News: **** YAHOO, MSN and HOTMAIL are still blocking the forum mailbox, so you have to use a different email address, or PM the admin on facebook. ****

Subscription Status

Supporting Member : No
Pro Supp. Member : No

Join & Become a Member
Yearly Supporting Memberships

Our Local Sponsors


Forum Links

Author Topic: SCOTUS has struck down NY carry law  (Read 1288 times)

Online imahangtia

  • Highly Active Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2013
  • Posts: 15974
  • Karma: +2/-0
  • NEVER FORGIVE SB-1160
SCOTUS has struck down NY carry law
« on: June 23, 2022, 10:42:20 AM »
Details to come.

Justice Thomas wrote the opinion.  I bet it will be good.  It will be....  ULTRA MAGA!

It is Clarence Thomas' birthday!  (June 23, 1948)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas

I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when they were around a conference table and decided to release this opinion on Justice Thomas' birthday. 


« Last Edit: June 23, 2022, 11:09:05 AM by imahangtia »
 

Online imahangtia

  • Highly Active Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2013
  • Posts: 15974
  • Karma: +2/-0
  • NEVER FORGIVE SB-1160
 

Online imahangtia

  • Highly Active Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2013
  • Posts: 15974
  • Karma: +2/-0
  • NEVER FORGIVE SB-1160
 

Online Ender467

  • Active Member
  • ***
  • Join Date: Apr 2013
  • Posts: 30
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • PROTECT the 2nd!
Re: SCOTUS has struck down NY carry law
« Reply #3 on: June 23, 2022, 11:02:03 AM »
Appears the two step approach to 2A is dead.  No more intermediate scrutiny.  This is well beyond carrying outside of the home.  Amazing day for 2A.
 

Online Will1776

  • Highly Active Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Feb 2017
  • Posts: 716
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Sic Semper Tyrannis
Re: SCOTUS has struck down NY carry law
« Reply #4 on: June 23, 2022, 11:24:00 AM »
This is incredible!! Major win! Do we know if this definitely gets rid of intermediate scrutiny? /is this going to make it significantly easier to overturn AWBs and mag bans?
 

Online CT_Yankee

  • Highly Active Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jan 2013
  • Posts: 736
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • PROTECT the 2nd!
Re: SCOTUS has struck down NY carry law
« Reply #5 on: June 23, 2022, 11:33:05 AM »
This is incredible!! Major win! Do we know if this definitely gets rid of intermediate scrutiny? /is this going to make it significantly easier to overturn AWBs and mag bans?
Someone more knowledgeable than me can weigh in, but this opinion doesn't address awb. It does however set the table for how awb challenges should be assessed going forward with Bruen as a precedent. Be ready to give and give generously to GOA, FPC etc because a flood of new lawsuits is probably coming. It's a good day for the pro freedom side.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2022, 11:34:03 AM by CT_Yankee »
 

Online dbct23

  • Forum Contributor Pro
  • Highly Active Member
  • ***
  • Join Date: Mar 2018
  • Posts: 501
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • PROTECT the 2nd!
Re: SCOTUS has struck down NY carry law
« Reply #6 on: June 23, 2022, 11:34:10 AM »
Seems like carrying concealed will be a red flag pretty soon. This is likely why the Senate has been rushing though their red flag crap.  The bigger loss coming from that minimizes this in my eyes.
 

Online Ender467

  • Active Member
  • ***
  • Join Date: Apr 2013
  • Posts: 30
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • PROTECT the 2nd!
Re: SCOTUS has struck down NY carry law
« Reply #7 on: June 23, 2022, 11:34:26 AM »
I believe it was remanded for lower court to rehear, so nothing changed yet, but it will be interesting to see the approach that is taken to continue to infringe upon the 2A.

Interest balancing does appear to be dead, but we will see.  The court made specific care to say that restrictions not similar to those at the time of the drafting of the constitution are likely not acceptable.  So "longstanding" isn't as important as restricting "dangerous and unusual."

I can easily see this pushing back on mag bans, AWB, and a pathway to constitutional carry.  I expect every anti-2A state to require in person interviews so it deters out of state applicants. Which would then be litigated in the next decade.
 

Online sbhaven

  • Global Moderator
  • Highly Active Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Aug 2008
  • Posts: 23430
  • Karma: +9/-1
  • Keep the 2nd Amendment Alive.
Re: SCOTUS has struck down NY carry law
« Reply #8 on: June 23, 2022, 12:09:22 PM »
It appears to be a narrow win that will be the building block, like Heller and Chicago were, to try and get other gun laws like the AWB and LCM struck down. It was a predictable 6-3 opinion. And Thomas primarily used the 14th Amendment as the reason to strike down NY's requirements and remand this case back to the lower courts.

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

THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and ALITO, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., filed a concurring opinion. KAVANAUGH, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., joined. BARRETT, J., filed a concurring opinion. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR and KAGAN, JJ., joined.

"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. Pp. 8–63."

"(c) 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 guarantees.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion). The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need. The Second Amendment right to carry arms in public for self defense is no different. New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public."

"In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”"

"Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support applying meansend scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Instead, the government must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms."

Its not clear if they are flat out saying apply "strict scrutiny" as the words strict scrutiny is only used 8 times in the opinion and 7 of them are in the dissenting Breyer opinion and they're all used in the context of the three levels of scrutiny  (strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, rational basis).
Potentially, a government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims.
- Ayn Rand
 

Online sbhaven

  • Global Moderator
  • Highly Active Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Aug 2008
  • Posts: 23430
  • Karma: +9/-1
  • Keep the 2nd Amendment Alive.
Re: SCOTUS has struck down NY carry law
« Reply #9 on: June 23, 2022, 12:36:59 PM »
Another bit from the opinion that addresses enacting bans on carry in sensitive places.

"To be clear, even if a modern-day regulation is not a dead ringer for historical precursors, it still may be analogous enough to pass constitutional muster. For example, courts can use analogies to “longstanding” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings” to determine whether modern regulations are constitutionally permissible. Id., at 626. That said, respondents’ attempt to characterize New York’s proper-cause requirement as a “sensitive-place” law lacks merit because there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a “sensitive place” simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department."

"But expanding the category of “sensitive places” simply to all places of public congregation that are not isolated from law enforcement defines the category of “sensitive places” far too broadly. Respondents’ argument would in effect exempt cities from the Second Amendment and would eviscerate the general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense that we discuss in detail below."
« Last Edit: June 23, 2022, 12:39:15 PM by sbhaven »
Potentially, a government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims.
- Ayn Rand
 
The following users thanked this post: Jamie

 


SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2022, SimplePortal