Supreme Court takes up major Second Amendment case

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/supreme-court-takes-up-major-second-amendment-case/ar-BB1g4ohW?ocid=msedgdhp


Supreme Court takes up major Second Amendment case
John Kruzel 28 mins ago

Supreme Court set to take up major Second Amendment case

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to restrictions on carrying firearms outside the home, teeing up a potentially landmark dispute over the scope of the Second Amendment.

a large stone building: Supreme Court takes up major Second Amendment case© Greg Nash Supreme Court takes up major Second Amendment case
In an unsigned order, the justices took up a bid by two gun owners and a New York affiliate of the National Rifle Association to challenge the state's denial of their applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense.


The case represents the first time the 6-3 conservative court will hear arguments over the nation's long-running and fraught debate about gun rights in America.

It will be heard next term, which begins in October.

In the brief order issued Monday, the justices said they would hear the case and focus on whether "the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment."

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Robert Nash and Brandon Koch, who were denied concealed carry permits for self-defense because New York officials had determined that they had failed to show a "special need" to carry weapons as required under state law.

Their lawsuit argues that such restrictions on concealed carry permits violate the Second Amendment. If they prevail in front of the Supreme Court, it could upend concealed carry laws across the country.

According to the gun control activist group the Giffords Law Center, 31 states currently require residents to obtain a permit in order to carry a concealed weapon, with varying degrees of restrictions on those permits.

Updated at 10:31 a.m.

A very , very important case!!
Especially important to me personally as a lifelong gun advocate and devoted shooter.
Yes I shoot guns - not just bows...
And I am a lifelong, devoted advocate for the rights that were are supposed to have under our Constitution..
The --rights-- the ffing dems are hellbent on taking away.
Which is exactly why-- I SO VERY DEEPLY DESPISE THE FFING BASTARDS( all of them)!!!-- :salute:-Tyr

[darin]

I am scared of this case going wrong and then other states switching to a New York style law.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I am scared of this case going wrong and then other states switching to a New York style law.

Yes, that is my main worry as well.
But may be a blessing this case being heard as the court is now comprised, with the 6 to 3 majority.
The dems are definitely going to pack the court if they can-- during the idiot/puppet O' Biden's term.-Tyr

[darin]

I think it's more like 5.5 to 3.5 as John Roberts is a wildcard.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I think it's more like 5.5 to 3.5 as John Roberts is a wildcard.
Well, that is a more accurate assessment methinks. -Tyr

[icansayit]

The Socialists will stop at nothing to bring down our nation...starting with IGNORING all of the Constitutional Amendments They Don't Like. But they won't touch the 16TH AMENDMENT
Income Tax
Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913. The 16th Amendment changed a portion of Article I, Section 9

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

That is their never-ending CASH COW... START AT THE 3:00 Minute mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI-BMDnti4c&ab_channel=Chicago-Topic

[Surf Fishing Guru]

A very , very important case!!

Yes it is and gun rights people really need to temper our expectations. IMNSHO, there is no 2nd Amendment right to carry concealed and IMO, is doubtful the SCOTUS will affirm one.

I predict a true splitting the baby situation, I predict SCOTUS will enforce an individual, private citizen's right to bear arms in public for self-defense and all states will be forced to recognize it. But, dictating as to the actual manner of carriage, will remain in the state's prerogative.

The best we can hope for is for Thomas to write the opinion. He is our (gun rights supporters) best chance for a comprehensive opinion that will both correct the errors and settle issues left open by Scalia in Heller and Alito in McDonald.

[Gunny]

Yes it is and gun rights people really need to temper our expectations. IMNSHO, there is no 2nd Amendment right to carry concealed and IMO, is doubtful the SCOTUS will affirm one.

I predict a true splitting the baby situation, I predict SCOTUS will enforce an individual, private citizen's right to bear arms in public for self-defense and all states will be forced to recognize it. But, dictating as to the actual manner of carriage, will remain in the state's prerogative.

The best we can hope for is for Thomas to write the opinion. He is our (gun rights supporters) best chance for a comprehensive opinion that will both correct the errors and settle issues left open by Scalia in Heller and Alito in McDonald.


We're working on that here in TX. Just about have a right to open carry law through our Congress.

[Surf Fishing Guru]

We're working on that here in TX. Just about have a right to open carry law through our Congress.

The Senate passed it (HB-1927) with some changes so now it has to go back to the House for final approval. Abbott says he will sign the bill.

It will make Texas the 5th state this year to become permitless concealed carry and will include open carry if the gun is in a shoulder or belt holster. Earlier this year, Montana's and Utah's law went into effect, Tennessee and Iowa will go into effect on July 1st and Texas TBD.

When Iowa, Tennessee and Texas's constitutional carry laws become effective, that will make 21 constitutional carry / unrestricted carry states (in green). When one sees the progression from "shall issue" to now states going permitless, it is impressive:



https://i.postimg.cc/J13mMpqY/Right-to-Carry-timeline-Feb-2021.gif

[Gunny]

The Senate passed it (HB-1927) with some changes so now it has to go back to the House for final approval. Abbott says he will sign the bill.

It will make Texas the 5th state this year to become permitless concealed carry and will include open carry if the gun is in a shoulder or belt holster. Earlier this year, Montana's and Utah's law went into effect, Tennessee and Iowa will go into effect on July 1st and Texas TBD.

When Iowa, Tennessee and Texas's constitutional carry laws become effective, that will make 21 constitutional carry / unrestricted carry states (in green). When one sees the progression from "shall issue" to now states going permitless, it is impressive:



https://i.postimg.cc/J13mMpqY/Right-to-Carry-timeline-Feb-2021.gif


This of course begs the question: Do I want to strap on a hogleg to go to 7-11? :laugh:

[Surf Fishing Guru]

With the briefs filed and oral arguments coming up in November it's a good time to take another look where this case is.

I'm only stronger in my opinion that there's no way the Court rules there is a 2ndA recognized, federally enforced right to carry concealed.

I'm thinking there is a slim chance the Court does recognize a federally enforced right to bear arms in public for self defense but the Court will allow states to set the manner of carry . . . Meaning that NY (and the other restrictive states like NJ, MD & CA) will be forced to institute a "shall issue" system with the states retaining the power to mandate the manner of carry.

I'm saying there is a slim chance of coming away with that relatively "clean" situation, because . . .


1) The merits brief for the petitioners (http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/183837/20210713165751150_2021.07.13%20FINAL%20NYSRPA%20v. %20Corlett%20Opening%20Brief.pdf), (written by NRA lawyer Paul Clement), is a total disaster. It never actually gets to addressing the question SCOTUS wants argued . . . Incredibly, Clement never tells the Court how the denial of the petitioners’ applications for concealed carry licenses actually violated the Second Amendment. He spends most of his time pounding on the question the Court left open in Heller; does the 2ndA right extend outside the home . . . Oh yeah, the Court is just gonna love that . . .

2) Alito and Thomas have established a principled rule that they do not join majority opinions that endorse merits / questions / arguments not briefed by both sides. If those two simply reject the NYSRPA position on that principle, Roberts will surely flip in with Breyer, Sotamayor and Kagan and the end result would be a BIG win for NYC.

3) The case could end with a per curiam decision issued without comment or dissent because no Justice will want to write an opinion and have their name associated this turd . . . A naked per curiam decision would leave so much unresolved and the lower federal courts still wandering in the darkness, still with no standard of scrutiny and firm interpretive direction. It could be the beat result because it wouldn't set down new grand rules of law, it would just dispense with the case at hand.




OTOH, there are some points that would work to smooth out those bumps in the road . . .



A) The many amicus for petitioners are very good and Clement could save himself at oral argument. We know Thomas really wants to write a 2nd Amendment decision -- which, if the Chief Justice is in the dissent, Thomas, as senior Associate Justice could assign to himself. That scenario would be the best for gun rights supporters; losing Roberts' wishy-washy vote is worth Thomas writing the opinion. We will know if this -save the baby- attempt is happening if we see Thomas be an active participant at oral argument, asking Clement the questions Thomas needs answered to decide the case.

B) The Court does have a chance to fill in contours of the 2ndA, establish a standard of scrutiny and to remedy the rights abuses in these states without a RKBA provision in their state constitutions. Those states have run roughshod on the rights of their citizens and really need to be put in the constitutional paddock.

C) I doubt the Court would have taken this case if the will wasn't there to get the 2nd Amendment onto equal plane as the other rights as far as 14thA incorporation. States like NY, NJ, CA and MD have enjoyed essentially limitless power to restrict the right to arms of their citizens because they have no RKBA recognition and protection in their constitutions.




Looking deeper into "C", the Court knows the legal justification in NY, NJ, CA and MD for their state courts sustaining various state gun control schemes (not just for concealed carry, we are looking back 100+ years of gun laws) was not built upon any interest in what a "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is, and how that constrains legislative action. In fact, that lack of a RKBA provision was taken by those states to mean anything goes.

There was never any sophisticated testing of state gun laws being challenged against a state RKBA provision and certainly no consideration of the 2nd Amendment as an impediment. Those states sustained their laws by lazily relying on 20th Century (post 1942) lower federal court decisions pushing now invalid collective "militia right" / "state's right" theories and the legal fact that before 2010, the 2ndA did not apply to state action.

This has led to much real or purposeful ignorance regarding what the right to arms is in those states and has polluted their state court decisions which establish the underlying law for the federal districts and circuit courts to examine. It is a mess because decades of those state and lower federal court case law is actually abrogated and invalid and of zero use after Heller and McDonald and Ceatano.

With SCOTUS taking a hiatus from addressing the RKBA and the 2nd Amendment, judges (state and lower federal ones) have been allowed to just make it up as they needed and ignore (or misrepresent) what the 2nd is and what it does -- all in an attempt to avoid enforcing Heller and delay enforcing McDonald and the application of the 2ndA under the 14thA against the states. The Court knows this must be addressed and remedied.


This NY case could either be a bad loss, or a dud where the Court declines to settle these questions or, it could be Earth shaking and we will see the Court do for the 2nd Amendment in one decision, what it took 70+ years to do with the 1st Amendment.

Whether the Court has the chance to address any of that depends on whether the roadblock of the NRA's arrogance and stupidity can be overcome.

Clement's lousy merits brief has created a huge problem for the Court; he made those same arguments in the appeal for certiorari, and the Court in accepting the case, rejected Clement's rehashing and wrote its own question it wanted argued -- and Clement ignored it.

I'm hopeful but I'm far less optimistic about a big win . . . I believe the Court took this case knowing the Court needed to fix 2nd Amendment jurisprudence, now I'm praying the end result will be something other than a big defeat.

Yay NRA!

[NightTrain]

I have faith that they'll do the right thing.

It needs to be resolved while there's a common-sense majority seated. Kick the can and this could be addressed with 5 Sotomayor-grade hacks delivering the ruling.

[Gunny]

Lose/lose. The State of NY's argument blows chunks. Why do I need some "non-speculative" reason to prove I need to defend myself? Stupid. I don't need to defend myself until I do Gee, shall I call the defunded NYPD? :rolleyes:

On the other hand, a ruling in favor of the Second Amendment is going to cause the hair-pulling and nail-biting on the left over the "radical Supreme Court" and they'll start their stacking the court rhetoric back up.

[NightTrain]

On the other hand, a ruling in favor of the Second Amendment is going to cause the hair-pulling and nail-biting on the left over the "radical Supreme Court"

Eh... I'm good with that. Looking forward to it, actually!


and they'll start their stacking the court rhetoric back up.

They don't have the votes for it. I think we're safe.

[Gunny]

Eh... I'm good with that. Looking forward to it, actually!



They don't have the votes for it. I think we're safe.

Not concerned with the votes. Listening to the left and MSM carry on like it's the end of the World is what I get tired of.

When governments actually come for guns, they do it one at a time. Since no one on the right wants to get together to take a stand an agree on anything, it will be relatively easy. There'll be a few shootouts, and the gun owners will ALWAYS be the outlaws, conspiracy theorists, etc.

Most will just hand over their weapons like good little sheeple.

[Black Diamond]

Not concerned with the votes. Listening to the left and MSM carry on like it's the end of the World is what I get tired of.

When governments actually come for guns, they do it one at a time. Since no one on the right wants to get together to take a stand an agree on anything, it will be relatively easy. There'll be a few shootouts, and the gun owners will ALWAYS be the outlaws, conspiracy theorists, etc.

Most will just hand over their weapons like good little sheeple.

And domestic terrorists. Don't forget that new one.

[Gunny]

And domestic terrorists. Don't forget that new one.But of course. They will need a Government-approved label to put on the warrants.

[JakeStarkey]

I have faith SCOTUS will rule correctly.

The right of the people to bear and own arms will not be impeded.

[Abbey Marie]

Any news on this case?

[Gunny]

Any news on this case?I've heard/seen nothing. The "news" has been nothing but mostly garbage since the Biden admin put the clamps on after Afghanistan and his vaccine mandate. As this admin's gaffes have piled up, any real news on things that actually matter have been non-existent.

I would be surprised if the Supreme Court rules on this and doesn't kick it back to the state. It avoids the issue for the Court, while minimizing damage to the Second Amendment in a state that already has no respect for it. A ruling has the potential to affect all 50 states.

Just a guess.

[Surf Fishing Guru]

Any news on this case?

There have been developments, biggest one is the Biden administration asked the Court to extend the time of oral argument and grant the US government time at oral argument.

The Court granted the request, giving each side 35 minutes; the Court divided the defendant's time, 20 minutes for the City and 15 minutes for the US government. At face value this means the US government will be arguing against any right to bear arms in public for self defense being recognized for anyone in NY City . . .

The other developments happened behind the scenes and whether they are newsworthy depends on how into the details of the process you are.

I am into the that stuff so I'll offer my thoughts on what has happened. I will say, my earlier pessimism about the case after reading the merits brief (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?72837-Supreme-Court-takes-up-major-Second-Amendment-case&p=992742#post992742) has swung to the positive.

As screwed-up as the petitioner's merits brief was, and with all the unnecessary crap they threw at the Court that the Court said it has no interest in, I thought the gun rights case was handicapped, if not completely lost . . .

Well, NY's AG has thrown the case a life-line in her response (http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/192555/20210915203840523_20-843%20Brief%20for%20Resps.pdf) to the gun association's terrible merits brief.

NY could have completely ignored the disjointed gun assoc. merits brief and just focused on defending the restrictive permit, staying within the context of the Court's question. But no, they chose to answer the petitioner's brief and in doing so they made statements detrimental to their case, including a huge concession.

The NY AG concedes that a right to arms, even outside the home, exists in NY state, but inside NY City the city can limit it with its more restrictive than the state permit system (remember, the first tier of the NY City permit is a residence permit that you need to have just to own a gun).

That essentially has expanded what the Court can address, it goes from being "limited" to the Court's question to deciding how to divide the baby. Because the NY AG admits that a right to bear arms outside the home exists, the Court must decide if the city should be allowed to violate a right that the state admits exists.

The gun assoc. lawyers have taken advantage of the state's mistakes and filed a response (http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/196419/20211014161918629_20-843%20NYSRPA%20Reply%20Brief%20FINAL.pdf) that gives the Court a lot of info to decide all aspects of this case.

I still think the Court will decline enforcing a blanket right to carry concealed, but it will force states to recognize the right to bear arms in public for self defense. Whether a state decides that it will be through concealed carry or open carry, will be up to them.

Oral argument is set for Wednesday, Nov 3rd . . .

..............

Just for informational purpose, for anyone unfamiliar, here is an explanation of the order of the briefs . . . The gun rights group lost at the lower Circuit court; NY's restrictive permit was upheld so an appeal was made to SCOTUS by the gun association.

That first appeals brief details what defects in the decision and law the loser would like the Supreme Court to correct. The defendants get to reply and then the Court discusses the case on those arguments and decides either to take it, "granting certiorari", or deny the appeal and the lower court ruling stands.

If the Court takes the case, the Court can either accept the question in law the plaintiffs want the Court to remedy, or the Court can write their own question they want the parties to brief and argue. The Court took the NY case on April 26th and crafted their own question:

.
"Petition GRANTED limited to the following question: Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment."



My previous post and pessimism was focused on the "merits" brief, the brief filed by the lawyer representing the NY gun assoc after the appeal is granted and in response to the Court's question -- but failing to answer it.

NY State filed its reply and then the petitioners get to file a final reply, a last word before oral argument.

.

[Gunny]

"Petition GRANTED limited to the following question: Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment."

Poor question, and one SCOTUS should be answering, not asking. Does the Second Amendment guarantee the Right to concealed carry? In general, I think no. However, "the Right to keep and bear arms" is not specific as to how one should carry. The left has done its best to misinterpret this. In its usual "needs to think for us way" because the clause is unspecific, it is open to further (over) regulation.

[fj1200]

Poor question, and one SCOTUS should be answering, not asking.

They will answer it. That's just how they do it; by presenting a question.

[Surf Fishing Guru]

I am happy to admit my earlier pessimism was in error. I'm happier to report that what seemed to be just legal banter in oral argument, has actually become very significant and has forced some fallout to occur, even with the decision still pending.

During oral argument (on Nov. 3) both lawyers defending the NY law were queried by the Justices about the legal process used by the lower federal court to decide the constitutionality of this challenged law and has, since Heller, been used by many Circuit courts to decide on gun control laws.

The Circuit courts use a self-created "two-step inquiry" to apply the 2nd Amendment. Under this test those lower federal courts first determine if the challenged law burdens / implicates conduct protected by the Second Amendment. If they conclude the law does infringe on the RKBA, they proceed to the second step, deciding how severe the infringement is . . . They decide whether it is really a significant intrusion on the core right, and thus worth them worrying about.

Obviously this is an ends focused endeavor and they never fail to declare the gun control law is absolutely needed for public safety and inventing novel ways to explain why this violation of the right must be allowed.

Understandably, the two lawyers could not defend the "two-step inquiry" and in fact, the Principal Deputy Solicitor General of the USA, Brian Fletcher (representing the Biden Administration, who requested oral argument time) conceded that applying the 2nd Amendment's "text , informed by history and tradition" (as articulated years ago by Justice Thomas and explained by Kavanaugh in his dissent in Heller II (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8354949939576611637&q=670+F.3d+1244&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47)) is the proper process.

This is huge because it looks like the 9th Circuit has read the tea leaves and it knows what is coming.

After those oral arguments in the NY case and that line of questioning, the losing (gun rights) party in a large capacity magazine (LCM) ban case in the 9th Circuit, made a motion to the 9th Circuit in early December to stay the enforcement of the ban on possession of hi-cap mags until they can appeal to SCOTUS; it was uncontested by California and was granted (https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/12/22/ninth-circuit-issues-stay-freezing-california-high-capacity-magazine-ban/). The 9th has also suspended (held in abeyance) two assault weapon ban cases until NYSRPA is decided, and the 3rd Circuit has also held a NJ hi-cap mag ban case for the NYSRPA decision.

What we can draw from this is the lower federal courts realize the "two-step inquiry" is dead, and the cases decided using the "two-step inquiry" are at best, infirm.

It seems a forgone conclusion (by all parties), that SCOTUS, in deciding the NY case (NYSRPA) will invalidate the "circuit judge two-step" and demand "text, informed by history and tradition" be the only acceptable standard to apply the 2ndA to a challenged gun control law.

Just like the challenge to Chicago's handgun ban was already written and filed in the 7th Circuit immediately after Heller was handed down, (which subsequently became McDonald) there will be a tsunami of appeals filed in Circuits all across the nation immediately after NYSRPA is handed down (expected in June, 2022). Unlike the 7th's post Heller rehearing of the Chicago ban in 2009, (NRA v Chicago), the Circuits will have no wiggle-room to evade and ignore SCOTUS.

Understand, NYSRPA will result in a deluge of motions for rehearings in these Circuits and reversals of all these decisions sustaining gun laws, including state assault weapon (AW) and large capacity magazine (LCM) bans and safe storage laws etc., will follow quickly (there is no effective legal defense).

Note, these rehearings and reversals / invalidations of these bans will not require any appeals or acceptance and hearing by SCOTUS; it all happens in the Circuits that screwed the pooch originally -- forced to reconsider those laws using the "text, informed by history and tradition" standard, deciding those cases like they should have done since Heller and McDonald, declaring those bans invalid / unconstitutional.

June is going to be a great month!

.