This case challenges New York’s requirement that applicants demonstrate “proper cause” to carry a firearm. New York regularly uses this requirement to deny applicants the right to carry a firearm outside of their home. The NRA believes that law-abiding citizens should not be required to prove they are in peril to receive the government’s permission to exercise this constitutionally protected right.
Speaking on the Court’s decision, Jason Ouimet, Executive Director of NRA-ILA said, “The Court rarely takes Second Amendment cases. Now it’s decided to hear one of the most critical Second Amendment issues. We’re confident that the Court will tell New York and the other states that our Second Amendment right to defend ourselves is fundamental, and doesn’t vanish when we leave our homes.”
I am not a lawyer. This is NOT legal advice.! Nothing tempers idealism quite like the cold bath of reality.... SQLGeek
This case is likely to pave the way to the Supreme Court declaring a constitutional right to concealed public carry, overriding many state and local restrictions on the ability to bear concealed arms in public.
Exciting times!!
JOIN NRA TODAY!, NRA Benefactor Life, TSRA Defender Life, Gun Owners of America Life, SAF, VCDL Member
LTC/SSC Instructor, NRA Certified Instructor, CRSO
The last hope of human liberty in this world rests on us. -Thomas Jefferson
My name is Thomas. I have zero faith in SCOTUS doing the right thing in protecting the 2nd Amendment outside of the home. I will humbly and publicly apologize to the Court if i turn out to be wrong. The odds are in my favor, however.
I think we should have the same standard for the RKBA and the right to vote. If NY wants to only grant the RKBA to people they deem worthy, then Texas should be able to only grant the right to vote to people they feel are worthy of exercising that right in a responsible manner that is consistent with the principles this country was founded on.
philip964 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 12:10 pm
Is this before or after court packing?
If the Dems succeed in adding 4 new justices, they only have until November of 2022 to nominate, vet, hold hearings, and confirm as many as they can. Assuming the people will then be sufficiently swayed to turn the Senate to republican control in the mid-terms, of course.
Then any of the 4 that are not fully confirmed would ultimately be appointed by the next Republican President since folks should quickly see right through any objections to a republican controlled senate not holding hearings for the others. And as soon as Republicans control both houses of congress + the white house, I'd anticipate at least 4 additional new SCOTUS seats at that time.
philip964 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 12:10 pm
Is this before or after court packing?
If the Dems succeed in adding 4 new justices, they only have until November of 2022 to nominate, vet, hold hearings, and confirm as many as they can. Assuming the people will then be sufficiently swayed to turn the Senate to republican control in the mid-terms, of course.
Then any of the 4 that are not fully confirmed would ultimately be appointed by the next Republican President since folks should quickly see right through any objections to a republican controlled senate not holding hearings for the others. And as soon as Republicans control both houses of congress + the white house, I'd anticipate at least 4 additional new SCOTUS seats at that time.
“I don’t think the American public is interested in having the Supreme Court expanded,” said Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.).
Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), who represents a particularly valuable swing state, said “the more responsible thing to do is to keep it at nine justices.” And Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) said she opposes “adding seats that politicize the court.”
That trio is facing reelection in 2022, making their opinions particularly important to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). But as Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) formally pushes for high court expansion, resurfacing the popular progressive cause in response to the GOP’s relentless drive to fill court seats during the Trump years, it’s clear that few of Markey’s colleagues agree with him.
I am not a lawyer. This is NOT legal advice.! Nothing tempers idealism quite like the cold bath of reality.... SQLGeek
From what I'm reading, SCOTUS is likely to hear this case in the fall. Which is only five months away. If court packing becomes an imminent threat, I doubt anything could be achieved there in just a few months. I'm with Doubting Thomas, but considering that SCOTUS turned down this case last June, before RBG passed away, wouldn't it be something if they decided to hear it now because a majority already feel that constitutionality will be upheld?
“Be ready; now is the beginning of happenings.”
― Robert E. Howard, Swords of Shahrazar
chasfm11 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 9:33 am
My name is Thomas. I have zero faith in SCOTUS doing the right thing in protecting the 2nd Amendment outside of the home. I will humbly and publicly apologize to the Court if i turn out to be wrong. The odds are in my favor, however.
We know Roberts is a vote against the 2A and along with the leftist side of the court.
Firearms Policy Coalition and Firearms Policy Foundation filed an excellent amicus brief, showing any number of important questions that closely relate to the whole issue. Finally addressing them would, in theory, sort out a lot of inconsistencies between Circuits. Sadly, SCOTUS is refusing to answer them yet again.
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.
That’s nice, but that isn’t the question that petitioners asked:
Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.
By changing it from a question about law-abiding citizens carrying in public, to denial of licenses Period — no mention of “law-abiding” people carrying — the InJustices can now say, Gee, states have to be able to deny some licenses, otherwise prohibited persons could apply and get licenses. No one wants that to happen.
They’ve dodged the entire issue of denial of rights based on an arbitrary you didn’t show good enough need to carry a gun. The point of contention was shall versus may issue, and if the Second Amendment applies outside the home. Now it’s is licensing constitutional?
philip964 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 12:10 pm
Is this before or after court packing?
I believe that the court packing bill was a trial balloon. I also believe that the Washington Democrats are poll-driven to a fault. They do things, watch the polls and then decide to proceed - or not. I'm guessing that the polls did not come out well initially on adding the 4 Justices so they will likely let the matter sit in limbo for a while and see if public opinion comes around. If there is a glimmer that they won't pay a price for the Supreme Court packing, they will be all over the media and the Senate will be pushed to take up the matter. I think part of the assessment to see which hills the GOP is willing to die on. It is all about political capital and how to use it.
I don't think there is any connection between that and the RKBAs case. I think SCOTUS did that on its own - which is frankly surprising. I already have a half-wince from them preparing to deliver a lethal blow to us. This case could be good for us if it goes against NY. It will be terrible if it doesn't. They punted on Peruta .
chasfm11 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 9:33 am
My name is Thomas. I have zero faith in SCOTUS doing the right thing in protecting the 2nd Amendment outside of the home. I will humbly and publicly apologize to the Court if i turn out to be wrong. The odds are in my favor, however.
We know Roberts is a vote against the 2A and along with the leftist side of the court.
Grayling, why do you say this? When has Roberts made a decision on gun rights that leads you to this conclusion?
chasfm11 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 9:33 am
My name is Thomas. I have zero faith in SCOTUS doing the right thing in protecting the 2nd Amendment outside of the home. I will humbly and publicly apologize to the Court if i turn out to be wrong. The odds are in my favor, however.
We know Roberts is a vote against the 2A and along with the leftist side of the court.
Grayling, why do you say this? When has Roberts made a decision on gun rights that leads you to this conclusion?
Turn it back to you...when has Roberts voted for the 2A? The number of times Roberts has voted with the socialists on important issues is what I based my comment on. A number of people smarter than I have made the assertion that Roberts is no friend of the 2A.
In a 5-4 situation like that I think Roberts may move to a 6-3 anyway. If he is in the majority, he can determine who writes the opinion. An opinion written by him as opposed to Thomas is much different. That said, I don't think Roberts has been bad historically on 2A. He voted with the majority on Heller while Chief Justice--and he had Scalia write the opinion.
We know Roberts is a vote against the 2A and along with the leftist side of the court.