with no absences) with limit to class size of 5 (because instructor needs to be able to ensure his pupils are adequately attentive) and pay a small fee of $5000 to apply with a 20 page questionnaire (gotta pay people to process paperwork, it’s not a fee to apply, it’s a fee to process). The last hurdle to jump is a fingerprint and overly thorough background check run signed off by law enforcement officials. All of this must be done within 45 days of start of the class (a month for the class and 2 weeks to finish paperwork seems reasonable on the face of it at least) and you have to show proof of concealed carry liability insurance to your sheriffs office when you pick up your license after a period of time for processing not to exceed 1 year, with no lapses from the date of application until current date.

All of those things seem reasonable when applied to other things, so it’s not a stretch to apply them to firearms. Want to drive?- Get insurance. Want to carry?- Get insurance. Want to practice medicine? Here’s a packet to fill out for verification purposes... Want to carry? Here’s that packet. They could easily be trying to frame up some guardrails to keep the states on track, but that’s not typically how SC works. They will likely say in some fashion that limitations and permitting are legal and provisions for making those happen are therefore legal, but SC likely will not say where the boundary is between reasonable and unreasonable which in reality turns into reasonable encroachment on the rights or blatantly unconstitutional limitations. Even a ruling “in our favor” may be a slap in the face to the 2A and to gun owners as it may create as much confusion as it clarifies.

Don’t get me wrong, the justices that are in place currently seem like they are 2A friendly and may be swinging for the fences on this one, but more realistically I expect a middle of the road decision with long term pitfalls.

Where does any of this happen in any other state? It does not happen in DC of all places or in CA. Does not happen in IL or any other state. I see no indication that SCOTUS would ever cosign all the mud some of you are throwing against the wall. The case has to be narrowly tailored to the facts that are before them. Expecting them to make a laundry list of requirements that, first off, NY is not even enacting (so they should not be ruling on it) and other requirements that no other state is even currently enacting, but that should be prohibited if ever enscted is not being realist and not how the courts usually opperate. They can not or at least should not be ruling on what NY or other state may do in the future. They typically deal with the submitted facts of the case before them. If NY goes nuclear after losing this fight, another lawsuit will have to be filed based on the text, implementation, and relitive details of what ever laws they enact. Again, it's not ideal and as they say, justice moves slowly, but this is the way our system is supposed to work, and it is slowly but surely working in our favor IMHO. Heller and McDonald wasn't perfect, but look how many more gun owners, conceal carriers, firearms in circulation, May Issue states, and Universal Carry states we have now vs before those rulings were handed down.

Expecting them to give a blank check when it comes to carrying outside the home with absolutely zero restrictions is also not being realistic, it's never been that way even looking back throughout the history of the country, and most Americans and even many gun owners do not support such a thing.

When they didn't take up any cases for a decade, everyone was mad. When they finally decide to take a case, everyone is spouting doomsday scenarios well before they've even started to hear the case. I don't get it.

 

[WestKentucky]

I see no indication that SCOTUS would ever cosign all the mud some of you are throwing against the wall. The case has to be narrowly tailored to the facts that are before them. Expecting them to make a laundry list of requirements that, first off, NY is not even enacting (so they should not be ruling on it) and other requirements that no other state is even currently enacting, but that should be prohibited is not being realist and not how the courts opperate.

That’s one of the points I was trying to make. SCOTUS rulings will typically boil down to either a hard yes, a hard no, or a yes or no with conditions. Those conditions often point towards what is or is not reasonable. The laundry list of things I put in my comment above are all things that seem very reasonable at a glance, but in practice are not feasible. So when the ruling comes out (if it’s as we collectively expect) and it all boils down to a point that A. Yes permit acquisitions are a reasonable limit to concealed carry, B. Reasonable accommodations for obtaining said permit must exist, C. Reasonable requirements may be established, and D. Reasonable limits may be applied to deny permit with cause.

We all expect A. If A exists then B must also exist. If there is a permit process then almost by definition a list of requirements must be met, thus necessitating C and D. It is absolutely reasonable to deny permit to a child, a convicted murderer, or a person deemed too violent or mentally incapable by some means, so what is missing is simply the guardrails telling what the boundaries are. Seems that constitutional carry would be the limit for least restrictive, so that is a natural barrier with essentially the only limit being that one must be able to legally possess whatever it is that they possess. The more restrictive boundary relies on being reasonable, and that is hard to put on paper, especially when that question is not even being asked. The question at hand is whether 2A extends beyond the home, and the most simple answers of yes or no realistically don’t mean much. It’s about limits on possession which would be decided based upon reason. It’s pretty strange the way the whole thing seems to be happening to begin with, and I already made the comment early on that it seems very odd and convoluted that SCOTUS is telling the challenger what challenge to present.

The comparison I heard at work a few minutes ago on this very topic seems a good analogy. There’s a question of if a guy can work, and it gets answered that yes he can work, but then he is expected to do what the boss says. He may end up wishing he was still asking whether or not he could work, even after the bills are paid. That’s what I expect. We get a ruling, but we may not like the back side of the ruling because of where it may lead.

 

[Aim1]

That’s one of the points I was trying to make. SCOTUS rulings will typically boil down to either a hard yes, a hard no, or a yes or no with conditions. Those conditions often point towards what is or is not reasonable. The laundry list of things I put in my comment above are all things that seem very reasonable at a glance, but in practice are not feasible. So when the ruling comes out (if it’s as we collectively expect) and it all boils down to a point that A. Yes permit acquisitions are a reasonable limit to concealed carry, B. Reasonable accommodations for obtaining said permit must exist, C. Reasonable requirements may be established, and D. Reasonable limits may be applied to deny permit with cause.

We all expect A. If A exists then B must also exist. If there is a permit process then almost by definition a list of requirements must be met, thus necessitating C and D. It is absolutely reasonable to deny permit to a child, a convicted murderer, or a person deemed too violent or mentally incapable by some means, so what is missing is simply the guardrails telling what the boundaries are. Seems that constitutional carry would be the limit for least restrictive, so that is a natural barrier with essentially the only limit being that one must be able to legally possess whatever it is that they possess. The more restrictive boundary relies on being reasonable, and that is hard to put on paper, especially when that question is not even being asked. The question at hand is whether 2A extends beyond the home, and the most simple answers of yes or no realistically don’t mean much. It’s about limits on possession which would be decided based upon reason. It’s pretty strange the way the whole thing seems to be happening to begin with, and I already made the comment early on that it seems very odd and convoluted that SCOTUS is telling the challenger what challenge to present.

The comparison I heard at work a few minutes ago on this very topic seems a good analogy. There’s a question of if a guy can work, and it gets answered that yes he can work, but then he is expected to do what the boss says. He may end up wishing he was still asking whether or not he could work, even after the bills are paid. That’s what I expect. We get a ruling, but we may not like the back side of the ruling because of where it may lead.

I believe someone said SCOTUS reframed the question in Heller or McDonald also.

 

[CapnMac]

There's a lot of cart before the horse here.

SCOTUS will not establish State rules for CHL--that is the job of the States (see 9th & 10th amendments).
Now, what's likely to occur is that they will require the States to have standards a Reasonable Man could understand.

If we boil this down, consider a Reasonable Man freshly come to NYS. There is a Permit system in place. Would it be Reasonable for that person to have to guess if they will approved for a permit even after completing all the forms and requirements in good faith.

US law puts great stock in whether or not a reasonable man has to guess whether they are in compliance with a law or not. Which means the question becomes can a NYS resident have a reasonable expectation of obtaining a permit or not. "At the whim of some official" does not answer that question very well. SCOTUS is loathe to allow capricious laws to stand when such are brought to its attention.

 

[GEM]

Define reasonable. Many might say that carrying weapons in public is not a good thing. Thus, you should demonstrate a reason for this. That standard is the one in place. That negates the idea of a right to carry in public without conditions, except perhaps for not being a felon or adjudicated to have some psychiatric issues.

The requirements are a demonstrable reason and the validity of your reason varies by county. NYS standards are perfectly understandable.

 

[illinoisburt]

If NY loses and follows in DC's footsteps for the first time in over a century, citizens from the other 49 states would be able able to step foot into NY while armed

I would not hold my breath to think any ruling coming from this case will have a bearing on how NYS treats non-residents. If we get a positive outcome which requires the state to abandon arbitrary standards of 'good cause' in their permitting process, it's not going to force them to have reciprocity with other states. It also will likely not require the state to grant permits to non-residents.

 

[GEM]

I think the rewriting (what do I know, no Constitutional expert here) was to limit a decision to a tweak in NYS requirements that will not promote a national wide loosing of the carry regulations. Thus, I predict (haha) not much of a large implication. Look at Heller - the right to have a gun in the home but in NYS, that right was subject to the very nature of this case. Heller should have wiped out the NYS ability to deny law abiding citizens the right to have a handgun in the home. CA has it registry of acceptable and nonsensical guns you can have. How could that be acceptable if Heller had wide implications.

The emphasis on SD in Heller has been used repeated in the lower courts to support AWBs as you don't need that stuff for home defense in most situations. So expect, a tweak in NY but not a massive and permissive sea change in the country at large.

 

[roscoe]

I would not hold my breath to think any ruling coming from this case will have a bearing on how NYS treats non-residents. If we get a positive outcome which requires the state to abandon arbitrary standards of 'good cause' in their permitting process, it's not going to force them to have reciprocity with other states. It also will likely not require the state to grant permits to non-residents.

That is interesting - I would think that you couldn't interpret the Constitution such that the expression of a Constitutional right would be delimited by state borders. Certainly no other Constitutional rights are similarly constrained, that I can think of.

 

[ilbob]

Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment

Seems to me if that is the only question then all the state has to do is change the rules to denial it for allr easons, not just for self defense.

 

[AlexanderA]

I would think that you couldn't interpret the Constitution such that the expression of a Constitutional right would be delimited by state borders. Certainly no other Constitutional rights are similarly constrained, that I can think of.

The right to vote is delimited by state boundaries.

 

[DeepSouth]

The right to vote is delimited by state boundaries.

Contrary to popular belief voting isn’t a right.
SCOTUS ruled in Bush V Gore the right to vote does not exist.

 

[AlexanderA]

Contrary to popular belief voting isn’t a right.

What about the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments?

 

[DeepSouth]

What about the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments?

You’ll have to take that up with SCOTUS, I’m just telling you what they said.
Though I will say theirs big differences in presidential elections and all others. Technically a state legislature could let the Governor send electors, or send them themselves, or flip a coin, etc. and not even allow that state’s residents vote for president..


But about the individual right.

The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1.

.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

 

[Styx]

I would not hold my breath to think any ruling coming from this case will have a bearing on how NYS treats non-residents. If we get a positive outcome which requires the state to abandon arbitrary standards of 'good cause' in their permitting process, it's not going to force them to have reciprocity with other states. It also will likely not require the state to grant permits to non-residents.

I agree; however, I would have said the same thing about DC. They had worse gun laws than NY. Didn't allow functioning firearms in or outside the home at one point. For whatever reason, they offered nonresident permits when the law was changed .

That is interesting - I would think that you couldn't interpret the Constitution such that the expression of a Constitutional right would be delimited by state borders. Certainly no other Constitutional rights are similarly constrained, that I can think of.

I don't think you can. I can see a ruling in the future that will outlaw states not providing a path to carry in their state whether it be by reciprocity or nonresident permit.

 

[Styx]

I think the rewriting (what do I know, no Constitutional expert here) was to limit a decision to a tweak in NYS requirements that will not promote a national wide loosing of the carry regulations. Thus, I predict (haha) not much of a large implication. Look at Heller - the right to have a gun in the home but in NYS, that right was subject to the very nature of this case. Heller should have wiped out the NYS ability to deny law abiding citizens the right to have a handgun in the home. CA has it registry of acceptable and nonsensical guns you can have. How could that be acceptable if Heller had wide implications.

The emphasis on SD in Heller has been used repeated in the lower courts to support AWBs as you don't need that stuff for home defense in most situations. So expect, a tweak in NY but not a massive and permissive sea change in the country at large.

Heller stated that weapons in common use could not be banned. Lower activist courts purposely and knowing misapply Heller to fit their agenda. The Heller decision protects "assult weapons."

I'm not 100% informed on NY gun laws. I was under the impression that they didn't deny guns in the home unless you had a criminal record? You just needed to register and permit your firearms.

 

[Tommygunn]

What about the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments?

From what I gather, voting, per se, is not a right. It's a priviledge. But, if the govt. decides that we choose our overlords by the vote, then no level of govt. can discriminate based on the criteria protected by said amendments.


In theory, the govt . could decide to flip a coin to decide who takes office. But relax, that isn't going to happen; the people would scream bloody murder so the overlords would not do it ...... despite the fact it would, no doubt, put a higher class of scoundrels in office. ......