Shotgun Forum banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,763 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
I've read the decision and here are some of the highlights of that decision:

It strikes down NY's Sullivan Law requiring a license to buy and carry a pistol/handgun in NY and other similar "may issue" licenses in other States. The problem the court had with these laws is the requirement for the applicant to show some special need for a permit and the subjective nature of the review and issuance of such a permit. As such, all States will now be either "shall issue" States or "Constitutional Carry" States.

More importantly for everyone, the SCOTUS in its decision affirmed or further clarified that:

- Average citizens are part of "the people" whom the 2nd Amendment protects (no more this applies only to the militia nonsense.)

- Individual self-defense is the central component of the 2nd Amendment right. (No it's not for hunting or target shooting only. Hear that Joey B.)

- Handguns are firearms in common use and used for self-protection and as such are protected under the 2nd Amendment.

- The 2nd Amendment protects carrying of handguns publicly for self-defense outside the home.

- The 2nd Amendment is not a second-class right subject to a different body of rules.

- NY's "must show proper cause" requirement violates the 14th Amendment.

The decision also stated, "The exercise of other Constitutional Rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to Government Officers some special need."

Of importance to those all across the country is this decision's instruction to lower courts on how to judge 2nd Amendment cases in the future. The decision states that Courts of Appeal who use BOTH a historical AND a means-end two step approach are using one step too many. The SCOTUS instructs the lower courts to use a historical approach only as judges lack the experience in the field to make costs and benefit judgements.

Quoted from the decision, "We reiterate, that the standard for applying the 2nd Amendment is as follows: When the 2nd Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct."

also,

"The Government must justify its regulations by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." The Government bears the burden of proof.

and

"The second amendment guaranteed to all Americans the right to bear commonly used arms in public subject to certain reasonable well-defined restrictions."

A good deal of the decision also references historical laws and practices at the time of ratification and prior. So, the opinions and understanding of the founders who drafted and ratified the Constitution with the Bill of Rights do matter.

The opinion does allow for State licensing on a shall-issue basis. So, it did not strike down State licensing laws. I was hoping it would make all States constitutional carry states. It doesn't.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,278 Posts
I don't think it will affect this, but I wish we had some uniformity in CCW laws. Every time I go on a driving trip I have to check maps and laws (some obscure) to see where I can carry from state to state. To me it's akin to saying "Minnesota issued your drivers license and Illinois doesn't recognize it. You can drive from MN thru WI but then have to switch drivers at the Illinois state line"

Hopefully that will be some of the future ramifications of this but from what I've heard it really doesn't directly address this issue (someone correct me if that's not the case please!)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,763 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
The decision states emphatically that we have a right to carry a handgun for self-defense. I can't see how not having State reciprocity does not interfere with that right. Since all States now must be shall-issue, maybe one can apply for a permit for States that one will travel thru, but that's very onerous. I think all it will take is for someone to challenge such laws. Permitting requirements should only be required for people residing in a State and not traveling thru it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
I live in NY, and I remain skeptical about any positive changes for gun owners in this anti-gun state. The Democrats in this state have a long history of aggressively stealing our 2A rights.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,763 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
I live in NY, and I remain skeptical about any positive changes for gun owners in this anti-gun state. The Democrats in this state have a long history of aggressively stealing our 2A rights.
If you haven't already done so, read the full decision. It's just a quick google search away. The Court was very clear both in it's directive to Gov't and to lower appellate courts. It will be hard for NY to do too much with their permit system. They may try, but if they overstep, they will be challenged and lose again. I live in NY too and I think the Court has left very little room for the State to wiggle out of this and screw us again. At the least, NY will be a "shall issue" State for both upstate and NYC. No more restricted permits and I doubt that upstate permits will be invalid in NYC.

I understand the pessimism due to past history in NY but people didn't believe this Court would render this decision either. Have faith!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
While on the topic but seperate... If you live in upstate NY but want to shoot clays in East LI and need to travel through the BX/Queens. How do you legally do it? This still doesn't help that situation?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
If you haven't already done so, read the full decision. It's just a quick google search away. The Court was very clear both in it's directive to Gov't and to lower appellate courts. It will be hard for NY to do too much with their permit system. They may try, but if they overstep, they will be challenged and lose again. I live in NY too and I think the Court has left very little room for the State to wiggle out of this and screw us again. At the least, NY will be a "shall issue" State for both upstate and NYC. No more restricted permits and I doubt that upstate permits will be invalid in NYC.

I understand the pessimism due to past history in NY but people didn't believe this Court would render this decision either. Have faith!
Our anti-gun politicians fail to see how a legally armed citizen could've possibly stopped the shooter in Buffalo, or other mass shootings, before the shooter shot/killed as many people as he did.

Our Democrats will continue to wreak havoc for law abiding gun owners until they are legally challenged at the SCOTUS level again. They'll play the political word games to try to skirt this latest victory for our 2A rights.

I'm usually very optimistic, but my lack of trust in our anti-gun politicians to protect and uphold our constitutional rights has me cautiously optimistic, until I see some positive results in regards to this new ruling.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
251 Posts
The attorneys that successfully argued before SCOTUS got fired for winning the wrong case.



After the Supreme Court ruled, Clement’s now-former law firm, Kirkland & Ellis, announced in a news release that it will “no longer represent clients with respect to matters involving the interpretation of the Second Amendment.”

Clement and Erin Murphy, a top litigator in her own right, responded by leaving.

The news will come as a surprise to the insular world of appellate litigation, where Clement is considered one of the best Supreme Court advocates in the country and Kirkland is a top law firm and breeding ground for appellate lawyers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,507 Posts
I don't think it will affect this, but I wish we had some uniformity in CCW laws. Every time I go on a driving trip I have to check maps and laws (some obscure) to see where I can carry from state to state. To me it's akin to saying "Minnesota issued your drivers license and Illinois doesn't recognize it. You can drive from MN thru WI but then have to switch drivers at the Illinois state line"

Hopefully that will be some of the future ramifications of this but from what I've heard it really doesn't directly address this issue (someone correct me if that's not the case please!)
I've found the app below to be a fantastic resource while traveling. It's available for Android or AOS. It's well worth the $1.99 price and they do a fantastic job of updating it based on changes to laws.

CCW – Concealed Carry 50 State 12+
Gun Carry Laws Guide - States+
Workman Consulting LLC


 

·
Registered
Benelli SBE, Savage Fox 16, Browning Citori
Joined
·
483 Posts
I agree with two-high about cross country rights to carry. I hate having to research every state to ensure I’m within the law and don’t get hassled. It’s just a matter of time before that gets challenged.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,397 Posts
I agree with two-high about cross country rights to carry. I hate having to research every state to ensure I’m within the law and don’t get hassled. It’s just a matter of time before that gets challenged.
Gee, none of the criminals have that particular problem...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,327 Posts
I've read the decision and here are some of the highlights of that decision:

It strikes down NY's Sullivan Law requiring a license to buy and carry a pistol/handgun in NY and other similar "may issue" licenses in other States. The problem the court had with these laws is the requirement for the applicant to show some special need for a permit and the subjective nature of the review and issuance of such a permit. As such, all States will now be either "shall issue" States or "Constitutional Carry" States.

More importantly for everyone, the SCOTUS in its decision affirmed or further clarified that:

- Average citizens are part of "the people" whom the 2nd Amendment protects (no more this applies only to the militia nonsense.)

- Individual self-defense is the central component of the 2nd Amendment right. (No it's not for hunting or target shooting only. Hear that Joey B.)

- Handguns are firearms in common use and used for self-protection and as such are protected under the 2nd Amendment.

- The 2nd Amendment protects carrying of handguns publicly for self-defense outside the home.

- The 2nd Amendment is not a second-class right subject to a different body of rules.

- NY's "must show proper cause" requirement violates the 14th Amendment.

The decision also stated, "The exercise of other Constitutional Rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to Government Officers some special need."

Of importance to those all across the country is this decision's instruction to lower courts on how to judge 2nd Amendment cases in the future. The decision states that Courts of Appeal who use BOTH a historical AND a means-end two step approach are using one step too many. The SCOTUS instructs the lower courts to use a historical approach only as judges lack the experience in the field to make costs and benefit judgements.

Quoted from the decision, "We reiterate, that the standard for applying the 2nd Amendment is as follows: When the 2nd Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct."

also,

"The Government must justify its regulations by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." The Government bears the burden of proof.

and

"The second amendment guaranteed to all Americans the right to bear commonly used arms in public subject to certain reasonable well-defined restrictions."

A good deal of the decision also references historical laws and practices at the time of ratification and prior. So, the opinions and understanding of the founders who drafted and ratified the Constitution with the Bill of Rights do matter.

The opinion does allow for State licensing on a shall-issue basis. So, it did not strike down State licensing laws. I was hoping it would make all States constitutional carry states. It doesn't.
I think it’s good to read the entire decision:


This is unquestionably a win for gun owners.

It’s unfortunately also, a full employment win for appellate attorneys.

—-

In Heller and McDonald, we held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. In doing so, we held unconstitutional two laws that prohibited the possession and use of handguns in the home. In the years since, the Courts of Appeals have coalesced around a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny.
Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amend- ment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Consti- tution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is con- sistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm reg- ulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”
—-

There is no objective standard of review.

It’s Katy bar the door.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top