Armed Polite Society

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

R.I.P. Scout26

Author Topic: SCOTUS conference on 2nd Amendment  (Read 456 times)

JN01

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 631
SCOTUS conference on 2nd Amendment
« on: March 26, 2021, 11:26:05 PM »

Today, SCOTUS heard a request for cert on a case challenging the restrictive gun carry laws in NY, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Corlett.

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/new-york-state-rifle-pistol-association-inc-v-corlett/
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/23/politics/scotus-second-amendment-new-york-boulder-colorado/index.html

Devonai

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,241
  • Panic Mode Activated
    • Kyrie Devonai Publishing
Re: SCOTUS conference on 2nd Amendment
« Reply #1 on: March 27, 2021, 07:58:14 PM »

I'll be astonished if they grant certiorari.
My writing blog: Kyrie Devonai Publishing

When in danger, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!

Fly320s

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,503
  • Formerly, Arthur, King of the Britons
Re: SCOTUS conference on 2nd Amendment
« Reply #2 on: March 27, 2021, 08:21:24 PM »

I'll be astonished if they grant certiorari.

Same here.

What is it about NY gun laws that prevents SCOTUS from getting involved?
Islamic sex dolls.  Do they blow themselves up?

JN01

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 631
Re: SCOTUS conference on 2nd Amendment
« Reply #3 on: March 28, 2021, 12:23:33 AM »

From the reply of petitioners:
Quote
I. This Court Should Resolve The Deep
Disagreement Among The Lower Courts.
The lower courts remain deeply divided over
whether laws that prohibit ordinary law-abiding
citizens from carrying handguns outside the home can
be reconciled with the individual and fundamental
right to keep and bear arms. See Pet.9-15.
Respondents insist that there is no circuit split
because all circuits ďeither held explicitly, or assumed
without deciding, that the Second Amendment
protects an individual right to carry firearms outside
the home.
Ē BIO.8. But holding that a constitutional
right exists while then going on to eviscerate that
right is indefensible, and being willing to assume that
a constitutional right exists because that assumption
makes no difference is arguably worse. When a
fundamental constitutional right exists, and is not just
assumed arguendo, it generally makes a difference.
The fact that Heller and McDonald appear to have
made no difference in at least four circuits is a
powerful argument for this Courtís review.

The bolded section is no longer true as the 9th has declared there is no right to arms outside the home.

The last case SCOTUS took up was only dropped because NYC convinced the majority that the suit was mooted by changing the offending law.  That did not happen with this case.  There has also been the addition of another Justice who seems to be supportive of the 2nd Amendment, so I am hopeful that this one will be picked up.  Not that I would be surprised if they turned it down either.

Also, the mooted case involved being able to transport unloaded guns out of the city for lawful purposes.  This case more importantly asks the court to decide the fundamental question:
Quote
Whether the Second Amendment allows the
government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens
from carrying handguns outside the home for self defense.

Petition: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/164031/20201217110211298_2020-12-17%20NRA-Corlett%20Cert%20Petition%20FINAL.pdf
Reply of Petitioners: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/171462/20210310110722072_20-843%20Reply%20Brief%20Final.pdf
« Last Edit: March 28, 2021, 01:10:32 AM by JN01 »

Hawkmoon

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 23,381
Re: SCOTUS conference on 2nd Amendment
« Reply #4 on: March 28, 2021, 03:04:52 AM »

I don't think this case is asking it, but the fundamental question in my mind is: Why do I even need a permit to carry? How can I exercise my right if I have to ask the nanny state for permission first?

The anti-gunners will answer that "Reasonable regulation, blah, blah, blah ... reasons." This has been argued in the supreme courts of several states. More than one of them (such as Ohio, and either Idaho or Utah) have ruled that "regulate" does not equate to "prohibit." So, since their state constitutions explicitly provide that the citizens have a right to carry, all the state can do is regulate the mode of carry. In other words, "If you want permits to carry concealed, then open carry doesn't need a permit. If you want permits for open carry, then concealed carry can't require a permit."

That's how Ohio got concealed carry permits not too many years ago. Someone got a ruling from the state supreme court that said just that. Ohio law at the time prohibited concealed carry ... so people started open carrying everywhere they went. The bliss ninnies got a severe case of the vapors when they saw GUNZ!, so the legislature enacted a law providing for concealed carry permits. Tranquility was restored, and the promise of the streets running red with blood went unfulfilled.

Andiron

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,457
Re: SCOTUS conference on 2nd Amendment
« Reply #5 on: March 28, 2021, 10:22:09 AM »

I don't think this case is asking it, but the fundamental question in my mind is: Why do I even need a permit to carry? How can I exercise my right if I have to ask the nanny state for permission first?

The anti-gunners will answer that "Reasonable regulation, blah, blah, blah ... reasons." This has been argued in the supreme courts of several states. More than one of them (such as Ohio, and either Idaho or Utah) have ruled that "regulate" does not equate to "prohibit." So, since their state constitutions explicitly provide that the citizens have a right to carry, all the state can do is regulate the mode of carry. In other words, "If you want permits to carry concealed, then open carry doesn't need a permit. If you want permits for open carry, then concealed carry can't require a permit."

That's how Ohio got concealed carry permits not too many years ago. Someone got a ruling from the state supreme court that said just that. Ohio law at the time prohibited concealed carry ... so people started open carrying everywhere they went. The bliss ninnies got a severe case of the vapors when they saw GUNZ!, so the legislature enacted a law providing for concealed carry permits. Tranquility was restored, and the promise of the streets running red with blood went unfulfilled.

This is true,  and we had much fun with open carry demonstrations and marches  >:D
"Leftism destroys everything good." -  Ron


Iím not blinded by hate. I hate because Iím not blind

230RN

  • All right, who signed your release papers?
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 15,406
Re: SCOTUS conference on 2nd Amendment
« Reply #6 on: March 28, 2021, 11:22:53 AM »

You have a right to do it.

But we can't let you do it.

So we ignore it.

Even (some) anti-gunners see that it is an ironclad right.  That is why they are so hell-bent on repealing A2 and in the meantime, putting every possible roadblock in the way of exercising that right.

Oh, how I wish I were as rich as Soros and Bloomberg combined. 

Terry 230RN

JN01

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 631
Re: SCOTUS conference on 2nd Amendment
« Reply #7 on: March 28, 2021, 12:42:10 PM »

I don't think this case is asking it, but the fundamental question in my mind is: Why do I even need a permit to carry? How can I exercise my right if I have to ask the nanny state for permission first?

The anti-gunners will answer that "Reasonable regulation, blah, blah, blah ... reasons." This has been argued in the supreme courts of several states. More than one of them (such as Ohio, and either Idaho or Utah) have ruled that "regulate" does not equate to "prohibit." So, since their state constitutions explicitly provide that the citizens have a right to carry, all the state can do is regulate the mode of carry. In other words, "If you want permits to carry concealed, then open carry doesn't need a permit. If you want permits for open carry, then concealed carry can't require a permit."

That's how Ohio got concealed carry permits not too many years ago. Someone got a ruling from the state supreme court that said just that. Ohio law at the time prohibited concealed carry ... so people started open carrying everywhere they went. The bliss ninnies got a severe case of the vapors when they saw GUNZ!, so the legislature enacted a law providing for concealed carry permits. Tranquility was restored, and the promise of the streets running red with blood went unfulfilled.

I agree 100%. Unfortunately, it seems that what was incrementally lost must be restored in the same way. 

On the bright side, there seems to be a gathering momentum for states to adopt permitless carry.  It is up to 19, I believe, with 2 or 3 more states with legislation in the pipeline.

As a former resident of Ohio, I would go crazy waiting for the Republican legislature to fix things.  Their usual M.O. is to introduce a great, comprehensive bill at the beginning of the session, let it sit for a year and 11 months, pass it at the last minute after it had been whittled down by amendments into a pathetic minor improvement, then pat themselves on the back for the great job they did.

230RN

  • All right, who signed your release papers?
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 15,406
Re: SCOTUS conference on 2nd Amendment
« Reply #8 on: March 29, 2021, 03:30:04 PM »

Hawkmoon, here's one for you:

Quote
COLORADO CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE II
Bill of Rights

Section 3. Inalienable rights. All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.


Section 13. Right to bear arms. The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

Terry scratches head.

Terry wonders if Colorado's existence as a State can be called into question since its Constitution seemingly violates the highest law of the land.

Terry wonders what was in Congress' colective heads in 1876 when they approved that and admitted Colorado...

Ah, hell, never mind.

The Fix Is In.

Terry, 230RN

Incidentally, note "in defense of his home, person and property

"Oh, we know it says that, but it doesn't really mean that."

Seems to me I've heard that kind of BS somewhere before.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2021, 06:02:48 PM by 230RN »

Hawkmoon

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 23,381
Re: SCOTUS conference on 2nd Amendment
« Reply #9 on: March 29, 2021, 06:14:13 PM »

Terry, I believe there are several sites that quote the 2A analog from the constitutions of the states. There are a number of them them that go beyond the federal 2A by saying that the RKBA is for personal defense.