Supreme Court Strikes Down Restrictive New York Gun Licensing Law
“Because the State of New York issues public-carry licenses only when an applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we conclude that the State’s licensing regime violates the Constitution.”
You may recall our coverage of the first major 2nd Amendment case to make it to the U.S. Supreme Court in over a decade, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (docket), New York Concealed Carry Restrictions Seem Likely To Fall As Important 2nd Amendment Case Argued In Supreme Court:
It’s been a decade since the U.S. Supreme Court took a major Second Amendment case, much to the chagrin of Justice Clarence Thomas.
But today was argument in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen, a case we previously covered, Supreme Court Agrees To Hear 2nd Amendment Case Over NY Restrictions On Concealed Carry:
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court granted review in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett (now v. Bruen), a case challenging the constitutionality of New York State’s concealed carry licensing scheme. The case argues that New York’s “may issue” licensing scheme violates individuals’ Second Amendment-protected rights—but could mean a lot more for gun rights across the nation.
* * *
The case could have wide implications, as we previously wrote:
New York State generally prohibits the carriage of a firearm in public—both openly and concealed. An individual can only carry a firearm concealed if they apply for and receive a license issued by a state “licensing officer.” But in New York, a concealed carry license isn’t so easy to come by.
A licensing officer will only issue a concealed carry permit if the applicant meets a lengthy list of criteria, including things such as being twenty-one years of age or older, being “of good moral character,” and not having been convicted of a felony or “a serious offense.” This list, although long, is fairly standard among states that require citizens to get a permit to carry a firearm concealed.
But New York is what is called a “may issue” state, meaning the state adds an additional barrier to getting a permit. A licensing officer will only issue a concealed carry license to an applicant “when proper cause exists for the issuance thereof.” In contrast, “shall issue” states require the licensing authority to issue a concealed carry license to an applicant so long as they are not specifically prohibited from having one.
New York’s discretionary consideration makes it all but impossible for law-abiding Americans to receive a permit to carry a firearm concealed in New York.The burden is placed on the applicant to “demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession.” In other words, an applicant’s mere desire to carry a firearm for the purpose of self-defense is not “proper cause” in the eyes of New York.
The Court just struck down the law, in a 6-3 Opinion authored by Justice Thomas:
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010), we recognized that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right of an ordinary, law-abiding citizen to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense. In this case, petitioners and respondents agree that ordinary, law-abiding citizens have a similar right to carry handguns publicly for their self-defense. We too agree, and now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.
The parties nevertheless dispute whether New York’s licensing regime respects the constitutional right to carry handguns publicly for self-defense. In 43 States, the government issues licenses to carry based on objective criteria. But in six States, including New York, the government further conditions issuance of a license to carry on a citizen’s showing of some additional special need. Because the State of New York issues public-carry licenses only when an applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we conclude that the State’s licensing regime violates the Constitution.
MORE TO FOLLOW (updating by MC)
“New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.” pic.twitter.com/kwbi5hnI96
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) June 23, 2022
Notable Supreme Court decision on gun rights just dropped –
Justice Thomas: "the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home."https://t.co/EiCL9RBZQu
— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) June 23, 2022
"We too agree, and now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home." pic.twitter.com/JaJn8xTD67
— Storm Paglia
(@storm_paglia) June 23, 2022
CNN's Jessica Schneider claims SCOTUS striking down New York's restrictive concealed carry law will lead to an explosion of mass shootings in Times Square.
"Several mass shootings in the last few months … And the concern [is] … handguns in populated places like Times Square" pic.twitter.com/FBvhPd8g3R— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) June 23, 2022
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Good to hear! Hopefully, Roe is overturned next.
There is no legitmate basis for overturing Roe.
No JD,
You are wrong again as usual.
Now, rather than go into the legal aspects which are without a doubt light years beyond your comprehension and would lose you in the conversation- tell me what you think is not a legitimate basis and I will correct you on it.
Your position is rooted in scientific illteracy and religious lunacy. Neither of which provide a legitimate or compelling reason for overturning a well established constitional right.
No, its rooted in established Constitutional law and historical application.
All which are totally alien and incomprehensible to you.
There is no right to an abortion. If it was so well-established, how come judges had to pull it out of their ass 200 years after this country was created? Even Ruth Bader Schwarzenegger understood how tortuous and stupid the legal reasoning was in Roe.
The only thing that gets you out of bed in the morning is to spam this site with emotional screed.
Your position is rooted in partisan stupidity.
There is NO “well-established constitutional right” for a woman to be able to murder her pre-born baby for convenience. It was a made-up “right” that even RGB didn’t like.
Remember how the Dred Scott decision was settled law for a long time? The Roe v Wade decision was just as settled as Dred Scott.
Penumbra of the Constitution? Please. All overturning Roe would do is return it to the several state where it properly belongs.
I suggest you read the 9th amendment.
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
This is one of many reasons why “abortion is not in the constitution” is both a dumb and incorrect argument.
I suggest you go back and understand what you are reading because despite the left popularity, the interpretation is fundamentally and legally flawed.
Meaning the feds have no jurisdiction to suppress them.
Overturning Roe won’t initiate federal suppression of anything.
And a person, even a pre born person, has the right not to be murdered. You keep conveniently forgetting about that fact. Even Roe makes distinctions about the state of development.
Abortion on an industrial scale such as exists in the US isn’t contemplated in our constitution. The forthcoming decision in Dobbs which will set 15 weeks as an end point for legal abortion will still be one of the most liberal regimes in the world.
Your argument about religion simply substitutes one doctrine for another; you would replace traditional western belief with your own preferred set of beliefs. It’s very sophomoric and disappointing in someone who claims legal training.
Finally you do understand that overturning Roe will put the issue back to the States don’t you? That slightly diminished but soon to be revitalized concept of Federalism will do wonders in clarifying that States are sovereign as well.
Hi Juris Doctor, the troll formerly known as Ragspierre
Nobody claims that the constitution protects only those rights it explicitly names. Everyone knows that the ninth protects additional rights, and courts have to do their best to ascertain what those are. But abortion is not one of those rights. It can’t be, because there was no such right when the ninth was ratified. The ninth isn’t some mutating monster that can be stretched to mean whatever anyone wants it to. It doesn’t protect whatever rights become popular in any given era. It protects those rights that it always did, that it protected when it was enacted; no more.
I believe Justice Thomas has a sign on his door to the effect, “Please check your penumbras at the door.”
Another reason to love the man.
Sure, Sure, JD. Your awful legal takes have been noted.
Ha, JD, are you a troll? You have not facts to present but suggest others facts are wrong. The Constitution does not support the position and it was a political decision in the 70’s and if not over turned, it is a political decision in the 2020’s.
Individual rights start at conception with a little gray area in viability, but thanks to science that requires us to get a vaccine, that gray area is zero.
Abortion is a distraction from the huge liberal sex trafficking. Gun control is a huge distraction of the intercity crimes and Fentanyl drug overdoses (almost 80K over the past two years). Squirrels everywhere, but reality is going to hit the fan. Time to start living in it.
Yes, JD is a long outed troll
The point out where it says you have a right to kill your baby in the constitution.
Fair enough. But once Roe is overturned, if you support our constitutional system of government, you must admit that the SCOTUS has the final say on whether or not something is constitutional or not, and once that’s settled, changing it will require the SCOTUS to revisit it.
Remember, the pro-lifers asserted that there was no legitimate basis for deciding Roe as it was decided, and they lived for the past 40+ years in a world where the law of the land, and the decision of the SCOTUS, was that it was a constitutional right. Are you ready to wait another 40+ years, in compliance with the constitution, as you push back in the other direction?
Beside the fact that you’ve never read law, you’re dumber than a pile of dog poo.
Hot damn. This is huge.
I’m surprised it was 6-3.
Read this on a gun board. Which if correct means the decision while nice still allows infringements.
———————————————————
The good part of the ruling is the 2nd is a constitutional right and people have a right to carry inside and outside their homes. The bad part is Kavanaugh just said half the gun control we have and more of what the Dems want is constitutional. Gun control such as requiring a license to own, finger printing, background checks, mental health, and required training are all perfectly acceptable regulations on the 2nd. They didn’t question any of NY’s restrictions/requirements, just that they were being applied unequally or required a means test which treated people differently.
The whole “shall not be infringed” part was tossed out long ago and the ruling confirms it will never be that way again.
we also relied on the historical understanding of the Amendment to demark the
limits on the exercise of that right. We noted that, “[l]ike most rights,
the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”
The court declares there is a historical tradition of firearm regulations
to justify a firearm regulation the government
must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s
historical tradition of firearm regulation
The Democrats plan of requiring a license, which also requires mandatory training, is supported by this opinion as the court notes the historical tradition of requiring a license to own or carry a firearm in some places.
Today’s licensing scheme largely tracks that of the early
1900s. It is a crime in New York to possess “any firearm”
without a license, whether inside or outside the home,
…
New York is not alone in requiring a permit to carry a
handgun in public.
All of these restrictions and infringements on the Second Amendment are approved by the SCOTUS. page 80 and written by Kavanaugh
43 States employ objective shall-issue licensing regimes.
Those shall-issue regimes may require a license applicant to undergo fingerprinting, a background
check, a mental health records check, and training in firearms handling and in laws regarding the use of force, among other possible requirements.
As petitioners, acknowledge, shall-issue licensing regimes are constitutionally permissible,
Going forward, therefore, the 43 States that employ objective shall-issue licensing regimes for carrying handguns for self-defense may continue to do so.
Great ! The 2A lives in NY thanks to SCOTUS. One armed passenger could have prevented the recent attack in the subway
Scotus blog comment – “Page 2 of Alito’s concurrence is notable and troubling. He dismisses Breyer’s recounting of mass shootings. “Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years? … The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that [Buffalo] perpetrator..”
Notable that Breyer’s dissent focuses on the number of homicides in the US as a valid reason for gun control, yet as Alito notes, the NY gun control statutes in place did not stop the Buffalo shooting, nor will any of the gun controls advocated by the proponents of gun control will have any positive effect.
Breyer – Supporter of emotion driven legislation which is totally ineffective at resolving the issue(s) in question.
.Black leaders have accused whites of systemic racism and then advocated for tilting the scales in favor of blacks. Whites should turn the tables on them by pointing to demographic homicide rates and violent crime rates and accuse blacks of systemic violence. Then use that as an excuse to advocate for segregation and denial of blacks of their 2nd Amendment rights. Maybe blacks will wake up to the fact that this systemic crap can be a two edged sword that can be used against them to their detriment.
New York’s fascistic Governor says, “We will continue to fight.” What the hell does that mean? Since the BiDung maladministration ignores court orders, now Democrat governors can too? Rot at the top creates rot at the bottom and everywhere in between.
It means that NY is going to pull the same $tuff that DC pulled after heller,
Exactly. The law will be shadow-banned in NY.
Criminals don’t care. Too bad they are not compelled by a “shall” issue and dispose of the “may” issue arbitrariness.
note that Breyer’s dissent was heavily focused on homicides in the US, but nary an explanation as to how gun control would reduce the number of homicides
Gun control would reduce the number of criminals being shot by their victims.
About half the homicides are black-on-black homicide. Apparently blacks didn’t get the memo about black lives mattering.
True and most are suicides. Breyer sees control as a social issue to be addressed by the Court and not a Constitutional one. That is their “Living Constitution”.
OUTSTANDING
so does this now become “settled law” and we can never ever ever overturn it? Cuz that is what I have been told about SC decisions recently.
/sarcasm off
This is good news indeed. And (maybe) sends a message to the congress currently debating our right to bear arms
Maybe it will have good durability, because it’s not obviously wrong constitutionally. Things like Roe v. Wade are obviously wrong, obviously exceed the intended scope of SCOTUS’ power, and so the dread of liberals we can hope they will be changed.
There is hope, after all. What is so difficult about “shall not be infringed”?
It impedes the socialist takeover agenda
Socialism is just a subset of totalitarian. It is in the DNA of Government to want absolute control. Getting such requires a disarmed population.
I am not interested in what “ism” it might be. Losing the 2nd amendment is the end of the experiment in self-governance called the USA.
But we wanna!
We don’t always get what we wanna. For example, I wanna a mask like yours to protect me from Monkey Pox but they don’t make ’em any more.
Based on experience with “shall issue” laws in other states, expect the violent crimes against normal, law-abiding citizens (who, just might be packing heat) to drop off precipitously.
Well, not right away. First New York has to realign its laws with the SC ruling and begin issuing properly…. only then will goblins have to worry that their victims will be armed.
And as we see from the example of DC, who knows how long that can be delayed?
If you will notice, this is precisely the same ruling, for precisely the same reasons, that SCOTUS just made on the federal level. So what happened?
Get that? “The law is still unconstitutional, I haven’t changed my mind, but it would be unfair to the DC police chief not to let her continue to enforce it on her people for three more months, while she gets her shit together.”
So solicitous to the unfairly burdened oppressor!
Of course, nobody can do this to SCOTUS… but I’m sure somebody is dreaming up something analogous.
That was a longer post than usual, but was worth reading. Thanks Henry.
Do not be surprised when this has a strong chilling impact on this proposed RINO approved socialist gun bill currently in the pipeline.
One would hope so. But, those spineless bustards may well vote for it with the knowledge that it is likely unconstitutional.
There is a conspiracy theory going around that the GOP wants to limit its success in the upcoming election. Seems pretty strained, to me. OTOH, how else do you explain 14 RINOs voting to move the bill along?
I agree with Emerald Robinson, that the GOP does not want to be in the majority, so this Senate gun control compromise is a means to throw the November mid-term elections by demoralizing us. It’s all a game, where they ask for your donations and support so they can win the next election and really get things done this time, trust us!!!, but then do everything they can to not win the majority, so you keep sending them money and they keep losing on purpose. The last thing they want to happen is for them to actually gain the majority and then have all those icky voters expect them to fulfill their promises, which were lies the whole time.
https://emeralddb3.substack.com/p/the-gop-wants-to-lose-the-mid-terms
Playing to lose is a great way to end up the new Wigs.
“Repeal and Replace”. Remember that?
I have heard the same conspiracy theory but that’s what it is and nothing more. (That begs explanation since I used to believe, hold and promote that same conspiracy theory as fact until the 2020 election and fallout opened my eyes)
Its clear to me now when we break the GOP down into conservatives and RINO’s- we actually have 2 distinctly different types of RINO. (This model excludes Manchurian Republicans who are plants and never were conservative to begin with- that could be a 3rd category if one chose to)
R-1 is the globalist who is the NWO type
R-2 is the “for hire” opportunist who is a conservative but has a price and menu and a closet liberal in spirit. ( liberal not to mean socialist- that’s a separate ideology altogether)
Both share common agendas at times but are often not fully aligned or united.
RINO’s don’t have a problem being “in charge” from the perspective of leadership because they can do nothing on the top as well as they do it on the bottom.
But, as Bischoff said, “Controversy Creates Cash” and being the perpetual underdog pays double. The payoffs from the puppet master to keep them weak and the fundraising from the masses to do something.
This case is a little different because Trump sees this too which is why he is specifically targeting RINO’s. ( and why they are targeting him)
This latest “maneuver” ( look real close) has nothing to do with the mid terms and it wouldn’t surprise me that the entire storyline is a media enhanced red herring.
This gun bill has to do with the bought off RINO’s appeasing their masters to try to stay in power.
Here’s how you know this- they were smart enough to NOT even mention a gun ban ( talk about losing the mid terms- that would have done it right there if that had been the true intent)
They also worked long and hard to “wordsmith” this bill to where its Constitutional ( in the sense it does not outright violate any part of it but they worded it where the “abuse” could be executed at will at the local level. ( knowing blue states would weaponize it and red states likely not). That makes it survive challenge and judicial review.
None of this was accidental or done 10 days ago- this bill was long ago drafted.
The RINO’s tested the water slowly and see not a “red” wave but a MAGA wave and this bill is a compromise with the LEFT to solicit their help in staying in power ( whether they take houses or not)
The Left NEEDS the RINO because they know they are not strong enough to accomplish anything without their help.
Its a mutual death pact.
That’s why this specific group was chosen and why they drafted the bill the way they did.
They didn’t count on the backlash, uproar, Trump presence and now SCOTUS decision.
They may revise things now. (I could be totally wrong but don’t think so)
There is a great article over at the Conservative Treehouse by Sundance on the subject and it fits perfectly with what is taking place with these 14-RINOs and their Master, Mitch McCommunist:
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2022/06/23/tucker-carlson-calls-out-the-right-wing-of-the-uniparty-vulture/#more-234427
This sentence is especially instructive: “Nothing within this process is contingent upon the support of the voting electorate.” And thus, no surprise that these “Special People” are not afraid of their constituent base and don’t represent them with impunity.
Moreover, they worry even less when elections are fraudulent exercises to have proven outcomes that keeps the same unaccountable person in office for a lifetime of employment and thievery. Refer to the tenure of some of these turkeys already over 30 years with the record holder, John Dingell, who took over the seat of his father to serve 60 years and then, pass the seat to his wife, Debbie, who now serves in a seat that may as well be a Dingell Family Heirloom.
“The Republican National Committee (RNC), and the Democrat National Committee (DNC), are private clubs.
The RNC and DNC are corporations, private businesses; and just like all private businesses, they have the ability to make rules, bylaws, terms and conditions of membership and association that are completely arbitrary according to their charter.
The RNC and DNC are not entities of government. The RNC and DNC are not affiliates of government. The RNC and DNC have absolutely no connection to government, other than their arbitrary business model for helping politicians enter and remain within government.
In fact, the RNC and DNC are simply private corporations who engage in the business of politics. Whenever we start to forget the DNC and RNC are private corporations, we can slip into the mistaken belief that they operate on any form of baseline altruism.
These corporations exist for the fulfillment of their mission; and their mission is to use the business of politics as a method of financial reward to sustain the business model.
Some call these private entities, these corporations, “clubs,” because using that term helps to remind us that these groups do not operate without a private agenda.
The rules within the RNC club are determined by the people who control the club charter, primarily large donors who fund the corporate business. If they have a particular intent or direction, they wish the club to support or take, they control how the club engages in the process of achieving their outcome. That effort is taken regardless of the opinion from the subordinate members in the club.
Through the process of controlling the corporations, the private clubs, both the RNC and DNC control how political events take place. Nothing within this process is contingent upon the support of the voting electorate.”
Actually I came to many of those same conclusions myself.
Maybe not in detail but I basically concur with that author
.
Until they want to be. And therein lies the problem.
The”private club” model was the model the founders envisioned. “We are an interest group who wish to offer this slate of nominees to represent our interests.” That’s exactly the way it should have been.
(I don’t believe they understood the “game theory math” that inevitably instantiates two and only two massive parties, same as it inevitably forces car dealers to cluster along a single stretch of highway.)
Under this model there are no such things as “open primaries.” A party’s nominees are chosen by members of that party (at one time, paying members). Primaries are an internal function of the party, paid for by the party. “Independents” get no vote at all in anybody’s primaries. (Why should people who have no connection with a group’s values and needs have any say in who that group will nominate to represent them?)
The problem comes when those two inevitable parties begin to entertain grandiose notions of actually being official branches of government. Then, all sorts of political perversions occur.
States pay for primaries, so independents must be invited. A candidate whose philosophy is entirely antagonistic to a party can circulate nomination petitions and be nominated entirely by the signatures of independents, at which time the state rules that the party must accept him as a representative candidate.
The federal government foots the bill for lavish national conventions for the two “major” parties (private groups, as you will recall), using your tax money. Other parties never receive the same consideration.
Same for debates. The feds fund “national debates” controlled by the big two, who carefully massage the entry requirements such that no one but their own people “qualify” to participate.
And if you let that sort of shit fester, you end up with the premier federal law enforcement organization operating out of the HQ of one of those parties’ lawyer’s offices. Hey, that’s not a blueprint for tyranny at all.
We’ve ended up with a system that not only has tapeworms, but where the system carefully chooses its own diet to cater to the cravings of those tapeworms instead of looking to its own nutritional needs.
I, mostly, agree with you. I think the top ten items on any Rep/Senator’s list are all the same–get reelected. It is the best job imaginable. “Getting rich” is a subset of “getting elected”. Being in the majority is a “nice to have”, but not on that top ten list.
We have developed a ruling caste in this country. Most of them have never drawn a private sector paycheck, much less signed the front side of a check. Many (I always read the Wikipedia “early life” section) come from privilege, very often privilege from family connections, either elected or the bureaucracy.
This is not a Democrat/GOP thing. Red Team, Blue Team. Same game.
The US was envisioned as “representative government”. Those we have in today’s Government, writ large, are nothing close to “representative”. The odd exception, to be sure, but those are usually housebroken pretty quickly.
Having said that, I think the GOP’s DNA is that of the minority party. Raising funds by railing against “the man” is very effective.
Taurus, I would think the red-flag law is prima facie unconstitutional. It deprives an individual of a Constitutional right without due process.
That’s a stretch because SCOTUS has ruled de minimis and other small exceptions to individual rights to protect the public are allowed. ( traffic stops, warrantless arrests on probable cause in some cases, mental people being committed involuntarily and so forth)
Red flag laws stretch those exceptions (IMO) beyond Constitutional and SCOTUS ruling but that’s another issue.
That’s why they need to be challenged and defeated.
What galls me ( there are several actually) is the fact the “innocent” person has to financially bankrupt himself to defend against a false charge with no recourse.
There is “due process”- its just not good and proper.
That’s why I am so against them.
But, those spineless bustards
may wellwill vote for it with the knowledge that it islikelyunconstitutional.FIFY
I expect this will just push them to issue it faster. The whole point of Red Flag laws are to disarm people that the State does not want armed, and they can’t very well do that if the Supreme Court rules they are unconstitutional, can they?
I expect them to ram it through and vigorously prosecute the people they most want gone. Best case they can either get them removed or pin a crime in them if they don’t enthusiasticly agree to the leftists demands, and I doubt that goes away even if the original law that kicked off the confrontation gets overturned.
That plus the recent 9th Circuit ruling that restrictions for adults under 21 based on age were not constitutional.
I don’t see why Democrats are upset. It doesn’t put any undue restrictions on criminals.
Well, I was wrong. I stand corrected.
The RINO’s and GOPe have directly declared war on the citizens of the US.
There is no misreading this senate gun vote and no spin that’s going to change the facts.
Considering how Sen. Cornyn’s Gun Confiscation Law is predicated on nullifying the 4th amendment, is there enough left of the 4th amendment after the Patriot Act to file a lawsuit nullifying Cornyn’s law based on the constitutionality of the federal government delegating to the states the right to illegal search and seizure and confiscation without due process?
Is there any reason to not consider the 4th amendment repealed?
The 4th is not repealed because it has not been repealed.
They are just committing crimes under the color of law. Different thing.
Will they ever be held account? I don’t know. Probably not, but do not let that blind is to the fact that they are acting in violation of the laws they swore to uphold. They don’t get to dictate what is and is not true merely because they hold a gun.
Then it seems to me that it is high time for someone to file a motion to repeal the Patriot Act which was introduced as a “temporary” law. This will allow us to disband the hideous Homeland Security apparatus whose purpose seems to maintain open borders and protect foreign terrorists who slip in.
Point. If we can show it is in violation of the 4th Amendment, we may also be able to get it overturned as well.
Probably best to start both prongs. I doubt this Congress would take it up, but we will have to see what the next Congress is like. Both routes have risks.
We need to get off of defense and start putting the Uniparty on defense. It has to start somewhere. Spying on American citizens without due process is unconstitutional. That is why we siloed the FBI and CIA from each other.
The Bill ( as written) doesn’t violate anything outright and actually plays lip service to the Constitution.
All deception by design but no court will find it unconstitutional on its face. No possible chance of that anyone feel free to list any line item you think would get it overturned and I will show you where it wont.
They knew that when they wrote it that way- they left the abuse ( should there be any) to the states “implementation” of the bill.
Nice – Thomas also stated arms means more than just than the historical context, but includes any modern means of self defense like stun guns.
Well, that’s settled law as of Caetano v. Mass.
So when does real change take place for the common person in New York?
When they move out of New York?
Doesn’t this mean that ‘constitutional carry’ is now the law in all 50 states and the D.C.? What about US territories? I’m not a lawyer, but this is how I would interpret it. Would anyone with knowledge care to answer?
Nope. Very simplified it it only says that the govt can’t withhold a permit because they don’t want to issue it. They can have a permit process that encompasses the States normal interests in not issuing permits to violent felons and whackos. They can have an initial training requirement and modest fees and a requirement for refresher training.
This ruling does equal constitutional carry in any form. It’s very roughly telling govt that they have to shift to a more ‘shall issue’ process subject to reasonable restrictions. Again that’s oversimplified but that’s the basic holding in layman’s terms for a website post.
No it does not.
In addition to what the Chief said, it gives horsepower to challenge many states permitting laws as unconstitutional now.
It “could” influence future laws too.
Indeed and if jurisdictions which have similar restrictions to the NY statute were smart they would begin proactively modifying their own laws to compost with this ruling. Fat chance of that so they will have to be dragged into CT kicking and screaming.
No it means that they can’t have a licensure paradigm that subjectively and arbitrarily rejects any law-abiding adult citizen unless it is for cause (e.g., dementia).
A “nobody gets a license unless they work certain jobs” licensing scheme facially comports with the ruling. You no longer have to make a “good cause” claim, so you can’t sue and claim they’re violating this ruling. Limit the jobs list to a government-approved in crowd (LEO, judges, prosecutors, legislators, and guards), and you have a scheme more restrictive than before.
Happy Birthday, Clarence Thomas
The greatest Justice of my lifetime. I was born during WWII. Maybe all time.
And a shout out to Anita Hill, who I hope feels a knife twist in her gut every time she sees a photo of Clarence and remembers who he is now, and who she never will be.
She got rich.
So was Richard Cory.
I’d say Alito, but that’s no disrespect to Scalia, or Thomas.
Imagine not needing the governments permission to speak or go to church too. If the left had their way you’d need to beg for those rights too
Maybe we should our Senators and HoR to offer an amendment to the current gun rights restriction bill to do just that. See how many would be in favor of using red flag procedures to also strip voting rights, free speech and assembly, religious exercise and so on.
While were at it shouldn’t driving be restricted as well if we want to protect the public? I recall a parade in Waukesha with mass casualties caused by a whacko with a vehicle not a firearm….so shouldn’t the vehicles be taken as well…if it only saves one life….
Like we did from “free speech zones” a half mile away from the invited speaker; or on Sundays during COVID?
But how will the uber rich, the powerful and the political separate themselves from the serfs?
I don’t think this is much of a problem. Criminals will always have access to guns, and they can hire a layer of security guards, often at our expense. But they don’t want the non-elite to be able to protect themselves.
Ask Nancy… she’s already shown you how.
It involves concertina wire.
These decisions, this and the religious school ruling, while “the public” is waiting for Roe, are more important than it. Whatever happens to Roe, a woman can go to a nearby state to kill and remove her unborn baby. It’s basically a decision about states’ rights.
This is also a decision about states’ rights, that limits them. And that’s great, because unlike abortion, rkba is in plain text in the Constitution, and every state has to comply.
Excellent pointa.
Points not pointa.
Nice to see that Dobbs (ending Roe and Casey) didn’t disappoint either!
In the box my Dad’s S&W revolver is in… is an approval form to purchase from the sheriff of the North Carolina county he was residing in. This was from 1963 and obviously designed to prevent certain groups of people from exercising their rights. Jim Crow loud and clear. Dems got to be Dems… then and now.
Reading the decision, particularly Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion (p80), it looks like he straight-up says that “may-issue” laws are unconstitutional. Given that this is a concurring opinion, in what sense is this binding? If that was in the dissent, it would obviously have no legal force, but what legal force is there in concurring opinons, or for the main opinion for that matter? What part of the decision actually has legal force?
I believe it is not binding as he wrote it, because it’s not a point that a majority have signed onto. But in effect the decision gets us a lot closer to it. It will be up to clever anti-gunners to try to find and fit new laws into whatever wiggle room remains.
Now when is SCOTUS going to say that a CC permit in one state is good in all 50?
When living in IL, I was among the first group to be issued a CC, which cost about $500, for the training courses, live-fire qualification, NICS check, printing and licensing. I also had CC permits from WA and UT which let me carry in nearly 40 states with reciprocity. (I’d have been better off with an AZ permit over a UT permit). The IL permit was only good for adding IL (according to USACarry maps). I shouldn’t have to worry about travelling through a non-reciprocity state with 3-4 CC permits, and hundreds spent in training and licensing.
“Technically” they should say that already due to the 14th. They recognize marriage, drivers’ license and everything else.
Well, no.
Marriage… maybe. but drivers’ licenses are covered by an “interstate compact,” not federal law. They COULD be legitimized by federal reciprocity… but they never have been.
So i am told by the wonks who study this for gun groups.
I’ve been told ( and researched) differently by similar wonks.
The supremacy clause is the reciprocity- just nobody wants to play that card.
The flaw in the drivers/marriage license and interstate compact is there is not a Constitutional Amendment recognizing the right to marriage or driving a car- there is one to keep and bear arms.
No other Constitutional RIGHT is checked, chilled or otherwise restricted between states or requires any government provided document or permission.
Bingo. It’s clear as glass.
There is no requirement that states recognize each other’s marriages. They almost always do, but there are exceptions. For instance there are a number of states that don’t allow first cousins to get married. Most of them do recognize such couples’ marriages if they were made where it’s legal. Some, however, refuse to recognize such marriages at all, no matter how legal they are in the state next door and in almost all of the rest of the country and the world. And the full faith and credit clause doesn’t make them recognize them.
Now this one is really scary. Forced through on the quiet I note.
Military courts could order ‘red flag’ gun confiscation under defense bill
First, U.S. military bases are already “gun free” zones as personnel are prohibited from possessing privately owned weapons without special authorization.
Second, any service member who can’t be trusted with a gun needs to be an ex-service member.
Third, what part of the Constitution says the the right to due process can be waived at governmental whim? Innocent until proven guilty ring any bells?
It’s not difficult to see behind the curtain on this one. Disarm the people most capable of being a threat to your power.
It’s getting very hard to find a reason to join the military. Forced vaxes including mRNA gene therapy, woke indoctrination, and coming under the jurisdiction of a military court. Sounds like making oneself into an inferior person in the US, I could hardly recommend it.
Worse would be to have a Democratic president as your commander. Obama and Hillary abandoned our people in Liby. Obama promised to help defend Ukraine and did nothing when Russia attacked. Biden is on Russia and China’s payroll. He botched our withdrawal from Afghanistan and is mishandling the current war in Ukraine. Only a fool would serve under a progressive fascist AKA Democrat.
Biden should never have assured Putin that he didn’t have to worry about USA and NATO forces fighting with Ukraine. He should have held maneuvers on the Russian and Ukrainian border practicing and preparing to fight in Ukraine. He should have declared a zone along the border in which Russian planes would be shot down. Furthermore, he could have helped Ukraine raise a number of volunteer divisions to fight with them. These actions would make a big difference in the war which is why Bide didn’t do the. He can’t anger his paymaster.
Um, Biden was involved with the regime in Ukraine, not Russia. And do you think Russia could not have retaliated against USA more than they have already?
Nice to see any sign that we have a Constitution
Okay so does this mean that only NY’s “may carry” law is unconstitutional or will the MD law also be struck down too and any other state? Does this only apply to NY or what?
Some of us would like to carry in MD but we have the same restrictions as NY does/did.
How does this work?
The ruling will constrain courts ruling on similar fact patterns. In other words, yes if it’s similar to the NY law, the MD law is not long for this world.
Roe v Wade is not the topic for this thread.
NY State’s long lasting ridiculously illegal curtailment of 2nd amendment rights is.
Effectively the standard has been interpreted that you have a right to conceal carry if you are rich or have political power. Not if you are a normal plebe.
Few years back (Onondaga county) a sitting judge from a local political dynasty was infamous for never approving issuance of CC permits. To anyone. Don’t waste your time. Including denying a permit to the owner of a local bodega (Syracuse) who had been repeatedly robbed at gunpoint both in his store and making bank drops.
The very first CC he issued was to himself – after a perp who had appeared before him had issued threats. In Orwell speak not all animals are equal.
Not the topic but with all the hand wringing and fainting couch theatrics from the left today I can hardly wait for Dobbs to be released. The tears of rage will flow like rivers. Assuming of course that we don’t get shanked by an opinion watered down since the draft was leaked.
“Roe v Wade is not the topic for this thread.”
You the thread police? If so, I declare you defunded.
PS – re: the poster who predicted a wave of mass shootings in Times Square as a result of this ruling. Only politeness prevents me from extensive questioning of your ability to logic.
As explicitly pointed out in the decision paper if a shooter is prepared to mass shoot in the first place he/she is not going to decide he’d better not break the CC laws while doing so.
Glorious!!
The lefty talking points failed to convince the constitution to change. Yes, I understand that the constitution cannot change itself, just like guns don’t kill.
If progressive fascists are concerned about crime then they should change the laws to be tougher on repeat criminals and on those who use guns to commit crimes. The truth is that they don’t care about crime or murders. They are just using this issue to try to strip our citizens of their guns.
They seek to turn the USA into their progressive fascist. This would require violating our constitution and destroying our liberty. The founders wrote the 2nd amendment to ensure that citizens would be able to defend our liberty from tyranny. Dems know this which is the only reason they are against citizens owning firearms.
I need and edit function .