-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Big Win for 2A - SCOTUS Rules In Favor of NY Rifle and Pistol
- Thread starter nn8734
- Start date
I read the whole thing. My takeaways:
Alito: Heller found that the Amendment codified a preexisting right and that this right was regarded at the time of the Amendment’s adoption as rooted in “‘the natural right of resistance and self-preservation.’”
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.
It is so ordered.
A final word on historical method: Strictly speaking, New York is bound to respect the right to keep and bear arms because of the Fourteenth Amendment, not the Second.
Alito: Heller found that the Amendment codified a preexisting right and that this right was regarded at the time of the Amendment’s adoption as rooted in “‘the natural right of resistance and self-preservation.’”
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.
It is so ordered.
A final word on historical method: Strictly speaking, New York is bound to respect the right to keep and bear arms because of the Fourteenth Amendment, not the Second.
Ok, so then with those 2 answers as a proof, that further extends to:
Basically any requirement for a CCW is nullified based on you being allow to passively be ready to protect yourself outside of your home at any time.
I wish it would be interpreted that way by everyone. It should be. Should be immediate Constitutional carry in all 50 states. Unfortunately I don't think it will be.
Here it is if anyone wants to read it.
Sounds like the leftist protesting in front of supreme court justices homes rang a bell or two
Solid ruling. Not a lawyer but it looks like it does away with any scrutiny at all in favor of an originalist/textualist interpretation. I feel like Thomas has been waiting for something like this. Being that he wrote the opinion and the others signed onto it, his becomes the case law not the other justices’ concurring opinions.
Ok well then I wonder what will happen now in places where you had to show good cause. You still need to apply for a permit. You still need to jump through hoops to get approved, like getting signed/notarized affidavits from multiple people saying you have good moral character; safety tests; interview with local LEO; permission from mayor; etc. Only now... you don't need to justify good cause for self-defense? It's a win. And the decision probably has bigger implications than that, but on its face... it's kinda meh.
No jurisdiction or state can make a law that requires a ccw applicant to articulate a “needs” statement to justify being approved for a ccw. Other requirements (us citizen, no felonies, etc) still apply.
And as discussed above, it affirms citizens’ rights to use firearms in self defense outside the home (ie Rittenhouse).
“Meh” isnt the word id use but to each his own…
Unfortunately they did not go that far although Thomas (the author) goes a long way toward that point. His opinion reads almost like self-defense is an absolute right with only bare restrictions--you cannot claim self defence while firing off round after round running down the street like a madman (aka "Yelling Fire in a Crowded Place"). He went through a historical application of both laws and text--although he did mention most regulation came AFTER the adoption which means that was not the intent of the framers who wrote the 2nd and thus rejected that as historical based regulation.
Kavanaugh in his concurrence called out the requirements for shall-issue states as permissible. While that is not in the official ruling, it did us no favors. Basically he wrote "Shall Issue" is ok.
Roberts also signed that concurrence.
However all 6 signed the official opinion.
To go after shall issue--you'd have to sue over a law AND get standing (aka somehow you were harmed) which is a big hurdle to overcome. You'd have to get arrested for carrying w/o permit and sue for relief. By getting the permit, you are complying, and it would be REALLY tough to sue over fees or something like that (not impossible--just thinking out loud). Right now its the "May Issue" people that got the big win (which is still big).
IANAL--I try and follow this crap because its important--just my 0.02.
So you're saying no state/county/city/municipality can make someone take a safety course, or pay a fee, or interview with a psychologist, or interview with a sheriff or mayor, or get signed statements from references, or background check, in order to get a CCW now? Because those things are not the same as articulating a need, right? The "need" part is limited to "why" someone feels they need a firearm for self-defense.
Did
Telling me you didn't read it without telling me....
Did you read the decision?
Telling me you didn't read it without telling me....
I didn't read all 80+ pages, no. But on its face, it doesn't seem as simple as hey... now you can just apply for a CCW and you're automatically issued one. There are still hoops and red tape you have to jump through, no? The decision is about justifying the need for carrying and showing good cause. Does the decision also extend to all the other hoops one must jump through in states like NY, CA, NJ, HI, VT, MA, DE, etc.?
Correct, they took discretion away from government. You still may have to take a course or they could come up with some bogus paperwork and then we go back again. I bet NY tries this.
Ok: fill out this form in triplicate with a $2000 processing fee and we appoint 1 person to work 1 day a week part time to process applications.
So you have to show they are dragging their feet and creating a burden. Its long and tiresome which is why appointing judges is so important (special FU to never Trumpers as we got THREE justices even if they aren't perfect).
Right. Which is what I was explaining above.
Those things already exist in some states. In some of the May Issue states, you needed to get signed/notarized statements from references, interview with a sheriff, take a safety course or three, pass a background check, wait two years, etc. Those things aren't going away. Just the "good cause" part.
I know what you're talking about because when you say CCW and requirements, it sounds like CA.
Yes, and all the other states in the country that are not Shall Issue. This ruling is about the need to justify good cause for self-defense outside of the home. It isn't about all the other hoops one must jump through to get a permit in each and every state that isn't constitutional carry. Justifying good cause is just one piece of the rather large puzzle someone needs to assemble in order to get a permit in those states. So I'm asking... what about all that other stuff?
Here you go, keyword is OBJECTIVE. Interviews, on a legal standpoint, are not objective... The training, background check, yes...
Doesn't exclude the fact that those 6 states are gonna kick and drag until the next lawsuit. Which is ironic since "other social issues" are immediate rights once SCOTUS decides. Guns, not so much so....
Good luck in CA.
Doesn't exclude the fact that those 6 states are gonna kick and drag until the next lawsuit. Which is ironic since "other social issues" are immediate rights once SCOTUS decides. Guns, not so much so....
Good luck in CA.
Yeah. I guess each individual locale will need to go through its own court battle.
What about counties/cities that do not issue permits? Even if their states do? All states are now shall issue? But are places that were once "no issue" now shall issue as well? Or it will take individual court battles to get there, one by one?
For example, here in CA, you apply for a CCW based on your county. Some counties never have issued (like San Francisco). And some others do. So if you reside in SF, and you want a CCW, you have to move to a county that issues.
It’s not that I don’t understand how this should work, it’s that I’m suspicious of what the next BS roadblock of infringement will be.
If these states respected the constitution they wouldn’t have applied these schemes to begin with, so I’m expecting them to behave as they have previously.
Actually, I read the whole thing. Nowhere does it explicitly say "fundamental right" and "strict scrutiny". Instead we get: "Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation." Yes, it matters greatly. This was a deliberately fucked decision to make it look like a big win, when it is only a poke in NY (and other liberal enclaves) eye.
C
Non-issuance would be a violation of a constitutional right.
Correct. This decision applies to all states and territories of the US.
Non-issuance would be a violation of a constitutional right.
Well I'm not holding my breath. Because each and every one of those places will have to be sued by someone first. And even if those people win, it will take time for those localities to implement a permitting body/process.
Another option I guess would be to somehow force Shall Issue states to provide CCW at the state level, rather than county/city level. Because as it is now, in California at least, permits are issued at the county level. And some counties prohibit carry in the first place. So they don't issue permits to anybody.
Strict scrutiny is mentioned several times. Mostly by dissenting Beyer, but also during majority ruling.
The Constitution applies everywhere. The decision forces issuing agencies (and those that don't issue) to issue based on Constitutional law. This is the same reason the Kentucky clerk (?) went to jail and was sued for not issuing a same-sex marriage license when SCOTUS made the decision. She refused to issue, she paid the consequences legally.
I don't know what counties prohibit outright carrying since a CA CCW covers the entire state. I would know, I have a (rare) non-resident one (that is renewed every 90 days) and carefully read the large disclaimer regarding where and when I can carry in the whole state, not county.
Just because SF county doesn't issue doesn't mean you can't carry there. Many CA CCW residents from, say Sacramento County for example, can carry in San Francisco.
So technically those specific words don't appear but I give you this--so technically he did you one better....
(1) Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have devel-
oped a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment chal-
lenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court re-
jects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is
broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Sec-
ond Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDon-
ald 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. Pp. 9–15
And this:
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 guaran-
tees.” 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 offic-
ers some special need. That is not how the First Amend-
ment 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.
I think if you have a permit to carry in CA, it's good in counties that don't issue. But if you reside in one of those counties, you can't get a permit. You need to move to a county that issues in order get one. I don't know how that will change now.
I live in SF. SF County does not issue permits. So if I wanted to carry, I would need to move to a different county. And then if I wanted to carry in SF, I could.
EDIT
I'm wrong. SF does issue. But only to "qualified" individuals who interview with the sheriff.
So looks like that might be changing?!
The decision forces such counties to issue based on objective requirements. Every county is required to have a process to obtain a CCW, even the difficult ones. AFAIK, that's written in the CA state code.
Yeah I just looked it up. SF does issue. But with subjective requirements. So looks like that will go away as soon as somebody brings a lawsuit and wins.
I personally know 3 people who have a SF county permit. Dumbest thing ever (in terms of the hoops they jumped through)... But they exist.
Yeah I was wrong about that one. I though it was a no-issue area. But looks like it's just a nightmare and pretty rare to get one. Hopefully that will change thanks to this ruling.
Alito: Breyer, shut the fuck up. You were a bitch during Heller and you’re a bitch now. Drink an Ensure and change your Depends.
This
I don't believe concurrent opinions are binding to the actual ruling from a legal standpoint. They are more along the lines of, "yes, I agree blah blah blah." Someone correct me.
That’s his opinion not the court’s. I wouldn’t count on Kavanaugh supporting much in terms of so called AWs and mags. He’s not as constitutional as the media made him out to be.
Kavanaugh's opinion holds the exact same weight as Beyer's, it's their opinion...that wasn't the ruling issued by the court or it would have been in the ruling. That doesn't mean the anti-2A commies won't try to use it in their future arguments though.
Agreed that Kavanaugh is a shit.
Therein is my issue, non-binding nature of opinions notwithstanding.
I would. I want to. But I don't know where else to go. I'm a young guy and I wan to live in a city for the lifestyle. Access to good food, work, social life, the energy of a city. But I also want to be close to race tracks (I'm into motorsports), good roads to drive, snow (I snowboard a lot), mountains, forests, water, good rock climging, etc.
There really aren't a lot of places in the country with that. Unfortunately, SF has those things. It just also has really shitty politics.
I've thought about Colorado or SLC. But I dunno...
Wait a second.
Unless I missed it, is this now an actual written acknowledgment that defeats the 'its only for a militia' argument towards the 2nd?
Literally says it guarantees individual right.
Similar threads
