NYSRPA v Bruen (Corlett): 6-3 U.S. Supreme Court Ruling Strikes down May-issue

[Euler]

For some reason, the original topic has been locked.

 

Docket

 

Quote

 

On 4/26/2021 at 10:12 AM, press1280 said:

Cert granted!

 

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

Order of the court said:

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:

Petition for certiorari said:

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

 

 

Oral arguments have been scheduled for November 3.

edited topic to add final ruling:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

[C0untZer0]

Here is the amicus brief filed by Senators Whitehouse, Hirono, Blumenthal, Gillibrand and Senator Dick Durbin.

 

https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. New York (Whitehouse amicus FINAL).pdf

 

The brief asked the Supreme Court to turn down New York State Rifle & Pistol Association's petition to have the Supreme Court hear the case.  Of course the Supreme Court has decided to hear the case.  

 

The brief contains a threat to the current Supreme Court if the court doesn't obey them:

 

Quote

The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be “restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.” Particularly on the urgent issue of gun control, a nation desperately needs it to heal.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Lou]

On 10/3/2021 at 1:54 PM, C0untZer0 said:

The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be “restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.” Particularly on the urgent issue of gun control, a nation desperately needs it to heal.  

I certainly hope SCOTUS views that for what it is, an insult followed by a threat and shows Durbin and Co. what the Constitution means. 

[RANDY]

On 10/3/2021 at 1:54 PM, C0untZer0 said:

“restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.”

And Durbin is threatening to use politics to influence the Supreme Court.  Talk about an oxymoron

[DoYouFeelLucky]

Doesn't the nation need better criminal control to heal?  

[JTHunter]

On 10/3/2021 at 4:24 PM, RANDY said:

And Durbin is threatening to use politics to influence the Supreme Court.  Talk about an oxymoron

 

No, this is just the ravings of a moron !

[RANDY]

@JTHunter  Very true

[mab22]

So it sounds as though this one may be rite over the target?

[Lou]

On 10/3/2021 at 11:08 PM, JTHunter said:

 

No, this is just the ravings of a SENILE OLD moron !

FIFY

[mab22]

If successful, what would this do for Illinois? 
Guessing nothing?
 

[Euler]

On 10/14/2021 at 7:49 PM, mab22 said:

If successful, what would this do for Illinois? 
Guessing nothing?

 

I've seen some people saying online that a favorable decision would mandate permitless carry everywhere. The reality is more like "shall issue" would replace "may issue" for states that are "may issue." Illinois is already "shall issue," so it shouldn't affect us.

[Silhouette]

Recent dissents from denials of certiorari petitions suggest that some Justices may wish to clearly define the level of scrutiny applied to come to the decision that Euler predicts above.  I think that there are two things to watch in this case:  obviously, the outcome and legality of "may issue" but also whether the framework for deciding the matter is transferrable to other second amendment cases.  Predicting SCOTUS decisions is a bit of a lost cause, but "how" they decide can sometimes be more important that "what" they decide.

[JTHunter]

Euler - Illinois is "shall issue" in name only. 🤢

[mab22]

This article with this specific case seems to suggests a right to carry outside the home for self defense, I don’t think it goes there. 
But you can read it for yourself. 
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/locked-loaded-supreme-court-ready-take-aim-second-amendment

 

[illinois_buckeye]

I was listening to the radio on the way to work today, and they were talking about this, the NRA I guess is involved and said they are going to argue that the way NY's process is clearly violates the 2nd Amendment.  So their argument from what I remember was going to be that they need to rule in favor of allowing people the right to bear arms, because otherwise, if you don't uphold the one amendment, then basically you'd weaken the other amendments as well.  Can't remember the exact wording, but it seemed to be to that effect.  

[Hap]

Illinois is shall-issue now as a result of a decision by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals (and the tireless efforts of a huge number of 2A supporters). That decision could have been appealed to the US Supreme Court. That it was not appealed is sometimes attributed to pressure on Illinois from states such as New York which did not want to risk a SCOTUS ruling which would apply nationwide. However, had the case been appealed and had SCOTUS ruled against the plaintiffs, Illinois would likely not have the carry law it does now.

[Texasgrillchef]

What a favorable ruling would do for other states, including Illinois.

 

It all depends on how the opinion is written. Simple as that.

 

SCOTUS could write an opinion that says a need for a LTC is unconstitutional. (I highly doubt that they will though) if they write that, then “Constitutional” Permitless carry would soon become the national standard.

 

On the other hand though, they could issue an opinion that says that we have a constitutional right to carry a handgun outside the home, open and concealed with the issuance of a LTC but that right can’t not be limited by showing good cause. If this opinion was written, and IMHO highly probable. This would ALLOW open carry, and thus force Illinois to finally allow the open carry of our firearms. This opinion would still allow states to require background checks and allow them to continue requiring training.

 

Another opinion highly probable as well, is that they simply rule and issue an opinion that says the showing of good cause is unconstitutional and that we have a constitutional right to carry outside the home, but allows for background checks, and the requirement of training. Allowing only for concealed carry of a firearm. If this opinion were issued. Then it would NOT have any effect on how we can carry, or the issuance of a Illinois CCL.

 

ideally it would be awesome if SCOTUS rules that LTC/CCL’s were unconstitutional. However like I said I doubt they will do that.

 

I do honestly believe that SCOTUS will NOT make a distinction between conceal carry and open carry and thus will have the added benefit of making Open Carry Legal across the entire US. This of course would make Illinois have to allow OC. Which would be very nice. It would force several other states like Florida as well to allow OC.

 

One other thing that the Opinion could mention and could change many things as well, is how and even if various levels of Scrutiny can be used in 2A cases. The opinion could be written to require all 2A cases use Strict Scrutiny or when it should or should not be used. We will have to see what effect this will have once the opinion is released. There is one case allready pending with SCOTUS asking them to clarify how scrutiny should be applied in 2A cases.

 

One other thing to note is exactly how SCOTUS wrote the question to actually be addressed for the case. That right there could present problems as well,

 

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

 

There are so many ways, that could go wrong for us.

 

However, since we have a 5-3 split in our favor, with 1 other Justice on the fence with conservative leanings. I doubt this case would have been granted if they were NOT going to rule against the State of NY to some degree and otherwise overturn the ruling of the lower appellate court. Why not just let the lower courts ruling stand if you don’t have an intent to overturn in the first place. Especially since we have at worst a 5-4 split and hopefully a 6-3 split.

[richp]

Where is that lawyer who used to be here -- I think he went by "Skinny" -- when we need him?

 

Rich Phillips

[soundguy]

On 10/24/2021 at 1:55 PM, richp said:

Where is that lawyer who used to be here -- I think he went by "Skinny" -- when we need him?

 

Rich Phillips

 

I miss much of what he wrote and actively looked for his posts and knowledge. I haven't seen him here since he alluded to impending arrests of high profile Dems...

 

I hope he's doing well.

[Lou]

On 10/24/2021 at 3:06 PM, soundguy said:

 

I miss much of what he wrote and actively looked for his posts and knowledge. I haven't seen him here since he alluded to impending arrests of high profile Dems...

 

I hope he's doing well.

That would be Skinnyb82.  He hasn’t logged in since June 7th.  I don’t know what happened to him. 

[JTHunter]

If Skinny was in possession of certain knowledge about certain "commucrats", it is possible that he had to go into hiding.

[hceuterpe]

 

Not sure how you could say the interpretation only applies to ownership and to allow requiring permit to carry, considering the 2nd amendment includes "keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." in its language...

[soundguy]

Oral arguments are happening now. I just tuned in.

 

Supreme Court LIVE Audio

[bmyers]

Been listening. The AG has been stumbling all over her words. The judges seem to have been harder on the Pro-2nd attorney than her. 

 

Her big argument is because we have lots of people we should get to regulate it because there are lots of people there and we have police.

[bmyers]

She is stumbling now since the judge caught her leaving a key word out from a quote. "Offensive" is not an important word or relevant according to her. 

[bmyers]

Interesting listening to the case. Now we wait for the results. 

[bmyers]

One of the interesting things the AG presented was that you do have a right to carry a gun outside the home, but we (the State) have the right to make sure you have an actual need to carry the gun.

 

So the State's need override your right. 

[Euler]

On 11/3/2021 at 1:06 PM, bmyers said:

One of the interesting things the AG presented was that you do have a right to carry a gun outside the home, but we (the State) have the right to make sure you have an actual need to carry the gun.

 

So the State's need override your right. 

 

"X is the top priority, unless Y." (Fill in X and Y as needed for any given situation.)

 

Well then, doesn't that make Y the top priority?

[POAT54]

New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen Audio

[starwatcher]

I haven't listened to everything yet.

 

One thing that stood out to me is the subway attack example, yet no justice brought up Lozito v. New York City.

 

Just because police are in the area, that means nothing since they have no duty to protect or help you.