Jump to content

SCOTUS take up may issue


Recommended Posts

  • Moderators

 

The court agreed to hear a challenge to a New York state law that allows residents to carry a concealed handgun only if they can demonstrate a special need beyond a general desire for self protection. The law “makes it virtually impossible for the ordinary law-abiding citizen” to get the necessary license, said Paul Clement, a lawyer representing the challengers.

One of them, Robert Nash, said he was wanted to carry a gun in response to a string of robberies in his neighborhood. Another, Brendan Koch, also cited a desire to carry a gun for protection. Both men said they had completed gun safety courses, but both were turned down when they applied for permits. They joined a lawsuit challenging the law brought by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association.

New York bans carrying a handgun openly. The state law says anyone seeking a license to carry a concealed weapon must demonstrate “a special need for self protection distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession.”

The law is so restrictive, Clement said, that it cannot be reconciled with the Supreme Court’s “affirmation of the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”

 

https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2021/04/26/hmmm-scotus-takes-first-2a-case-in-over-a-decade-n385846

  • Like 1
Link to comment

 My guess is, NY's game plan is to keep bringing bits & pieces to the public, causing chaos in the court system. Not that they expect to win the case, but bleed the public & NRA dry in the process.

JMHO

 

1 hour ago, Chucktshoes said:

 

The court agreed to hear a challenge to a New York state law that allows residents to carry a concealed handgun only if they can demonstrate a special need beyond a general desire for self protection. The law “makes it virtually impossible for the ordinary law-abiding citizen” to get the necessary license, said Paul Clement, a lawyer representing the challengers.

One of them, Robert Nash, said he was wanted to carry a gun in response to a string of robberies in his neighborhood. Another, Brendan Koch, also cited a desire to carry a gun for protection. Both men said they had completed gun safety courses, but both were turned down when they applied for permits. They joined a lawsuit challenging the law brought by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association.

New York bans carrying a handgun openly. The state law says anyone seeking a license to carry a concealed weapon must demonstrate “a special need for self protection distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession.”

The law is so restrictive, Clement said, that it cannot be reconciled with the Supreme Court’s “affirmation of the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”

 

https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2021/04/26/hmmm-scotus-takes-first-2a-case-in-over-a-decade-n385846

 y

Edited by Grunt67
Spelling
Link to comment
  • Moderators
37 minutes ago, Grunt67 said:

 My guess is, NY's game plan is to keep bringing bits & pieces to the public, causing chaos in the court system. Not that they expect to win the case, but bleed the public & NRA dry in the process.

JMHO

 

 y

I think your read of the situation is slightly off here. The NYSRPA is the one bringing the suit. The NRA aren’t really a player here. They went after NYC’s transportation laws last time on the same grounds and NYC changed the law to keep it out of the court. It wouldn’t surprise me if New York State change the law again to keep from having to defend this one. They seem to be really on the ropes.
 

The NYSRPA are doing good work. 

Edited by Chucktshoes
Link to comment

When an outlet like Vox is prepping anti-gun types for disappointment, that's a good sign.

Although the plaintiffs asked the Court to rule on a broad question — “whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense” — the justices announced on Monday that they will only resolve a more narrow question: “whether the State’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.”

Nevertheless, this narrower question is still broad enough to allow the Supreme Court to rewrite a decade of Second Amendment precedents, to unwind a consensus within the lower courts that permits many gun regulations to stand, and then to allow those lower courts to complete the process of dismantling other gun laws.

https://www.vox.com/2021/4/26/22364154/supreme-court-guns-second-amendment-new-york-state-rifle-corlett-shootings-kavanaugh-barrett

 

Cautiously optimistic this could be another good step towards protecting 2A rights from burdensome regulation for another generation.

Edited by btq96r
  • Like 3
Link to comment
  • Moderators
10 minutes ago, btq96r said:

When an outlet like Vox is prepping anti-gun types for disappointment, that's a good sign.

Although the plaintiffs asked the Court to rule on a broad question — “whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense” — the justices announced on Monday that they will only resolve a more narrow question: “whether the State’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.”

Nevertheless, this narrower question is still broad enough to allow the Supreme Court to rewrite a decade of Second Amendment precedents, to unwind a consensus within the lower courts that permits many gun regulations to stand, and then to allow those lower courts to complete the process of dismantling other gun laws.

https://www.vox.com/2021/4/26/22364154/supreme-court-guns-second-amendment-new-york-state-rifle-corlett-shootings-kavanaugh-barrett

 

Cautiously optimistic this could be another good step towards protecting 2A rights from burdensome regulation for another generation.

Niiiiice!

Link to comment
1 hour ago, btq96r said:

When an outlet like Vox is prepping anti-gun types for disappointment, that's a good sign.

Although the plaintiffs asked the Court to rule on a broad question — “whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense” — the justices announced on Monday that they will only resolve a more narrow question: “whether the State’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.”

Nevertheless, this narrower question is still broad enough to allow the Supreme Court to rewrite a decade of Second Amendment precedents, to unwind a consensus within the lower courts that permits many gun regulations to stand, and then to allow those lower courts to complete the process of dismantling other gun laws.

https://www.vox.com/2021/4/26/22364154/supreme-court-guns-second-amendment-new-york-state-rifle-corlett-shootings-kavanaugh-barrett

 

Cautiously optimistic this could be another good step towards protecting 2A rights from burdensome regulation for another generation.

It seems typical of the SC to rule on a narrow aspect of a case leaving big problems unresolved, then deny hearing any other cases for another decade or so because they already heard a 2A case.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, E4 No More said:

It seems typical of the SC to rule on a narrow aspect of a case leaving big problems unresolved, then deny hearing any other cases for another decade or so because they already heard a 2A case.

They really want the lower courts to do the cleanup.  Roberts is clearly aware of how the court is seen as a public institution, and he wants to make sure they can't be accused of deliberately looking for 2A cases to wedge gun rights through.  Hence, we get the occasional rulings where they have to be rerun through the circuit and appeals courts with the newfound precedent.

It's imperfect, but progress all the same.  Gun rights in the last 20 years have come a long, long way with the sunset of the AWB, Heller, & McDonald.  A lot of times we fail to look at the big picture when focusing on the absolutism side of it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
39 minutes ago, btq96r said:

They really want the lower courts to do the cleanup.  Roberts is clearly aware of how the court is seen as a public institution, and he wants to make sure they can't be accused of deliberately looking for 2A cases to wedge gun rights through.  Hence, we get the occasional rulings where they have to be rerun through the circuit and appeals courts with the newfound precedent.

It's imperfect, but progress all the same.  Gun rights in the last 20 years have come a long, long way with the sunset of the AWB, Heller, & McDonald.  A lot of times we fail to look at the big picture when focusing on the absolutism side of it.

I seem to recall just last week that they refused to hear a very pertinent case - although I don't remember exactly what the issue was.

EDIT: Come to think of it and using my Google-foo, it was about non-violent federal offenders having a lifetime ban of possessing firearms. One example was someone being charged with federal copyright infringement and another for lying on tax returns. A third was for a DUI that must have been on federal property.

Edited by E4 No More
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

TRADING POST NOTICE

Before engaging in any transaction of goods or services on TGO, all parties involved must know and follow the local, state and Federal laws regarding those transactions.

TGO makes no claims, guarantees or assurances regarding any such transactions.

THE FINE PRINT

Tennessee Gun Owners (TNGunOwners.com) is the premier Community and Discussion Forum for gun owners, firearm enthusiasts, sportsmen and Second Amendment proponents in the state of Tennessee and surrounding region.

TNGunOwners.com (TGO) is a presentation of Enthusiast Productions. The TGO state flag logo and the TGO tri-hole "icon" logo are trademarks of Tennessee Gun Owners. The TGO logos and all content presented on this site may not be reproduced in any form without express written permission. The opinions expressed on TGO are those of their authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the site's owners or staff.

TNGunOwners.com (TGO) is not a lobbying organization and has no affiliation with any lobbying organizations.  Beware of scammers using the Tennessee Gun Owners name, purporting to be Pro-2A lobbying organizations!

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to the following.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines
 
We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.