Supreme Court takes up major Second Amendment case

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...?ocid=msedgdhp

Supreme Court takes up major Second Amendment case
John Kruzel 28 mins ago

Supreme Court set to take up major Second Amendment case

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to restrictions on carrying firearms outside the home, teeing up a potentially landmark dispute over the scope of the Second Amendment.

a large stone building: Supreme Court takes up major Second Amendment case© Greg Nash Supreme Court takes up major Second Amendment case
In an unsigned order, the justices took up a bid by two gun owners and a New York affiliate of the National Rifle Association to challenge the state's denial of their applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense.


The case represents the first time the 6-3 conservative court will hear arguments over the nation's long-running and fraught debate about gun rights in America.

It will be heard next term, which begins in October.

In the brief order issued Monday, the justices said they would hear the case and focus on whether "the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment."

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Robert Nash and Brandon Koch, who were denied concealed carry permits for self-defense because New York officials had determined that they had failed to show a "special need" to carry weapons as required under state law.

Their lawsuit argues that such restrictions on concealed carry permits violate the Second Amendment. If they prevail in front of the Supreme Court, it could upend concealed carry laws across the country.

According to the gun control activist group the Giffords Law Center, 31 states currently require residents to obtain a permit in order to carry a concealed weapon, with varying degrees of restrictions on those permits.

Updated at 10:31 a.m.

A very , very important case!!
Especially important to me personally as a lifelong gun advocate and devoted shooter.
Yes I shoot guns - not just bows...
And I am a lifelong, devoted advocate for the rights that were are supposed to have under our Constitution..
The --rights-- the ffing dems are hellbent on taking away.
Which is exactly why-- I SO VERY DEEPLY DESPISE THE FFING BASTARDS( all of them)!!!-- -Tyr

[darin]

I am scared of this case going wrong and then other states switching to a New York style law.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I am scared of this case going wrong and then other states switching to a New York style law.

Yes, that is my main worry as well.
But may be a blessing this case being heard as the court is now comprised, with the 6 to 3 majority.
The dems are definitely going to pack the court if they can-- during the idiot/puppet O' Biden's term.-Tyr

[darin]

I think it's more like 5.5 to 3.5 as John Roberts is a wildcard.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I think it's more like 5.5 to 3.5 as John Roberts is a wildcard.

Well, that is a more accurate assessment methinks. -Tyr

[JakeStarkey]

I have faith SCOTUS will rule correctly.

The right of the people to bear and own arms will not be impeded.

[Abbey Marie]

Any news on this case?

[Gunny]

Any news on this case?

I've heard/seen nothing. The "news" has been nothing but mostly garbage since the Biden admin put the clamps on after Afghanistan and his vaccine mandate. As this admin's gaffes have piled up, any real news on things that actually matter have been non-existent.

I would be surprised if the Supreme Court rules on this and doesn't kick it back to the state. It avoids the issue for the Court, while minimizing damage to the Second Amendment in a state that already has no respect for it. A ruling has the potential to affect all 50 states.

Just a guess.

[Surf Fishing Guru]

Any news on this case?

There have been developments, biggest one is the Biden administration asked the Court to extend the time of oral argument and grant the US government time at oral argument.

The Court granted the request, giving each side 35 minutes; the Court divided the defendant's time, 20 minutes for the City and 15 minutes for the US government. At face value this means the US government will be arguing against any right to bear arms in public for self defense being recognized for anyone in NY City . . .

The other developments happened behind the scenes and whether they are newsworthy depends on how into the details of the process you are.

I am into the that stuff so I'll offer my thoughts on what has happened. I will say, my earlier pessimism about the case after reading the merits brief has swung to the positive.

As screwed-up as the petitioner's merits brief was, and with all the unnecessary crap they threw at the Court that the Court said it has no interest in, I thought the gun rights case was handicapped, if not completely lost . . .

Well, NY's AG has thrown the case a life-line in her response to the gun association's terrible merits brief.

NY could have completely ignored the disjointed gun assoc. merits brief and just focused on defending the restrictive permit, staying within the context of the Court's question. But no, they chose to answer the petitioner's brief and in doing so they made statements detrimental to their case, including a huge concession.

The NY AG concedes that a right to arms, even outside the home, exists in NY state, but inside NY City the city can limit it with its more restrictive than the state permit system (remember, the first tier of the NY City permit is a residence permit that you need to have just to own a gun).

That essentially has expanded what the Court can address, it goes from being "limited" to the Court's question to deciding how to divide the baby. Because the NY AG admits that a right to bear arms outside the home exists, the Court must decide if the city should be allowed to violate a right that the state admits exists.

The gun assoc. lawyers have taken advantage of the state's mistakes and filed a response that gives the Court a lot of info to decide all aspects of this case.

I still think the Court will decline enforcing a blanket right to carry concealed, but it will force states to recognize the right to bear arms in public for self defense. Whether a state decides that it will be through concealed carry or open carry, will be up to them.

Oral argument is set for Wednesday, Nov 3rd . . .

..............

Just for informational purpose, for anyone unfamiliar, here is an explanation of the order of the briefs . . . The gun rights group lost at the lower Circuit court; NY's restrictive permit was upheld so an appeal was made to SCOTUS by the gun association.

That first appeals brief details what defects in the decision and law the loser would like the Supreme Court to correct. The defendants get to reply and then the Court discusses the case on those arguments and decides either to take it, "granting certiorari", or deny the appeal and the lower court ruling stands.

If the Court takes the case, the Court can either accept the question in law the plaintiffs want the Court to remedy, or the Court can write their own question they want the parties to brief and argue. The Court took the NY case on April 26th and crafted their own question:

.

"Petition 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."

My previous post and pessimism was focused on the "merits" brief, the brief filed by the lawyer representing the NY gun assoc after the appeal is granted and in response to the Court's question -- but failing to answer it.

NY State filed its reply and then the petitioners get to file a final reply, a last word before oral argument.

.

[Gunny]

"Petition 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."

Poor question, and one SCOTUS should be answering, not asking. Does the Second Amendment guarantee the Right to concealed carry? In general, I think no. However, "the Right to keep and bear arms" is not specific as to how one should carry. The left has done its best to misinterpret this. In its usual "needs to think for us way" because the clause is unspecific, it is open to further (over) regulation.

[icansayit]

The Socialists will stop at nothing to bring down our nation...starting with IGNORING all of the Constitutional Amendments They Don't Like. But they won't touch the 16TH AMENDMENT
Income Tax
Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913. The 16th Amendment changed a portion of Article I, Section 9

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

That is their never-ending CASH COW... START AT THE 3:00 Minute mark.

[Surf Fishing Guru]

A very , very important case!!

Yes it is and gun rights people really need to temper our expectations. IMNSHO, there is no 2nd Amendment right to carry concealed and IMO, is doubtful the SCOTUS will affirm one.

I predict a true splitting the baby situation, I predict SCOTUS will enforce an individual, private citizen's right to bear arms in public for self-defense and all states will be forced to recognize it. But, dictating as to the actual manner of carriage, will remain in the state's prerogative.

The best we can hope for is for Thomas to write the opinion. He is our (gun rights supporters) best chance for a comprehensive opinion that will both correct the errors and settle issues left open by Scalia in Heller and Alito in McDonald.

[Gunny]

Yes it is and gun rights people really need to temper our expectations. IMNSHO, there is no 2nd Amendment right to carry concealed and IMO, is doubtful the SCOTUS will affirm one.

I predict a true splitting the baby situation, I predict SCOTUS will enforce an individual, private citizen's right to bear arms in public for self-defense and all states will be forced to recognize it. But, dictating as to the actual manner of carriage, will remain in the state's prerogative.

The best we can hope for is for Thomas to write the opinion. He is our (gun rights supporters) best chance for a comprehensive opinion that will both correct the errors and settle issues left open by Scalia in Heller and Alito in McDonald.

We're working on that here in TX. Just about have a right to open carry law through our Congress.

[Surf Fishing Guru]

We're working on that here in TX. Just about have a right to open carry law through our Congress.

The Senate passed it (HB-1927) with some changes so now it has to go back to the House for final approval. Abbott says he will sign the bill.

It will make Texas the 5th state this year to become permitless concealed carry and will include open carry if the gun is in a shoulder or belt holster. Earlier this year, Montana's and Utah's law went into effect, Tennessee and Iowa will go into effect on July 1st and Texas TBD.

When Iowa, Tennessee and Texas's constitutional carry laws become effective, that will make 21 constitutional carry / unrestricted carry states (in green). When one sees the progression from "shall issue" to now states going permitless, it is impressive:

[Gunny]

The Senate passed it (HB-1927) with some changes so now it has to go back to the House for final approval. Abbott says he will sign the bill.

It will make Texas the 5th state this year to become permitless concealed carry and will include open carry if the gun is in a shoulder or belt holster. Earlier this year, Montana's and Utah's law went into effect, Tennessee and Iowa will go into effect on July 1st and Texas TBD.

When Iowa, Tennessee and Texas's constitutional carry laws become effective, that will make 21 constitutional carry / unrestricted carry states (in green). When one sees the progression from "shall issue" to now states going permitless, it is impressive:

This of course begs the question: Do I want to strap on a hogleg to go to 7-11?