NY CCW law held to be unconstitutional

[DudeBro]

For anyone following the litigation re: the NY CCW application requirements, SCOTUS just issued its opinion in Bruen.

The Court held: "New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

 

[nn8734]

Big Win for 2A - SCOTUS Rules In Favor of NY Rifle and Pistol

SCOTUS has just ruled in favor of the NY Rifle and Pistol Assoc, striking down NYC’s stupid ass due cause law for concealed carry. Per Fox News Link to story

www.snipershide.com

 

[DudeBro]

Apparently, I type slower than others.

 

[Franko]

Clarence Thomas has wanted to write a 2nd Ammd opinion for a long time. Here is to hoping it's a doozy...

 

[rtB]

I was shocked - Fox just had a guy on that actually said

"The second amendment doesn't give you a right, it limits the government from taking a right you had before government was created."

 

[nn8734]

Apparently, I type slower than others.

Nah i just had twelve cups of coffee and happened to be on the hide when the news broke.

Now its time to challenge all state level “aw” bans and mag capacity restrictions

 

[DudeBro]

Clarence Thomas has wanted to write a 2nd Ammd opinion for a long time. Here is to hoping it's a doozy...

At 63 pages, it's a doozy for length for sure.

 

[DudeBro]

I was shocked - Fox just had a guy on that actually said

"The second amendment doesn't give you a right, it limits the government from taking a right you had before government was created."

Shocked in what way? You disagree w/ the statement or shocked someone would actually say it?

 

[Franko]

This is Justice Thomas firing on all cylinders to protect the Second Amendment. This is spectacular.

I don't drink during the day so tonight I will be drinking a very nice port to celebrate.

 

[acudaowner]

give em a day they will change one line and re administer the law back with a different name just to get around the court one more time how many times have they done this with laws 12 , 15 , 52 ? wins are nice but fleeting when those same stupid people are reelected to try there bs again and again .

 

[rtB]

Shocked in what way? You disagree w/ the statement or shocked someone would actually say it?

Shocked that they would allow it to be said on live TV. The "bill of rights" should have been called the "bill of restrictions". It was never supposed to be a grant of rights from the government, it was supposed to be hard limitations on government.

 

[Baron23]

 

[candyx]

Does that ruling apply to all states now?

 

[DocRDS]

6-3 for those keeping score at home.

 

[DocRDS]

Does that ruling apply to all states now?

Yes (but per usual someone has to sue to get it overturned)

 

[DudeBro]

Does that ruling apply to all states now?

Yes. That was the significance of the 14th Amendment holding. The 14th Amendment is said to incorporate the Bill of Rights for application to the states.

 

[candyx]

NJ is like NY impossible to get CCW .

 

[rtB]

Does that ruling apply to all states now?

Leftist commie states will ignore it.

 

[alamo5000]

NJ is like NY impossible to get CCW .

Not anymore.

 

[DocRDS]

I like this little Gem Thomas gave us: (emphasis mine!)

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.

 

[DudeBro]

I like this little Gem Thomas gave us: (emphasis mine!)

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.

During the OA, there was a lot of discussion about what level of "scrutiny" was appropriate.

 

[candyx]

Leftist commie states will ignore it.

Commie/gay state our Governor in college was a dance major so he did a pirouette on stage when he was elected. Flamer which loves criminals over citizens, which I guess is a side effect for these types who swallow.

 

[DudeBro]

I like this little Gem Thomas gave us: (emphasis mine!)

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.

I like this one even more: "the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home." p 1.

 

[DocRDS]

The Concurring by Alito was a Judicial "Bitchslap" of the dissent.

Here is the opinion for those interested.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

Kavahaugh needs to shut his pie hole.

 

[ChezJfrey]

Yes (but per usual someone has to sue to get it overturned)

Exactly. That is the bullshit. Some government dipshits impose an illegal/unconstitutional law and it takes years for someone to get several court case rulings and appeals through all the lower courts, then maybe the SC will agree to hear it, then rule on it. Until then, suck it, the government gets its way. Utter bullshit.

 

[binazone]

give em a day they will change one line and re administer the law back with a different name just to get around the court one more time how many times have they done this with laws 12 , 15 , 52 ? wins are nice but fleeting when those same stupid people are reelected to try there bs again and again .

This ruling looks great, sounds great and, if the the Left (progressives, SJW types, bureaucrats, elected officials) ever cared about the Constitution or the country they live and prosper in, was unnecessary since "...shall not be infringed." is quite clear. I won't hold my breath waiting to see if any of the 14 RINO senators will reconsider their vote for new gun laws given this ruling and the latest details regarding how the Uvalde police totally failed in their duty.

WILL not Comply
FJB

 

[DudeBro]

Shocked that they would allow it to be said on live TV. The "bill of rights" should have been called the "bill of restrictions". It was never supposed to be a grant of rights from the government, it was supposed to be hard limitations on government.

You'll appreciate this from Bruen, citing Heller: "'it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment . . . codified a pre-existing right.'"

 

[NoDopes]

I like this little Gem Thomas gave us: (emphasis mine!)

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.

Doesn't this stop the current gun restriction law running through the Senate or at least large portion of it?

 

[Franko]

Doesn't this stop the current gun restriction law running through the Senate or at least large portion of it?

Technically no, in reality probably. What this means is that the laws that are being crafted in the Senate will have much higher hurdles to jump though to not be thrown out if they are challenged in court. This case is so important because it tells lower courts that the way they have been "testing" to see if a gun law was allowed under the Constitution have been wrong. I expect to see a raft of current gun laws fall because they can't satisfy the standard.

I am now legitimately hopeful about being able to own a suppressor as a California resident.

 

[DocRDS]

That's thorny issue.

I know it will not stop it--laws get passed all the time that have been ruled unconstitutional--in fact somtimes they do it just to try and get a case into the Supreme Court (like TX abortion law).

The ruling also mentioned the restrictions in "shall issue" states as passing muster (and thank Kavanaugh for specifically pointing this out in his concurrance). So there is a tension between the protected right as described and "reasonable" restrictions although this ruling certainly pushed back on many restrictions. I can't say on its face that the new stuff would be immediately unconstitutional--it would probably fall into a grey area--one of the earlier pro-2A cases was where boilerplate protective orders got dropped during divorce that triggered loss of firearm. SC found that you have to be tried indivudially essentially (its been like 20 years). Since the red flag stuff is similar, I'm betting it passes muster--but if people get crazy with it, it could go the other way (like just dropping the boilerplate protective order--"You got reported on the tip line, you lose your guns" That would probably get swatted away.

 

[wvfarrier]

It was a big win but the left will, by and large, just ignore it and carry on

 

[candyx]

NY Governor which looks like Andrew Cuomo in drag says she will use gun control back to muskets, she must have balls on her mind or face which would make a great improvement.

NY Gov. Hochul defiant after Supreme Court gun decision: 'We're just getting started'

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul condemned a Supreme Court decision striking down a state law that restricted Americans' access to concealed carry permits Thursday.

www.foxnews.com

 

[wvfarrier]

That's thorny issue.

I know it will not stop it--laws get passed all the time that have been ruled unconstitutional--in fact somtimes they do it just to try and get a case into the Supreme Court (like TX abortion law).

The ruling also mentioned the restrictions in "shall issue" states as passing muster (and thank Kavanaugh for specifically pointing this out in his concurrance). So there is a tension between the protected right as described and "reasonable" restrictions although this ruling certainly pushed back on many restrictions. I can't say on its face that the new stuff would be immediately unconstitutional--it would probably fall into a grey area--one of the earlier pro-2A cases was where boilerplate protective orders got dropped during divorce that triggered loss of firearm. SC found that you have to be tried indivudially essentially (its been like 20 years). Since the red flag stuff is similar, I'm betting it passes muster--but if people get crazy with it, it could go the other way (like just dropping the boilerplate protective order--"You got reported on the tip line, you lose your guns" That would probably get swatted away.

The major issue for "red flags" that I see coming up is the lack of Due Process but of course, the lower courts are going to keep flip flopping and itll end up at the SC....but who knows if theyll hear it

 

[davsco]

Well, they knew the law was unconstitutional when they enacted it, so what are they going to do differently now that they really know it's unconstitutional....

And who's going to jail or getting sued for the massive, longstanding infringement?

 

[ChezJfrey]

The major issue for "red flags" that I see coming up is the lack of Due Process but of course, the lower courts are going to keep flip flopping and itll end up at the SC....but who knows if theyll hear it

I see red flag laws following a similar path as civil forfeiture laws. It will especially bite people with meager means; in forfeiture, it is often too costly to defend the property seized, so people lose it simply because they can't afford the defense. In fact, much of the training explicitly instructs law enforcement to target property that is of low-to-average value, because high-ticket property usually means the person also has the means to afford legal defense, whereas if a seized car is only worth $4k, then the person might not be able to afford the 5 figure legal fees to defend; so just seize a bunch of lower value items and it adds up...

Red flag means any anonymous tip will require a person to spend 5 figures for legal defense, and the accuser suffers no consequence for any and all spurious accusations; only the wealthier people will be able to afford defense of their gun rights when they are accused and accusations cost nothing.

 

[DudeBro]

I see red flag laws following a similar path as civil forfeiture laws.

I think it'll be more like temporary restraining orders, followed by a due process hearing before turning it into a permanent restraining order. However, it's a state issue, so we'll see a variety of them (as we do already). The proposed legislation just incentivizes states to enact the laws.