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
Per Fox News
Link to story
- Thread starter nn8734
- Start date
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
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
Now its time to challenge all state level aw bans and mag capacity restrictions.
Perhaps someone/group in Washington state and/or Rhode Island can lead the charge
Perhaps someone/group in Washington state and/or Rhode Island can lead the charge
The SC justices on our side have been waiting for a majority. Thanks to Trump, we have it for now.
Hell to the yeah dawg! Spent literally the past year losing sleep while drafting letters to all local, state, and federal folks with even remote influence on the upcoming case. 
Concealed carry by responsible people is the only effective deterrent to criminals and terrorists seeking to take advantage of target rich environments. It makes a wannabe evildoer's planned mayhem turn into a game of Russian roulette because any person in the crowds that they want to terrorize may shoot their worthless asses DEAD on the spot. It is this uncertainty that WILL deter future evildoers. Not red flag laws, not gun bans, but the constant looming potential of instant neutralization by an armed citizen.
Concealed carry by responsible people is the only effective deterrent to criminals and terrorists seeking to take advantage of target rich environments. It makes a wannabe evildoer's planned mayhem turn into a game of Russian roulette because any person in the crowds that they want to terrorize may shoot their worthless asses DEAD on the spot. It is this uncertainty that WILL deter future evildoers. Not red flag laws, not gun bans, but the constant looming potential of instant neutralization by an armed citizen.
Yep, its nice to see that Trump’s picks are making the right decisions when it counts and this case was really their first big test in that regard.Hell to the yeah dawg! Spent literally the past year losing sleep while drafting letters to all local, state, and federal folks with even remote influence on the upcoming case.
Concealed carry by responsible people is the only effective deterrent to criminals and terrorists seeking to take advantage of target rich environments. It makes a wannabe evildoer's planned mayhem turn into a game of Russian roulette because any person in the crowds that they want to terrorize may shoot their worthless asses DEAD on the spot.
Thomas seems especially motivated to put these anti-2A laws/regs down as he once remarked that, “The Second Amendment is a disfavored right in this court” when previous lower court 2A cases were denied review prior to Barrett joining.
Last edited:
Makes me teary eyed to know that WE are actually empowering EVERY civil rights and social justice cause out there at once by making sure any potential victims can arm themselves with the appropriate tools to ensure their survival and safety through whatever challenges may stand in their way. Who are the fucking social justice warriors again? SAY IT LOUDER. AGAIN.
Decision is awful. It rightly struck down NY’s law but did not bite the bullet (pun intended) and say that 2A is a fundamental right and is subject to strict scrutiny—the only right in the Bill of Rights that is not.
Didn’t Heller establish that already?
Yep. Heller affirmed the right as applying to individuals without the precondition that individuals be members of a “militia”.
Couldn’t agree more, I can’t understand why this was limited to NY when plenty of other states have obviously similar infringements.
All similar infringements should be immediately scrapped rather than having each one require a specific court case.
Glad to see it moving in the right direction but the baby steps which take eons are aggravating.
All similar infringements should be immediately scrapped rather than having each one require a specific court case.
Glad to see it moving in the right direction but the baby steps which take eons are aggravating.
You know how I know you haven't read the decision......
Its not limited to NY. The ruling applies nationwide and anywhere else the COTUS applies.
I certainly hope that is the case but my reading of it suggests it points specifically to NY’s law. I hope to be proven wrong here.
The legal implication is that any such law or reg anywhere the COTUS governs is unconstitutional.
NY was simply the defendant and its law the subject of the case itself. So the opinion is going to refer to it as such. No different than any other court case decided at bu the SCOTUS.
ETA: the legal question before the court concerned whether NY state’s “may issue” policy for ccw permits is constitutional, e.g. whether new york residents had to demonstrate a need to apply for and be granted the permit.
The Court found it was not. So any same or like-kind laws, at any level in this country, are also now null in void.
Last edited:
AW bans, yes.
I'd be careful about the mag bans going first.... though we should try for sure.
The bigger issue with the mag bans is the 9th Cir. Ct. had a very positive ruling that struck down all sorts of stuff in CA, but even that pro-2A judge indicated that it's probable the mag limits could be OK given that there is data to suggest that they my help [with the reduction of crime, etc.].
Yep…If i had to prioritize one over the other it would def be the aw bans hence why it came before mag capacity restrictions in my post. Mag capacitiy laws are also a lot harder to really enforce as it is; most have full 30s if they need them in places where they are otherwise outlawed.
I believe so as well but fully expect that the cases will have to be brought to court in every one of those states. I doubt they will simply disband those laws.
So true!!!
Guess congress best review this ruling very carefully while crafting their current legislation.....
I disagree. It's actually a bigger win that the Court jettisoned the means-end scrutiny test. That was a second step in the analysis to save otherwise constitutionally offensive restrictions.
The Court is essentially saying, there's no governmental interest that justify infringement on the right to bear arms outside the home. The only permissible infringements are ones similar to any that were common in 1787.
I predict a large reaction/incident by the blue team.
They can't stand a perceived win for the conservatives.
R
They can't stand a perceived win for the conservatives.
R
Here comes the Red Wave.
Watch for melting snowflakes and butt-hurt bigots.
Believe whatever the hell you want, I’m tired of trying to explain it.
Bitter NY State Government, lol.
Fuck you, Karen! (Houchel)
Fuck you, Karen! (Houchel)
Yeah. Just like the Dobbs protests and saber-rattling, politicians and the electorate can't wrap their arms around the Constitution not being beholden to current public outrage.
They get sue for violation of civil rights under the 14th Amendment. And the Plaintiffs win money.
Last edited:
Heller also established that government can make "reasonable" restrictions on where guns are allowed (read: victim disarmament zones) and provides for the restriction of "especially dangerous" firearms (read: just about every NFA item). So to the extent that this ruling builds upon Heller, don't expect those restrictions to go away.
If you read the dissent it was basically talking points for the butthurt.
Alito's concurrance was bascially "Look at these whiny bitches trying to distract you in the dissent"
And Xiden and hochul have come back swinging. The marxists must be stopped.
The question before the court was whether a govt body in any jurisdiction subject to the CONUS can impose “needs justification requirements” in a blanket manner. It doesn’t touch on specific location restrictions (ie it doesn’t say that you can carry whatever you want wherever)…there’s always going to be exceptions to the rule.
But Heller did affirm that, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms…” applies to individuals and this ruling builds on that outcome by further affirming that all such individuals must not be burdened via a blanket “needs justification” requirement prior to being evaluated individually for the issuance of a ccw permit.
The decision is essentially an expansion of legal recognition of our rights. our rights themselves dont need expansion as we are born with them but the recognition thereof still has a long way to go hiwever this is a start.
Now whether the concept of ccw permits itself is constitutional is another matter (it’s not..constitutional carry should be the law of the land).
My take anyway…
I think it's more simple than that. If a government restricts firearms possession or carry (either inside or outside the home), that is presumptively unconstitutional. There is only one way to overcome that presumption - the restriction must be similar to restrictions in place at or near the ratification of the Bill of Rights (1791). For example, I don't see the MD handgun qualification requirement surviving (MSI v. Hogan) because there were no training restrictions in effect during the relevant historical period.
Last edited:
Hopefully it doesnt.
We should be calling a special session of the legislature to replace her and all the other traitors that would prefer to strip the rights of law abiding citizens, yet grant criminals the right to walk the streets.
Only in NY could you have logic this ass backwards and remain in power. I guess all those tax dollars are good for something. Keep feeding the trolls that vote for you and your job is secure.
So basically: States that were once "may issue" are now "shall issue"? Meaning... you still need a permit to carry. But now you don't need to prove "good cause" to obtain a permit to carry for self-defense? And issuing bodies can't make the application process cost prohibitive?
I’m happy to be wrong.
I’m also expecting this state to continue to infringe however they can find a way so I’m trying to understand what loopholes they will find and what frustrations they will present to folks trying to utilize their rights.
I’m basically hoping that this results in all ‘may-issue’ states immediately reverting to ‘shall issue’ but I’m suspecting it won’t be quick or straightforward but I’m glad to see this is more expansive that I had originally read it to be.
Basically yes, at least that’s my take. The question before the court wasn’t challenging the constitutionality of the ccw permits themselves, just NY’s condition that the applicant prove a “need” for it. NY’s law is (or now “was”) similar to a few other states’ ccw permit laws (and Canada’s when it comes to getting a firearm in general).
The decision didn't have to declare strict scrutiny because Thomas said in his opinion that the two tiered scrutiny was one too many. Only the text and history apply.
This was a bigger win than I think you realize.
That is always a danger that we all must be prepared for but that’s as far as I’ll go with it here.
Have you not seen DC? Or Cali? Or Washington state? Or Oregon? Or Illinois (especially Chicago)? The list goes on.
Tell me you don't understand how constitutional law works without telling me....
Haven't watched it but he is good. Lawyer and pretty high up in Firearms Policy Coalition.
Oh I have but we specialize in bail reform here in NY where letting violent offenders back out on the street is now acceptable behavior but owning an AR is not.
My point being criminals have more freedoms in NY than law abiding citizens.
fuck Biden and the NY governor .. idiots still dont get it, see the ignorant response from the NY governor "back when 2A was written we had muskets " .. stupid bitch, does the 1st ammendment not cover tv, radio, internet since we didnt have them either .. ignorance is bliss i guess
Serious question.
Simplified, does this ruling mean 2 things:
- The 2nd DOES in fact cover self defense
- Self defense with a firearm is NOT limited to just inside your home
Simplified, does this ruling mean 2 things:
- The 2nd DOES in fact cover self defense
- Self defense with a firearm is NOT limited to just inside your home
Similar threads
