Supreme Court Conservatives Maul New York's
Restrictive Concealed Carry Law in First
Major Second Amendment Case in a Decade
Red State,
by
Streiff
Original Article
Posted By: DVC,
11/4/2021 4:30:14 PM
This morning, while most of us were reclining on one elbow and enjoying a cigarette and perhaps a warm, damp washcloth in the post-election afterglow of the Glenn Younkin, Winsome Sears, and Jason Miyares sweep of Virginia’s elections, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the first major Second Amendment case to make its docket since McDonald vs. Chicago in 2010. This is not because the Second Amendment hasn’t been under siege but because Chief Justice John Roberts has shown scant interest in treating the Second Amendment as anything other than a curious artifact of our history.
And yet, Justice Roberts seems to need some remedial Con Law review.
FTA "...the Constitution gives you that right...". No, Mr. Chief Justice... you HAVE that right. The Constitution says that the Government shall not infringe upon it. It says not what we the people CAN do, it says what Goernment CANNOT do.
That said ' shall issue ' does not provide 'objective standards' for a license. It says that in the absence of clearly disqualifying criminal convictions, behavior, or mental capacity, the state MUST issue the license. In effect it must be assumed that the applicant is an otherwise normal responsible citizen and by definition has the right to keep and bear arms.
22 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
Corndoggies 11/4/2021 5:17:21 PM (No. 967363)
Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t Illinois restrictive gun laws get this same Supreme Court hearing a few years ago? Did anything change in that Godforsaken state?
7 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
curious1 11/4/2021 5:18:02 PM (No. 967364)
#1, Exactly!
5 people like this.
If Roberts was 'this guy' all the time, the country would have been in a lot better place. As the article points out, he should focus a little less on being Mr. Congeniality, and a little more upon the law itself at times.
The argument that the NY Solicitor General tried about not having the right to self-defense in all places at all times was extremely weak, and Alito predictably took her off at the knees over it. NY has a very weak case. Breyer tried to give them some cover with completely asinine hypotheticals such as people at a football game who have had some alcohol, but that pretty much went nowhere.
I expect, as the OP said, this goes 6-3 - and leads to a wave of 'may issue' laws being stricken down.
7 people like this.
#2 - Illinois has been shall issue since the 7th Circuit struck down the ban on concealed carry here in 2013. We were the last state with a total prohibition on concealed carry.
The requirements are still pretty extensive - and expensive - but if you want to carry, they have to issue it now. I have had mine since it became available. Despite all the handwringing from the left - especially in Chicago - there have been virtually no incidents attributable to lawful CCW owners that were not found to be self-defense in nature. In fact, there have been less gun incidents among lawful CCW than among law enforcement not in the performance of their duties.
10 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
Hazymac 11/4/2021 5:36:13 PM (No. 967379)
FTA: "Breyer suggested that even people of 'good moral character' who had consumed a lot of alcohol at a football or soccer game could end up getting 'pretty angry at each other.' If those people were carrying concealed weapons at sporting events, he said, statistics show that “a lot of people end up dead.”
The justice's scare point is moot. In order to pass the state's--in my case, Florida--test, CCW license holders must learn where they can, and can't, carry a gun legally. Among many other places, professional and college sporting events that charge an admission fee are not places where even a legal gun owner is allowed to carry. The justice ought not to be ignorant of this point, but he is, and will vote accordingly. (The only exception is being able to legally carry at a gun show.)
4 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
Vaquero45 11/4/2021 5:41:29 PM (No. 967384)
This case - and the probable Supreme Court decision - are long overdue. As to the people who want to keep the New York law: what part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is unclear to them?
I'm usually faced with people who say "you don"t need a gun" or "you don't need an AR-15" or "you don't need a magazine that holds more than __ rounds". My reply is usually "fortunately, the Founding Fathers anticipated busybody morons like you; that's why we have the Bill Of Rights, and not the Bill Of Needs."
13 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
DVC 11/4/2021 6:11:42 PM (No. 967416)
RE:#2. In 2012 a federal judge in Illinois found their 'may issue', very restrictive concealed carry permit system unconstitutional, and then stayed his own order for 90 days. He said that if the state legislature wanted to control the carrying of guns concealed, they had to have a new law in place at the end of that 90 days, and he would not extend it.
The Illinois Dems run the whole show in the legislature, and were really unhappy, and considered appealing to SCOTUS. Other antigunners persuaded them that if they appeal to SCOTUS, they would probably lose, and then ALL states would be forced to have 'shall issue' concealed carry laws.
So, Illinois created a shall issue concealed carry system which went info effect in 2013. Any honest, law abiding citizen in Illinois has been able to get a concealed carry permit for 8 years now.
I suspect that this will be forced on all states after next June, which will cause much gnashing of teeth, but the only people who will actually be harmed is violent attackers who will have an increased chance of getting shot by their victim.
5 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
DVC 11/4/2021 6:13:29 PM (No. 967418)
Oh, sorry for the redundant comment. #5 handled that issue well.
5 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
DVC 11/4/2021 6:21:46 PM (No. 967432)
Here's an interesting piece on this case.
https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2021/11/04/could-kagan-vote-to-overturn-new-yorks-carry-law-n51733
I would be surprised if Kagan votes with what looks like is shaping up to be a 6-3 vote....but from this article, it seems just possible. Her comment on the First Amendment may presage her thinking.
A 7-2 would be delicious.
3 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
MickTurn 11/4/2021 6:26:41 PM (No. 967440)
Holy Crap, our "Conservative" Justices finally got it right...SO boys/girls, when do we rule ALL GUN control laws UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
6 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
Condor44 11/4/2021 7:39:03 PM (No. 967543)
Here in Texas we have had constyitutional carry since Sept 1. So far no shoot outs at the OK Corral.
6 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
SkeezerMcGee 11/4/2021 9:51:03 PM (No. 967654)
Commenter #1 writes:
"That said ' shall issue ' does not provide 'objective standards' for a license. It says that in the absence of That said ' shall issue ' does not provide 'objective standards' for a license. It says that in the absence of clearly disqualifying criminal convictions, behavior, or mental capacity, the state MUST issue the license. In effect it must be assumed that the applicant is an otherwise normal responsible citizen and by definition has the right to keep and bear arms. the state MUST issue the license. In effect it must be assumed that the applicant is an otherwise normal responsible citizen and by definition has the right to keep and bear arms."
I hope #1 is correct, but at oral argument no attorney and no justice suggested that the disqualifying factors might be limited to clearly disqualifying criminal convictions, behavior, or mental capacity. There was no discussion regarding the specifics of the disqualifying factors specified in any statute of the 41 "shall issue" states. However the issue of delegating too much discretion to the applicable gun permitting government was discussed at length and seemed to be one of the most problematic issues. Why? Because the justices are well aware that governments that disfavor folks carrying firearms will, to the greatest extent possible under the text of the court's majority opinion, enact "shall issue" statutes, ordinances, etc., that disqualify the greatest number of gun carry permit applicants.
Based on the oral argument it's all but a certainty that the majority opinion in this case will require "shall issue" permits and will void all "may issue" gun permitting processes, probably 6-3 and perhaps 7-2.
1 person likes this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
lakerman1 11/4/2021 10:55:24 PM (No. 967687)
It is ironic that the sheriff in erie county pennsylvania issues concealed carry permits to new york state residents to use in pennsylvania, mostly for hunting.
Yet Pennsylvania residents can't even possess pistols while traversing NYS.
2 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
doctorfixit 11/5/2021 11:06:40 AM (No. 968142)
I do not recognize an illegitimate government's authority to infringe upon my rights to keep and bear arms.
Under the Obama Doctrine, I am entitled to ignore any law with which I disagree.
1 person likes this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "DVC"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
Comments:
For those who think that Justice Roberts has gone irretrievably to the left, I would recommend you read what his comments and questions were on the topic during hearings.
I think this will go 6-3 in favor of 'may issue' CCW laws being unconstutional, and requiring objective standards....known colloquially as 'shall issue' laws, as we have in 41 states already.