User Panel
|
|
|
|
The wine club found some spare time to waste of gun stuff, probably has nothing to do with the impending collapse.
|
|
Lmao they are totally hosed. This year is just the worst dumpster fire for freedom.
|
|
"We are fighting but we need more money to be able to up a good fight" - NRA / GOPE / RepubliCONs / CONserative Politicians.
|
|
Quoted: Just keeping this thread alive until we learn more. View Quote There was a flurry of activity last week, but only interesting for lawyers and law nerds. SC docket 1. NY allowed until 22 Feb to respond 2. Amicus briefs by Firearm Policy Coalition 3. Amicus brief by Missouri, for Arizona, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia. 4. Amicus by law enforcement and state 2a groups. 5. The final amicus by Korte Tree Care, basically the company paid for the legal research and printing fees, so their name goes on it, even though it is about English law rather than the company's policies. Kharn |
|
Quoted: There was a flurry of activity last week, but only interesting for lawyers and law nerds. SC docket 1. NY allowed until 22 Feb to respond 2. Amicus briefs by Firearm Policy Coalition 3. Amicus brief by Missouri, for Arizona, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia. 4. Amicus by law enforcement and state 2a groups. 5. The final amicus by Korte Tree Care, basically the company paid for the legal research and printing fees, so their name goes on it, even though it is about English law rather than the company's policies. Kharn View Quote Thanks for posting this. |
|
Quoted: NY is a lost cause. Even if the traitors in the NRA and SCOTUS ruled in favor, NY would ignore it and carry on like every other day or come up with some convoluted side step that will never be challenged and become the status quo. View Quote Hate to say it but this would be the likely outcome. |
|
Quoted: NRA riding the coattails of the NYSPRA case? View Quote This is a good case in theory since there is a circuit split. The 7th Circuit told Illinois to pass a Shall Issue CCW bill or else in 180 days they got Constitutional Carry. I believe the 2nd or 3rd Circuit ruled differently so you have a circuit split. |
|
Quoted: NYSRPA is the state affiliate of the NRA. Kharn View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes |
|
Quoted: https://31.media.tumblr.com/1f4fe84b6781abd8938d3036f9f532b3/tumblr_n2tkl2HX6Q1svsif6o3_400.gif View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The Sullivan act is buried in NY like a hungry tick. The elites love the notion that they can decide who has privileges and who doesn't on a whim. If the proper cause thing goes away they'll just make a ridiculous requirement someplace else. Letting the average upstanding citizen carry a gun is not an acceptable outcome in NY. They will find a way to make it difficult. Some counties already deny someone if they've gotten multiple traffic tickets. https://31.media.tumblr.com/1f4fe84b6781abd8938d3036f9f532b3/tumblr_n2tkl2HX6Q1svsif6o3_400.gif |
|
Quoted: I just don't see the stars aligning on any of these. I don't think SCOTUS will take it since they really don't take gun cases. If it looks like they will, NY will quickly change the law so its moot. If they don't and SCOTUS takes the case, it'll be decided so narrowly it won't make a difference. See heller for example, where everyone likes to insist it's so groundbreaking - cool. What'd it change? View Quote |
|
if they add people to the court so they can add liberal judges, that's game over.
|
|
|
Petitioners challenge the New York law governing licenses to carry concealed firearms in public. The law has existed in the same essential form since 1913 and descends from a long Anglo-American tradition of regulating the carrying of firearms in public. Under New York’s law, applicants who seek an unrestricted license to carry a concealed handgun in public must establish “proper cause.” This flexible standard, which numerous New York residents have successfully satisfied, generally requires a showing that the applicant has a nonspeculative need for self-defense. Absent such a need, applicants may receive a “premises” license that allows them to keep a firearm in their home or place of business, or a “restricted” license that allows them to carry in public for any other purposes for which they have shown a non-speculative need—such as hunting, target shooting, or employment. The individual petitioners here received restricted licenses. The petition does not present a question warranting this Court’s review. First, petitioners and several of their amici are mistaken in claiming a split in authority on whether the Second Amendment applies outside the home. Like all of the other courts of appeals that have considered restrictions on the public carrying of firearms, the Second Circuit proceeded from an understanding that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to carry firearms outside the home for self-defense. And like those other courts, the Second Circuit was guided by this Court’s recognition in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited and can be subject to state regulation consistent with the histor- ical scope of the right. Contrary to petitioners’ contention, neither the court below nor any other court of appeals has sustained a blanket prohibition on ordinary, law-abiding persons carrying firearms outside the home. Instead, several courts of appeals have sustained state law regimes for licensing the public carrying of firearms, and one court that invalidated a blanket prohibition has recognized that New York’s laws do not amount to such a prohibition. Second, this case is a poor vehicle for deciding whether the Second Amendment applies outside the home: a question that petitioners imply is presented by this case. Because the court below proceeded on the understanding that the Second Amendment does so apply, a ruling in petitioners’ favor would change neither the result nor the reasoning below. In any event, petitioners failed to allege facts establishing that New York’s licensing regime bans the public carrying of firearms for all but “a small subset of individuals” (Pet. 8). Finally, the decision upholding New York’s longstanding and measured licensing law was correct. The law is consistent with the historical scope of the Second Amendment and directly advances New York’s compelling interests in public safety and crime prevention. The petition should therefore be denied. View Quote |
|
Other pending decisions in the Ninth Circuit counsel in favor of allowing the issue to percolate further. The en banc court has not yet issued its decision in Young, which challenges a Hawai‘i law requiring good cause to carry a firearm openly in public. Young v. Hawaii, 915 F.3d 681 (9th Cir. 2019) (granting en banc review). Moreover, pending that decision, a panel has stayed the proceedings in another case challenging a similar California law. See Flanagan v. Becerra, No. 18-55717. These unresolved cases provide yet another reason to deny review here. View Quote |
|
Keep any eye on this case for three reasons.
First is it is likely the long awaited case that will be a solid pro 2A victory. With Barnett replacing RBG, the odds of granting cert is extremely high as is a favorable outcome. Second, is the only real way they have to stop a 2A victory is packing the SCOTUS. I think that if the court is packed due to this case, things will spiral out of control. Third, is if cert is denied, then its probably game over. Its a good case, the votes are there, and the former reliance on a swing vote is gone. If its not granted here, I doubt it ever will be. Its only one of the many metrics to judge where things are going, but its a good one, so pay attention no matter which way it goes. Consider it situational awareness. |
|
NYSPRA and the NRA need to find a way to pin this on racism.
The government of NYC and NY State wouldn't want to be seen as racist with thier anti civil rights Jim Crow laws, would they? |
|
They have time to do this with all their vacations on our dime.
|
|
It’s like the whole “apparatus” is surging back now that Trump is gone. (Not just the nra)
Funny how that works. The band is back together, so let’s all (left&right) get together and make some money boys! |
|
Here is a link to the PDF document from which my two quotes above were taken.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/169604/20210222170827872_20-843_Brief%20in%20Opposition.pdf After reading all 39 pages, it appears that the Second Amendment and the Constitution of the United States are much less important than the 1911 New York Coroner's Office Report, which "detailed a marked increase in homicides and suicides committed with concealable firearms", which prompted the New York legislature to "craft a licensing scheme that would stem the rise in deaths associated with such weapons." |
|
Quoted: Keep any eye on this case for three reasons. First is it is likely the long awaited case that will be a solid pro 2A victory. With Barnett replacing RBG, the odds of granting cert is extremely high as is a favorable outcome. Second, is the only real way they have to stop a 2A victory is packing the SCOTUS. I think that if the court is packed due to this case, things will spiral out of control. Third, is if cert is denied, then its probably game over. Its a good case, the votes are there, and the former reliance on a swing vote is gone. If its not granted here, I doubt it ever will be. Its only one of the many metrics to judge where things are going, but its a good one, so pay attention no matter which way it goes. Consider it situational awareness. View Quote And an almost identical case under NYSRPA v NYC was granted cert in 2019 and decided in 2020, where six agreed it was rendered moot by NY state changing the law to halt the proceedings in an unsigned per curiam opinion but Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh agreed the lower courts weren't following Heller (meaning, "text, history, and tradition" as the guiding principles). Kavanaugh concurred in the case being moot, while the other three said it was not moot, thus 6-3 despite being unsigned. Now the same lawyer (Paul Clement, the former solicitor general under W, and the man with the most SC wins in history) is taking this case and Ginsburg has been replaced. Hold onto your butts. Kharn |
|
Quoted: And the fact they it’s cost almost $200 and took me 15 months to even be allowed to touch a pistol in NY........ How the fuck is that not denying a right. View Quote Everyone loves to brag about what a coup Heller was for gun owners. Just remember what Scalia said .. the 2nd is a right that can be regulated. People need to quit fapping to this idea that the SCOTUS is a friend . I have said it before and I stand by it, asking a government court to rule in a fashion that would be counter to the interests of the government is absurd. |
|
Quoted: Here is a link to the PDF document from which my two quotes above were taken. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/169604/20210222170827872_20-843_Brief%20in%20Opposition.pdf After reading all 39 pages, it appears that the Second Amendment and the Constitution of the United States are much less important than the 1911 New York Coroner's Office Report, which "detailed a marked increase in homicides and suicides committed with concealable firearms", which prompted the New York legislature to "craft a licensing scheme that would stem the rise in deaths associated with such weapons." View Quote To put in context, that's the brief arguing why the SCOTUS should not grant cert. It says the usual nonsense, but its doing exactly what we should expect that side to do. I would not worry too much about what they are saying. |
|
|
Quoted: NYSPRA and the NRA need to find a way to pin this on racism. The government of NYC and NY State wouldn't want to be seen as racist with thier anti civil rights Jim Crow laws, would they? View Quote Try this one on for size, NY state defends their law by saying: In assessing whether an applicant has a non-speculative need for self-defense, licensing officers must consider wholly objective factors such as “population density, composition, and geographical location,” among others. View Quote That sounds like the 2021 version of 1913's "no guns for blacks, Hispanics, or Chinese" to me. Kharn |
|
Quoted: And an almost identical case under NYSRPA v NYC was granted cert in 2019 and decided in 2020, where six agreed it was rendered moot by NY state changing the law to halt the proceedings in an unsigned per curiam opinion but Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh agreed the lower courts weren't following Heller (meaning, "text, history, and tradition" as the guiding principles). Kavanaugh concurred in the case being moot, while the other three said it was not moot, thus 6-3 despite being unsigned. Now the same lawyer (Paul Clement, the former solicitor general under W, and the man with the most SC wins in history) is taking this case and Ginsburg has been replaced. Hold onto your butts. Kharn View Quote The NYSRPA case was very different. They were only asking to allow (lol) NYC handgun owners to be permitted to take their handguns outside of NYC. It had nothing to do with CC. New York fought it all the way, and only when SCOTUS granted cert did they change the law and and give NYC handgun owners the privilege of transporting their handguns outside of the city border, in a locked box, to a range, as well as back to their home. Up to cert, they said it was a good law. Go figure. The new case is about the whole licensing scheme of good cause for CCW. In simple terms, this case is about the "bear" portion of the right to keep and bear arms. It also will likely address the standard of review and establish that it warrants strict scrutiny. If this standard of review becomes law, it means every gun law in the USA is subject to a new challenge as they were all upheld on a mishmash of lower standards. Its a pretty significant case and the antis know it. That's why I think this will be the most likely cause of the SCOTUS to be packed, which if that happens, it means the entire faith in our government is completely undercut, it won't be possible to fake it. Combine that with another election fiasco in 2022 and the push for more wokeiness in general, and its going to get interesting. But that's only one possible outcome, it should not even be on the list of possibilities, yet it is. |
|
Quoted: The NYSRPA case was very different. They were only asking to allow (lol) NYC handgun owners to be permitted to take their handguns outside of NYC. It had nothing to do with CC. New York fought it all the way, and only when SCOTUS granted cert did they change the law and and give NYC handgun owners the privilege of transporting their handguns outside of the city border, in a locked box, to a range, as well as back to their home. Up to cert, they said it was a good law. Go figure. The new case is about the whole licensing scheme of good cause for CCW. In simple terms, this case is about the "bear" portion of the right to keep and bear arms. It also will likely address the standard of review and establish that it warrants strict scrutiny. If this standard of review becomes law, it means every gun law in the USA is subject to a new challenge as they were all upheld on a mishmash of lower standards. Its a pretty significant case and the antis know it. That's why I think this will be the most likely cause of the SCOTUS to be packed, which if that happens, it means the entire faith in our government is completely undercut, it won't be possible to fake it. Combine that with another election fiasco in 2022 and the push for more wokeiness in general, and its going to get interesting. But that's only one possible outcome, it should not even be on the list of possibilities, yet it is. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: And an almost identical case under NYSRPA v NYC was granted cert in 2019 and decided in 2020, where six agreed it was rendered moot by NY state changing the law to halt the proceedings in an unsigned per curiam opinion but Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh agreed the lower courts weren't following Heller (meaning, "text, history, and tradition" as the guiding principles). Kavanaugh concurred in the case being moot, while the other three said it was not moot, thus 6-3 despite being unsigned. Now the same lawyer (Paul Clement, the former solicitor general under W, and the man with the most SC wins in history) is taking this case and Ginsburg has been replaced. Hold onto your butts. Kharn The NYSRPA case was very different. They were only asking to allow (lol) NYC handgun owners to be permitted to take their handguns outside of NYC. It had nothing to do with CC. New York fought it all the way, and only when SCOTUS granted cert did they change the law and and give NYC handgun owners the privilege of transporting their handguns outside of the city border, in a locked box, to a range, as well as back to their home. Up to cert, they said it was a good law. Go figure. The new case is about the whole licensing scheme of good cause for CCW. In simple terms, this case is about the "bear" portion of the right to keep and bear arms. It also will likely address the standard of review and establish that it warrants strict scrutiny. If this standard of review becomes law, it means every gun law in the USA is subject to a new challenge as they were all upheld on a mishmash of lower standards. Its a pretty significant case and the antis know it. That's why I think this will be the most likely cause of the SCOTUS to be packed, which if that happens, it means the entire faith in our government is completely undercut, it won't be possible to fake it. Combine that with another election fiasco in 2022 and the push for more wokeiness in general, and its going to get interesting. But that's only one possible outcome, it should not even be on the list of possibilities, yet it is. Under NYC's licensing scheme and the law at the time, the only way to allow them to leave the city with their firearms was a carry permit, the plaintiffs had premises permits and had been previously denied carry permits. The state changed the permit law to allow premises permits to transport their firearms to a limited set of destinations to moot the case. This case is people with restricted carry permits saying granting unrestricted carry permits to only a select few is bullshit. Kharn |
|
Quoted: Try this one on for size, NY state defends their law by saying: That sounds like the 2021 version of 1913's "no guns for blacks, Hispanics, or Chinese" to me. Kharn View Quote |
|
Quoted: I thought Sullivan was to prevent those dirty I-talians from having guns? The Irish ran government and didn't appreciate competition from another organized crime group. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Try this one on for size, NY state defends their law by saying: That sounds like the 2021 version of 1913's "no guns for blacks, Hispanics, or Chinese" to me. Kharn |
|
Quoted: The NYSRPA case was very different. They were only asking to allow (lol) NYC handgun owners to be permitted to take their handguns outside of NYC. It had nothing to do with CC. New York fought it all the way, and only when SCOTUS granted cert did they change the law and and give NYC handgun owners the privilege of transporting their handguns outside of the city border, in a locked box, to a range, as well as back to their home. Up to cert, they said it was a good law. Go figure. The new case is about the whole licensing scheme of good cause for CCW. In simple terms, this case is about the "bear" portion of the right to keep and bear arms. It also will likely address the standard of review and establish that it warrants strict scrutiny. If this standard of review becomes law, it means every gun law in the USA is subject to a new challenge as they were all upheld on a mishmash of lower standards. Its a pretty significant case and the antis know it. That's why I think this will be the most likely cause of the SCOTUS to be packed, which if that happens, it means the entire faith in our government is completely undercut, it won't be possible to fake it. Combine that with another election fiasco in 2022 and the push for more wokeiness in general, and its going to get interesting. But that's only one possible outcome, it should not even be on the list of possibilities, yet it is. View Quote Yes, if we lose this one the US is done! There will be only one way to go & I hope I never see it! |
|
Here is a link to an article about an additional Challenge to New York's pistol permit regime.
Libertarian Party of Erie County v. Cuomo https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2021/03/scotus-gun-watch-week-of-3-1-21/ |
|
Here is another bump to keep this out of the archives until we find out if the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett case gets listed as CERTIORARI GRANTED on next Monday's Order List.
|
|
Quoted: Here is another bump to keep this out of the archives until we find out if the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett case gets listed as CERTIORARI GRANTED on next Monday's Order List. View Quote The current practice of the court is to not grant cases on their first appearance at conference, almost all cases are relisted at least once. So a denial on Monday would be an obvious bad sign, a grant on Friday or Monday is extremely unlikely. Much more likely is relisted for the next conference for consideration again after the clerks have made sure the case will not need to be dismissed as improvidently granted. Kharn |
|
Today's orders are out. I'm only looking on my phone, but there doesn't appear to be any reference to the Corlett case.
|
|
Quoted: I wish people on here weren't so sense and sheep like. The NRA under Wayne's leadership is in complete disarray. However the NRA-ILA is a different entity with different leadership and has continued to do great things even with Wayne's shadow hanging over them. THE best defense and safest place for donations to help fund gun rights is the NRA-ILA. Wayne can't touch a dime of what is donated there. View Quote You mean, except for the ridiculous sky-high rent that NRA charges to ILA for the office space in NRA's HQ building, right? IIRC, it was something close to $100K monthly. That's a lot of dimes. |
|
So, the NRA is partnering with someone else who will do the actual heavy lifting, while the NRA sits back and takes the credit? OK.
|
|
Quoted: And the fact they it’s cost almost $200 and took me 15 months to even be allowed to touch a pistol in NY........ How the fuck is that not denying a right. View Quote @akCory762 Now tell the people that don't know what we have to do to actually purchase the handgun and put it on our permits. That's another bullshit part of the "rules". |
|
Quoted: @akCory762 Now tell the people that don't know what we have to do to actually purchase the handgun and put it on our permits. That's another bullshit part of the "rules". View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: And the fact they it’s cost almost $200 and took me 15 months to even be allowed to touch a pistol in NY........ How the fuck is that not denying a right. @akCory762 Now tell the people that don't know what we have to do to actually purchase the handgun and put it on our permits. That's another bullshit part of the "rules". It’s all bullshit. Playing fuck fuck games driving back and forth from the gun store to the permit office 4 times before you can legally take your gun home. I don’t understand how NY can saw you have to have apply for a permit to keep a handgun in your home. |
|
|
Quoted: 5. The final amicus by Korte Tree Care, basically the company paid for the legal research and printing fees, so their name goes on it, even though it is about English law rather than the company's policies. View Quote After reading that amicus, I know the company I would hire to do any tree work if I lived in the area. I would love to see more companies step up like this. It's better than an advertising campaign. |
|
Quoted: I wish people on here weren't so sense and sheep like. The NRA under Wayne's leadership is in complete disarray. However the NRA-ILA is a different entity with different leadership and has continued to do great things even with Wayne's shadow hanging over them. THE best defense and safest place for donations to help fund gun rights is the NRA-ILA. Wayne can't touch a dime of what is donated there. View Quote I was going to post this. It is worth repeating though. |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.