Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

126
tonguengroover wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 12:45 pm Pretty sure I can quote more than one paragraph since Giffords is reciting state law but I won't.
However there's answers in here that apply to this discussion. But just going for some therapy is NOT going to be reported to anyone unless; see link
Mental Health Reporting in Arizona - Giffords.org https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-la ... n-arizona/
No federal law, however, requires states to report the identities of these individuals when they become ineligible to possess firearms to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (“NICS”) database, which the FBI uses to perform background checks prior to firearm transfers. As a result, state record reporting laws are critical to ensuring the accuracy and effectiveness of the background check system.
In 2014, Arizona enacted a law requiring courts to transmit information to the Supreme Court of Arizona, which must transmit it to the Department of Public Safety (DPS), which must transmit it to NICS, whenever the court:
It might be true that a therapy loophole has not yet been declared by the civilian disarmament lobby.

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

128
Election year, Hochul is running for the office she inherited from Cuomo. She's making threats about gun control like Republicans get tough on crime during election times. Hope SCOTUS doesn't wait until the end of June to drop all the remaining decisions.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

129
Looks like NYC plans to stall if NYSRPA v. Bruen does not go the city's way. The author claims the NYPD has been "admirably stingy" with regard to issuing carry licenses, which are only issued to the rich, politically connected, and friends of the police.

There is also hinting that they might disallow locking firearms in cars when carrying into events and buildings is prohibited.

I gather they're going to erect every barrier possible to carry by the unwashed.
https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/ex ... implement/
https://archive.ph/O6hs5

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

130
NYSRPA v Bruen was argued 11/3/2021. SCOTUS still has to deliver opinions on 24 cases or set some for rehearing next term. If Bruen overturns NYS law and NYC regulations, then they'll make it as hard as they can for someone to get a carry license and carry in the 5 boroughs.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

131
New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 3_7j80.pdf

Still reading through the decision.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

134
From the decision:
Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test
such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny.
Federal courts tasked with making difficult empirical judgments regarding firearm regulations under the banner of “intermediate scrutiny” often defer to the determinations of legislatures. While judicial deference to legislative interest balancing is understandable—and, elsewhere, appropriate—it is not deference that the Constitution demands here. The Second Amendment “is the very product of an interest balancing by the people,” and it “surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms” for self-defense.
The test that the Court set forth in Heller and applies today requires courts to assess whether modern firearms regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding. Of course, the regulatory challenges posed by firearms today
are not always the same as those that preoccupied the Founders in 1791 or the Reconstruction generation in 1868. But the Constitution can, and must, apply to circumstances beyond those the Founders specifically anticipated, even though its meaning is fixed according to the understandings of those who ratified it. See, e.g., United States v.
Jones, 565 U. S. 400, 404–405. Indeed, the Court recognized in Heller at least one way in which the Second Amendment’s historically fixed meaning applies to new circumstances: Its reference to “arms” does not apply “only [to] those arms in existence in the 18th century.”
To determine whether a firearm regulation is consistent with the
Second Amendment, Heller and McDonald point toward at least two
relevant metrics: first, whether modern and historical regulations impose a comparable burden on the right of armed self-defense, and second, whether that regulatory burden is comparably justified. Because “individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right,” these two metrics are “ ‘central’ ” considerations when engaging in an analogical inquiry.
The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules
than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion). The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need. The Second Amendment right to carry arms in public for selfdefense is no different. New York’s proper-cause requirement violates
the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public.
THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and ALITO, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. ALITO, J.,
filed a concurring opinion. KAVANAUGH, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., joined. BARRETT, J., filed a concurring opinion.

BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR and KAGAN,
JJ., joined.
So basically 6-3 decision. They reversed the 2nd Circuit in NYC and remanded.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

137
Thomas and the majority said the magic words,
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.
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.
There goes CAs "may issue" carry along with 5 other states.
Last edited by highdesert on Thu Jun 23, 2022 11:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

141
Yes still other firearms cases before SCOTUS though this is the end of this court term. But before this decision is ever implemented in the 5 "may issue" states I foresee a lot more litigation, those five states will put up barriers that will go to state and federal courts and might end up again at SCOTUS. After Heller and McDonald courts came up with workarounds.

I'm just waiting for the left wing media, TV and print to start attacking the decision and then Twitter, Facebook and all the social media. This will go on for days, all the predictions of shootouts and blood in the streets, same as we've heard before.

If Hawaii implements it, it should moot Young v Hawaii since Young would likely get a permit/license. This slaps down not only the 2nd Circuit, but the 9th Circuit.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

142
I give Thomas credit, it's a well crafted opinion.
At the end of this long journey through the Anglo-American history of public carry, we conclude that respondents have not met their burden to identify an American tradition justifying the State’s proper-cause requirement. The Second Amendment guaranteed to “all Americans” the right to bear commonly used arms in public subject to certain reasonable, well-defined restrictions. Heller, 554 U. S., at 581. Those restrictions, for example, limited the intent for which one could carry arms, the manner by which one carried arms, or the exceptional circumstances under which one could not carry arms, such as before justices of the peace and other government officials. Apart from a few late-19thcentury outlier jurisdictions, American governments simply have not broadly prohibited the public carry of commonly used firearms for personal defense. Nor, subject to a few late-in-time outliers, have American governments required law-abiding, responsible citizens to “demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community” in order to carry arms in public. Klenosky, 75 App. Div., at 793, 428 N. Y. S. 2d, at 257.

The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion). We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self defense. 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. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

143
Good news, though there should be federal standards applied across the country for this stuff, as it's really stupid that you can be legally carrying and inadvertently cross a county or state line and become a felon etc.

There should be one law for all 50 states, which includes all counties within those states, with the same restrictions for all (bars, schools and government building or whatever is deemed necessary etc).

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

144
DJD100 wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 1:35 pm Good news, though there should be federal standards applied across the country for this stuff, as it's really stupid that you can be legally carrying and inadvertently cross a county or state line and become a felon etc.

There should be one law for all 50 states, which includes all counties within those states, with the same restrictions for all (bars, schools and government building or whatever is deemed necessary etc).
Absolutely!
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing,”

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

148
featureless wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:27 pm California has a carry case (Young) pending SCOTUS cert that will likely be remanded. CA9 found (apparently in spectacular error) no right to carry in Young. We also have a magazine case and an AWB case held in CA9 pending this ruling. Gun laws may be very different in California within a few months to a few years.
Did you mean Young v. Hawaii in which CA9 found the Second Amendment "provides no right whatsoever to bear—i.e., to carry—" outside the home?

Alan Gura rhetorically has asked how many lawsuits it will take to make CA9 to adhere to the ruling.

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

149
DispositionMatrix wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 4:04 pm
featureless wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:27 pm California has a carry case (Young) pending SCOTUS cert that will likely be remanded. CA9 found (apparently in spectacular error) no right to carry in Young. We also have a magazine case and an AWB case held in CA9 pending this ruling. Gun laws may be very different in California within a few months to a few years.
Did you mean Young v. Hawaii in which CA9 found the Second Amendment "provides no right whatsoever to bear—i.e., to carry—" outside the home?

Alan Gura rhetorically has asked how many lawsuits it will take to make CA9 to adhere to the ruling.
Yes, that was an en banc ruling of the 9th Circuit that is now garbage.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

150
DispositionMatrix wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 4:04 pm
featureless wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:27 pm California has a carry case (Young) pending SCOTUS cert that will likely be remanded. CA9 found (apparently in spectacular error) no right to carry in Young. We also have a magazine case and an AWB case held in CA9 pending this ruling. Gun laws may be very different in California within a few months to a few years.
Did you mean Young v. Hawaii in which CA9 found the Second Amendment "provides no right whatsoever to bear—i.e., to carry—" outside the home?

Alan Gura rhetorically has asked how many lawsuits it will take to make CA9 to adhere to the ruling.
That's the one. I share Gura's question.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests