Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

77
featureless wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 6:00 pm ACLU needs to reread Miller. How does one show up armed to a militia if one does not have an individual right to keep and bear arms? I understand courts since Miller have pushed the milita theory, but Heller corrected that misinterpretation. Now, courts are busy misinterpreting Heller.

I agree, the "militia" part of 2A is ingrained in the ACLU and other groups and they consider Heller to be an outlier decision. That's what they believe, don't confuse them with the facts.
The question presented is:

Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self- defense.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/20-00843qp.pdf

Arguments on Nov 3rd at 10 am with Paul Clement leading off.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_argum ... er2021.pdf

A decision will probably tumble out next Spring.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

78
I am cautiously optimistic that SCOTUS will toss the "good cause" and other arbitrary criteria. I have no problem permitting carry, provided the right is available equally and cheaply. Also pending this case's results are a magazine capacity case and Young (where CA9 ruled there is no right to bear at all). Both will likely be remanded after this ruling. I would love to see SCOTUS slap CA9. They've earned it.

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

79
Last year it was NY City over it's regs and NY State law which they changed and got the case mooted. This time it's New York State, specifically a suit against the superintendent of the NY State Police broader than just NYC. I too would like them to remove good cause, going after "May Issue" and requiring "Shall Issue" in all states. I'd like them also to mandate that any gun laws need to be reviewed under strict scrutiny and show there is an absolute need for a firearms restriction and not automatic deference to the state.

The rich and famous in New York have always gotten carry permits, same in CA. This is an eleven year old New York Daily News article.
J.Lo and her 2-year-old twins can rest easy at night: Daddy is packing heat.

Singer Marc Anthony is one of dozens of celebs, millionaires and high-profile athletes authorized to carry a concealed weapon in the city, records show.

And the number of A-listers who have guns is growing.

"We have seen an increase in celebs seeking their own permits," said John Skylar Chambers, a lawyer who has helped New Yorkers get gun permits for more than 20 years.

"They can get their own security, but with the Internet, it is much easier to find people. They don't want to find someone on their lawn at 5 in the morning."

Other big names licensed to carry a gun include actor Robert De Niro, shock jock Howard Stern and supermarket mogul John Catsimatidis. Billionaire Donald Trump and his son, Donald Jr.; celebrity lawyer David Breitbart, and artificial-heart inventor Robert Jarvik can also carry steel, police records reveal.

Mets third-baseman David Wright has a permit to keep a gun in his city penthouse. Martha Stewart's daughter, radio host Alexis Stewart, also has a permit.

Not everyone scores. Bernie Madoff's son Andrew couldn't persuade the NYPD to issue him a gun permit - not even to keep a firearm in his home.

Anthony's special carry permit allows him to tote a loaded weapon. He got it under his real name, Marco Antonio Muniz, and has an application for a similar permit in Nassau County.

Anthony and his superstar wife, Jennifer Lopez, are raising twins Emme and Max in their $2million home in Brookville, Nassau County.

It's unclear why Anthony wanted the permit; the 42-year-old singer's lawyer didn't respond to requests for comment. To get a permit, applicants have to prove a documented threat or that they routinely carry large amounts of cash or valuables.

While experts say the number of celebs allowed to carry guns is on the rise, the number of overall permits issued in the city this year is down from last year. There were 2,145 carry permits issued last year compared with 2,093 this year - a dip of about 2.4%.

The NYPD charges a nonrefundable $340 to file an application for a gun permit and between $94 and $106 for the collection of fingerprints, even before a background check is begun.

Gun permits aren't easy to get.

"The NYPD is extremely thorough in their investigation," said divorce lawyer to the stars Raoul Felder, who also has a permit to carry. "In other states, you fill out a form, swear you are not a lunatic, and you get it."

Some learn the value of a carry permit the hard way.

Former Giants receiver Plaxico Burress was sentenced to two years in prison after shooting himself in a Manhattan nightclub in 2008. The gun wasn't licensed in New York.
https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/li ... e-1.441377
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

83
papajim2jordan wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 3:08 pm
highdesert wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 1:09 pm
sikacz wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 11:19 am Seems the only “thoroughness” in the process involves checking one’s celebrity status and wealth.

Yup, a huge factor in "May Issue" state carry licenses.
And who better to trust with a firearm than the Hollywood elite.
:yes: One of these days one will shoot an innocent person off set and try to claim “I’m an actor” defense.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

87
FrontSight wrote: Tue Nov 02, 2021 1:58 pm I can honestly see this going either way (depending on your constitutional viewpoint). I'll be interested in reading the opinion, and the dissents.
Yeah. I really don't have a problem with permits and training requirements (provided they are not cost prohibitive). I do have a problem with arbitrarily deciding who has access to constitutional rights.

And SCOTUS really needs to address the issue of scrutiny. Lower courts are all over the fucking place. As I've bitched about in the past, CA9 actually found the 2A does not protect bear outside of the home, mostly by omission of relevant part of historic examples cited saying just the opposite. Now I'll agree, concealed carry may not be the right in bear. But some form of bear needs to be available for the average citizen. Places like New York, Hawaii and California have virtually prohibited both.

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

88
featureless wrote: Tue Nov 02, 2021 2:13 pm
FrontSight wrote: Tue Nov 02, 2021 1:58 pm I can honestly see this going either way (depending on your constitutional viewpoint). I'll be interested in reading the opinion, and the dissents.
Yeah. I really don't have a problem with permits and training requirements (provided they are not cost prohibitive). I do have a problem with arbitrarily deciding who has access to constitutional rights.

And SCOTUS really needs to address the issue of scrutiny. Lower courts are all over the fucking place. As I've bitched about in the past, CA9 actually found the 2A does not protect bear outside of the home, mostly by omission of relevant part of historic examples cited saying just the opposite. Now I'll agree, concealed carry may not be the right in bear. But some form of bear needs to be available for the average citizen. Places like New York, Hawaii and California have virtually prohibited both.

I agree, "May Issue" needs to go and judges should have to apply the highest level of scrutiny if they are restricting a federal constitutional right. SCOTUS should address the disregard by courts of Heller and McDonald, this case is a good place to start. If they look back for historical precedent, in colonial times and probably up to the 20th century people carried guns without licenses, small guns like the Baby Browning were developed for concealed carry. The streets didn't run in blood.

SCOTUS is broadcasting all oral arguments live, audio only. There is a copy if you're not able to listen to it live. It's sometimes hard to follow if you don't know their voices or if the Chief doesn't identify the justice asking the questions, video is much better. Maybe Youtube. will have audio with identifiers.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

93
featureless wrote: Wed Nov 03, 2021 11:13 am I can't say Clement's Q&A went well. At all. But NY's council is absolutely shitting the bed.
Yes Clement did much better than the current speaker, Barbara Underwood the Solicitor General of NY State. The justices are trying to find where the lines should be drawn.

A lot of New York accents.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

96
Clement's closing statements were solid, his responses during opening, slightly less so, but he definitely knows his shit. Ms. Underwood performed poorly and seemed unprepared with a lot of "because" type answers. I'm not sure Fletcher added to the state's case. Based just on Celement's success/failure early on, we were lost. I have more hope after listening to the justices responses to the next two. I think we'll have an end to subjective criteria, but I'm probably wrong.

I am glad Gorsuch continued to ask about scrutiny. Hopefully, guidance on this makes it into the ruling, with or without a favorable win overall. Lots of Amici were begging for it.

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

97
Underwood wasn't prepared, Fletcher is Dep Solicitor General of the US and was prepared.

"May Issue" allows subjective criteria to enter in to licensing decision. "Shall Issue" applies the same criteria to everyone ie, not a felon or convicted of domestic violence or declared insane...
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

98
featureless wrote: Wed Nov 03, 2021 12:04 pm Clement's closing statements were solid, his responses during opening, slightly less so, but he definitely knows his shit. Ms. Underwood performed poorly and seemed unprepared with a lot of "because" type answers. I'm not sure Fletcher added to the state's case. Based just on Celement's success/failure early on, we were lost. I have more hope after listening to the justices responses to the next two. I think we'll have an end to subjective criteria, but I'm probably wrong.

I am glad Gorsuch continued to ask about scrutiny. Hopefully, guidance on this makes it into the ruling, with or without a favorable win overall. Lots of Amici were begging for it.

Fletcher was asked about scrutiny and he said the US government continued to support Intermediate Scrutiny. Clement argued that the level of scrutiny applied to 2A should be the same as applied to every other constitutional right - freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion....strict scrutiny.
Strict Scrutiny
This is the highest level of scrutiny applied by courts to government actions or laws. The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that legislation or government actions that discriminate on the basis of race, national origin, religion, and alienage must pass this level of scrutiny to survive a challenge that the policy violates constitutional equal protection. This high level of scrutiny is also applied whenever a "fundamental right" is being threatened by a law, like the right to marriage.

Strict scrutiny requires the government to prove that:

There is a compelling state interest behind the challenged policy, and
The law or regulation is narrowly tailored to achieve its result.
https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law- ... explained/


It sure appeared that Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan were out for Clement and Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh tended to support him. I didn't get a clear read on Barrett. Sotomayor and Kagan are both New Yorkers and it is a New York case, but implications are far beyond that state. If Thomas is the leader of the majority he decides who writes the decision or Roberts could keep it.

I'm not good reading crystal balls and tea leaves. If there is a strong 5-4 or 6-3 in favor of overturning NY's law then we could see change nationwide that would affect CA and HI and effectively moot Young vs Hawaii.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

99
Agreed, Highdesert. I want to read the tea leaves, but I usually fail at the task. :)

I think Barrett will likely go the route of Heller already indicated there's a right to bear and such right shouldn't be a privilege based on subjective criteria.

To add, I am hopeful she, and others, will employ similar logic against the Texas abortion case.
Last edited by featureless on Wed Nov 03, 2021 12:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests