NYSRPA v Corlett (CCW may issue challenge)

[press1280]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-843.html

 

I didn't see a thread for this case. It's at SCOTUS right now with defendant's response due Monday the 22nd (and they've already had 1 extension).

So it looks like we may get the new SCOTUS' answer on whether to take up a may-issue case in the next month or two.

This is an NRA funded challenge with Paul Clement at the helm.

Edited March 30, 2021 at 08:27 PM by mauserme
Edited the title to comport with the case being linked to.

[mab22]

Is it may issue only or does it include licensing overall as well?

[Flynn]

I do love the last Amicus brief filed that states that the 2nd isn't about "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" as it literally says, but instead it's a right to server in 'the militia'

[defaultdotxbe]

I do love the last Amicus brief filed that states that the 2nd isn't about "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" as it literally says, but instead it's a right to server in 'the militia'

I'll be honest, I always thought "Goldfarb" was a fake name made up to make fun of people named Goldman or Goldberg or similar

[davel501]

I do love the last Amicus brief filed that states that the 2nd isn't about "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" as it literally says, but instead it's a right to server in 'the militia'

 

Even if they were right about that it would still be damning to their case.

 

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b)The classes of the militia are—

(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14, § 311; Pub. L. 85–861, § 1(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, § 524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656; renumbered § 246, Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title XII, § 1241(a)(2), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2497.)

[Flynn]

 

I do love the last Amicus brief filed that states that the 2nd isn't about "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" as it literally says, but instead it's a right to server in 'the militia'

 

Even if they were right about that it would still be damning to their case.

 

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b)The classes of the militia are—

(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14, § 311; Pub. L. 85–861, § 1(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, § 524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656; renumbered § 246, Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title XII, § 1241(a)(2), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2497.)

 

 

Oh I agree, and when you remove handicap, sexual and age discrimination the militia is essentially everyone and we are right back to it being an individual right by default.

 

This Goldfarb guy, from what I gather, has been trying to get his day in front of the Supreme Court using this same arguement so he can tell them they are wrong for awhile.

Edited February 22, 2021 at 09:28 PM by Flynn

[press1280]

Is it may issue only or does it include licensing overall as well?

 

May issue only. Can't get the licensing scheme knocked down if SCOTUS wont even strike down may issue.

[Flynn]

 

Is it may issue only or does it include licensing overall as well?

 

May issue only. Can't get the licensing scheme knocked down if SCOTUS wont even strike down may issue.

 

 

It would really depend on how they rule, generally they will rule narrowly, but this is a civil rights issue that lower courts and governments have obviously been ignoring since Heller, so it would not surprise me to see the Supreme Court get out the white glove and slap the lower courts into compliance. I would like to see them put on the boxing gloves and knock it out of the park, but any forward progress is progress.

[press1280]

 

 

Is it may issue only or does it include licensing overall as well?

 

May issue only. Can't get the licensing scheme knocked down if SCOTUS wont even strike down may issue.

 

 

It would really depend on how they rule, generally they will rule narrowly, but this is a civil rights issue that lower courts and governments have obviously been ignoring since Heller, so it would not surprise me to see the Supreme Court get out the white glove and slap the lower courts into compliance. I would like to see them put on the boxing gloves and knock it out of the park, but any forward progress is progress.

 

The lower courts have said on one hand the right doesn't end when you leave your home yet it can somehow be rationed only to people who show a particular "need" for it. It's inconsistent with any other fundamental right as rights are not supposed to be held in a hierarchy where some are worth more than others.

[Plinkermostly]

One, simple: 'shall not infringe' -- would do it.

[Flynn]

One, simple: 'shall not infringe' -- would do it.

 

Sadly that isn't working, but a rulling that laid down that because it's a civil right strict scrutiny applies, would be a good start as 9/10 anti-gun laws would fail that test.

[tcstoner]

It goes to SCOTUS conference today. We should know on Monday if SCOTUS takes the case. Docket for 20-843 (supremecourt.gov)

[richp]

And the Ninth Circuit just ruled against open carry in a Hawaii case, giving yet another circuit split for the Supreme Court to deal with. Hope this link works...

 

https://mol.im/a/9399823

 

Rich Phillips

Edited March 25, 2021 at 09:29 AM by richp

[richp]

And here is a related take on the whole SC matter from a legal blog I follow.

 

https://reason.com/volokh/2021/03/24/theres-no-time-like-the-present-to-take-a-second-amendment-case/

 

Rich Phillips

[Gamma]

I do love the last Amicus brief filed that states that the 2nd isn't about "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" as it literally says, but instead it's a right to server in 'the militia'

The lefties really can't let that one go, they will never stop trying to relitigate Heller.

[Euler]

BTW, this case is not "Corlett v NYC." NYC is not involved.

 

It's "NYSRPA v Corlett."

 

Maybe a mod could update the title.

 

It was set for conference March 26. Whether the court grants cert should be announced Monday (March 29) or so.

Edited March 28, 2021 at 05:06 AM by Euler

[Euler]

...

It was set for conference March 26. Whether the court grants cert should be announced Monday (March 29) or so.

It's been rescheduled for conference April 1.

[mauserme]

BTW, this case is not "Corlett v NYC." NYC is not involved.

 

It's "NYSRPA v Corlett."

 

Maybe a mod could update the title.

 

It was set for conference March 26. Whether the court grants cert should be announced Monday (March 29) or so.

That does seem to identify the case a bit better.

[tcstoner]

Here's the official link: Docket for 20-843 (supremecourt.gov)

[Euler]

Here's the official link: Docket for 20-843 (supremecourt.gov)

?? It's in the opening post, too.

[press1280]

 

...

It was set for conference March 26. Whether the court grants cert should be announced Monday (March 29) or so.

It's been rescheduled for conference April 1.

 

Actually re-listed. There's a difference. Re-listed cases means there's some level of interest.

[tcstoner]

When a case is relisted, the justices do not grant or deny review, but instead will reconsider the case at their next conference. This will be reflected on the case’s electronic docket once the docket has been updated: You will see the words “DISTRIBUTED for Conference of [fill in date],” and then the next entry in the docket will usually say “DISTRIBUTED for Conference of [next conference after the previous entry, whenever that is].” It is almost impossible to know exactly what is happening when a particular case is relisted, but a few different things could be going on. One justice could be trying to pick up a fourth vote to grant review, one or more justices may want to look more closely at the case, a justice could be writing an opinion about the court’s decision to deny review, or the court could be writing an opinion to summarily reverse (that is, without briefing or oral argument on the merits) the decision below. In 2014, the court appears to have adopted a general practice of granting review only after it has relisted a case at least once; although we don’t know for sure, presumably the court uses the extra time resulting from a relist to make sure that the case is a suitable one for its review.

[press1280]

Not on today's orders. Will likely be re-listed again.

[tcstoner]

They must not have locked down that 5th vote. If there was 5 votes to overturn it, it would have been accepted by now. There’s nothing worse than accepting the case and there are five votes to affirm the appellate court.

[press1280]

They must not have locked down that 5th vote. If there was 5 votes to overturn it, it would have been accepted by now. There’s nothing worse than accepting the case and there are five votes to affirm the appellate court.

Too early to say. I'll point out that the NYSRPA case that was granted cert last year got it after the 2nd re-list and we aren't there yet. The other scenario is a per curiam where they get 6 votes (at least) and decide the case without even going to oral arguments, see Caetano.

[press1280]

Cert granted!

[Davey]

Very interesting..........

[springfield shooter]

Cert granted!

 

 

Case # 20-843, per the the link in the first paragraph of the PJ Media article linked to below.

 

 

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2021/04/26/breaking-supreme-court-takes-up-first-gun-case-in-10-years-n1442742

[Euler]

Cert granted!

They've limited the scope of the case, though.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is 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.

The original question was:

Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.

[Euler]

Case # 20-843, per the the link in the first paragraph of the PJ Media article linked to below.

 

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2021/04/26/breaking-supreme-court-takes-up-first-gun-case-in-10-years-n1442742

 

Here's the official link: Docket for 20-843 (supremecourt.gov)

?? It's in the opening post, too.

 

Still true.