SCOTUS Appears Ready to Strike Down Restrictive
NY Concealed Carry Law
PJ Media,
by
Rick Moran
Original Article
Posted By: Dreadnought,
11/4/2021 12:51:14 AM
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a case involving an overly restrictive New York law concerning gun permits this week. It’s being called the most important Second Amendment case in a decade and would expand the definition of the “right to keep and bear arms.”
The law requires a citizen wanting a concealed carry permit to show “proper cause” before obtaining such a license in locations typically open to the general public, even in rural areas.
Why would any citizen be required to “show cause” to exercise any right in the Constitution? “The idea that you would need a license
NY knew after Heller they were playing with fire with their concealed carry policy, but they decided to roll the dice anyway. SCOTUS should slap this down as a slam dunk, but you never know what this court is really going to do. The case is very compelling, and NY doesn't have much legal ground at all to stand on here.
12 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
DVC 11/4/2021 1:50:59 AM (No. 966640)
I think there is a good chance that they will require objective standards for CCW permits for all states.
As far as restricting carrying in subways.....THAT would be where they were needed the most, and if blocked there....you basically can't get around NYC at all when armed unless you walk or hail a cab. And they'll probably include ALL public transportation as off limits if forced to issue permits. They will want to make it as close to impossible to actually DO as they can.
5 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
doctorfixit 11/4/2021 2:05:24 AM (No. 966645)
Let's Go Brandon. Concealed carry restriction are un-Constitutional. I don't accept them.
15 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
Trigger2 11/4/2021 2:41:07 AM (No. 966651)
Frankly, I don't trust the SC, especially with Roberts at the helm who can be reliably counted upon to vote with the commie demonrats on it.
17 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
Clinger 11/4/2021 8:28:55 AM (No. 966816)
Think Fast and Furious. Right now they want us to be armed, the police to stand down while opening the doors to the hemisphere's violent criminals. The inevitable deadly encounters will be spun into a bloody shirt justifying a rapid 180 and gun control like we never dreamed would happen in the US.
4 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
BarryNo 11/4/2021 8:49:47 AM (No. 966841)
One of these days a court may determine that no law passed restricting owning or carrying a firearm is valid.
End the lawfare.
End the weasel-wording.
When i was a kid, kids with parental permission could bring guns to school. They were putvinto the Principal's custody when they entered the school and returned along with ammunition at schools end. The kids could then walk home and hunt small game or go to the shooting range for target practice.
All open carry by kids as young as 12.
But back then, police could shoot somone running from a crime scene for resisting arrest. People expected to defend themselves and neighbors if someone got violent. It didnt happen very often, but the reality of it kept most respectful and polite.
7 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
Mass Minority 11/4/2021 9:28:08 AM (No. 966879)
As I listened to the deliberations yesterday I could not help but wonder why Massachusetts has never been taken to court over their gun laws. Unlike NY where they are arguing over whether you need a license tocarry a gun outside the home MA requires a training course, two letter of character reference and an in person interview and approval from the chief of police in the town you reside in to get a license to purchase a fire arm of any kind. Without that license simply being found with a spent shell casing is a felony. Several towns openly tell you to not even bother to apply, no firearm licenses will EVER be granted in those towns (Mostly close Boston SUburbs) the Chief of police can deny the permit for any reason, including him personally just not wanting anyone to own a gun n his town. When we first moved to the state there was a rapist terrorizing the North End, he raped a number of women. On the six O;clock news the CHief of Police came on an interview and his major concern was not that the rapist was free and still raping, it was that he wanted all those women to know that pepper spray was illegal unless you had a concealed carry permit and that his office under no circumstances was going to issue a permit to anyone so pretty much just don't bother wasting the police time applying. Pepper spray is now legal but many police districts still consider it a real problem when women are found with it. Its insane, yet it never seems to be challenged.
Glad I no longer live there.
9 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
red1066 11/4/2021 9:46:01 AM (No. 966908)
Maryland can be next.
2 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
SkeezerMcGee 11/4/2021 10:05:48 AM (No. 966935)
The majority opinion will hold hat the government SHALL grant the applied-for OPEN carry premit unless the record evidence proves the applicant is not eligible for the permit. Also the reasons for denial must to be specific and objective (to disallow wide discretion by the hearing officer). "Discretion" was discussed at length at oral argument. The justices had no problem with so-called "sensative areas" such as court houses and schools. etc. (which are acknowledged as being OK in the 2008 case, DC vs Heller), but "crowded areas" including subways, were discussed at length. i.e., if the government can bar folks from carrying firearms on a subway absent premission, such folks cannot carry a firearm around if firearm carrier's travel includes being on a subway, etc. The oral argument discussed "Times Square on New Years Eve."
Prediction: The majority opinion will require that OPEN carry premitsSHALL be granted unless the facts in record prove the applicant is DISQUALIFIED by applying objective standards. Carrying in crowded places that are NOT "sensative areas" will be allowed - e,g., subways will be OK but sports stadiums will not be OK.
2 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
Strike3 11/4/2021 11:47:59 AM (No. 967069)
Ready? It's coming. Right around the corner. To be announced as soon as next week. Awwwwwww...
0 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
DVC 11/4/2021 1:26:41 PM (No. 967205)
Their opinion is not going to be announced until June of next year, most likely, not "...as soon as next week" as one poster said, as to a poster's "open carry" comments, that's pretty unlikely, too. Typically when states first issue permits they don't like "scaring the chickens" with open carry, and mostly mandate concealed carry.
And, reality. Open carry has been legal in Kansas for many years, at least 10, and was legal in many jurisdictions long before that. I have seen about two or three people actually open carrying, and I know that many thousands concealed carry every day. Most folks recognize that open carry gives up the significant tactical advantage of the 'bad guys' knowing you are armed in advance.
1 person likes this.
I live in Oklahoma with sane, non-restrictive open carry gun laws. I see shoppers at the grocery store with pistols strapped to their hips. The roadside assistance guy who gave me a jump yesterday had a holstered pistol. I don’t give it any thought. I would like to see the statistics of homicides by legal conceal carriers. I’d bet they’re almost nil.
1 person likes this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Dreadnought"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)