SCOTUS take up may issue

[Chucktshoes]

 

The court agreed to hear a challenge to a New York state law that allows residents to carry a concealed handgun only if they can demonstrate a special need beyond a general desire for self protection. The law “makes it virtually impossible for the ordinary law-abiding citizen” to get the necessary license, said Paul Clement, a lawyer representing the challengers.

One of them, Robert Nash, said he was wanted to carry a gun in response to a string of robberies in his neighborhood. Another, Brendan Koch, also cited a desire to carry a gun for protection. Both men said they had completed gun safety courses, but both were turned down when they applied for permits. They joined a lawsuit challenging the law brought by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association.

New York bans carrying a handgun openly. The state law says anyone seeking a license to carry a concealed weapon must demonstrate “a special need for self protection distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession.”

The law is so restrictive, Clement said, that it cannot be reconciled with the Supreme Court’s “affirmation of the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”

 

https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2021/04/26/hmmm-scotus-takes-first-2a-case-in-over-a-decade-n385846

[Grunt67]

 My guess is, NY's game plan is to keep bringing bits & pieces to the public, causing chaos in the court system. Not that they expect to win the case, but bleed the public & NRA dry in the process.

JMHO

 

1 hour ago, Chucktshoes said:

 

The court agreed to hear a challenge to a New York state law that allows residents to carry a concealed handgun only if they can demonstrate a special need beyond a general desire for self protection. The law “makes it virtually impossible for the ordinary law-abiding citizen” to get the necessary license, said Paul Clement, a lawyer representing the challengers.

One of them, Robert Nash, said he was wanted to carry a gun in response to a string of robberies in his neighborhood. Another, Brendan Koch, also cited a desire to carry a gun for protection. Both men said they had completed gun safety courses, but both were turned down when they applied for permits. They joined a lawsuit challenging the law brought by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association.

New York bans carrying a handgun openly. The state law says anyone seeking a license to carry a concealed weapon must demonstrate “a special need for self protection distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession.”

The law is so restrictive, Clement said, that it cannot be reconciled with the Supreme Court’s “affirmation of the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”

 

https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2021/04/26/hmmm-scotus-takes-first-2a-case-in-over-a-decade-n385846

 y

Edited April 26, 2021 by Grunt67
Spelling

[Chucktshoes]

37 minutes ago, Grunt67 said:

 My guess is, NY's game plan is to keep bringing bits & pieces to the public, causing chaos in the court system. Not that they expect to win the case, but bleed the public & NRA dry in the process.

JMHO

 

 y

I think your read of the situation is slightly off here. The NYSRPA is the one bringing the suit. The NRA aren’t really a player here. They went after NYC’s transportation laws last time on the same grounds and NYC changed the law to keep it out of the court. It wouldn’t surprise me if New York State change the law again to keep from having to defend this one. They seem to be really on the ropes.
 

The NYSRPA are doing good work. 

Edited April 26, 2021 by Chucktshoes

[btq96r]

When an outlet like Vox is prepping anti-gun types for disappointment, that's a good sign.

Although the plaintiffs asked the Court to rule on a broad question — “whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense” — the justices announced on Monday that they will only resolve a more narrow question: “whether the State’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.”

Nevertheless, this narrower question is still broad enough to allow the Supreme Court to rewrite a decade of Second Amendment precedents, to unwind a consensus within the lower courts that permits many gun regulations to stand, and then to allow those lower courts to complete the process of dismantling other gun laws.

https://www.vox.com/2021/4/26/22364154/supreme-court-guns-second-amendment-new-york-state-rifle-corlett-shootings-kavanaugh-barrett

 

Cautiously optimistic this could be another good step towards protecting 2A rights from burdensome regulation for another generation.

Edited April 26, 2021 by btq96r

[Chucktshoes]

10 minutes ago, btq96r said:

When an outlet like Vox is prepping anti-gun types for disappointment, that's a good sign.

Although the plaintiffs asked the Court to rule on a broad question — “whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense” — the justices announced on Monday that they will only resolve a more narrow question: “whether the State’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.”

Nevertheless, this narrower question is still broad enough to allow the Supreme Court to rewrite a decade of Second Amendment precedents, to unwind a consensus within the lower courts that permits many gun regulations to stand, and then to allow those lower courts to complete the process of dismantling other gun laws.

https://www.vox.com/2021/4/26/22364154/supreme-court-guns-second-amendment-new-york-state-rifle-corlett-shootings-kavanaugh-barrett

 

Cautiously optimistic this could be another good step towards protecting 2A rights from burdensome regulation for another generation.

Niiiiice!

[E4 No More]

1 hour ago, btq96r said:

When an outlet like Vox is prepping anti-gun types for disappointment, that's a good sign.

Although the plaintiffs asked the Court to rule on a broad question — “whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense” — the justices announced on Monday that they will only resolve a more narrow question: “whether the State’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.”

Nevertheless, this narrower question is still broad enough to allow the Supreme Court to rewrite a decade of Second Amendment precedents, to unwind a consensus within the lower courts that permits many gun regulations to stand, and then to allow those lower courts to complete the process of dismantling other gun laws.

https://www.vox.com/2021/4/26/22364154/supreme-court-guns-second-amendment-new-york-state-rifle-corlett-shootings-kavanaugh-barrett

 

Cautiously optimistic this could be another good step towards protecting 2A rights from burdensome regulation for another generation.

It seems typical of the SC to rule on a narrow aspect of a case leaving big problems unresolved, then deny hearing any other cases for another decade or so because they already heard a 2A case.

[btq96r]

1 hour ago, E4 No More said:

It seems typical of the SC to rule on a narrow aspect of a case leaving big problems unresolved, then deny hearing any other cases for another decade or so because they already heard a 2A case.

They really want the lower courts to do the cleanup.  Roberts is clearly aware of how the court is seen as a public institution, and he wants to make sure they can't be accused of deliberately looking for 2A cases to wedge gun rights through.  Hence, we get the occasional rulings where they have to be rerun through the circuit and appeals courts with the newfound precedent.

It's imperfect, but progress all the same.  Gun rights in the last 20 years have come a long, long way with the sunset of the AWB, Heller, & McDonald.  A lot of times we fail to look at the big picture when focusing on the absolutism side of it.

[E4 No More]

39 minutes ago, btq96r said:

They really want the lower courts to do the cleanup.  Roberts is clearly aware of how the court is seen as a public institution, and he wants to make sure they can't be accused of deliberately looking for 2A cases to wedge gun rights through.  Hence, we get the occasional rulings where they have to be rerun through the circuit and appeals courts with the newfound precedent.

It's imperfect, but progress all the same.  Gun rights in the last 20 years have come a long, long way with the sunset of the AWB, Heller, & McDonald.  A lot of times we fail to look at the big picture when focusing on the absolutism side of it.

I seem to recall just last week that they refused to hear a very pertinent case - although I don't remember exactly what the issue was.

EDIT: Come to think of it and using my Google-foo, it was about non-violent federal offenders having a lifetime ban of possessing firearms. One example was someone being charged with federal copyright infringement and another for lying on tax returns. A third was for a DUI that must have been on federal property.

Edited April 26, 2021 by E4 No More