Firearms Talk banner
1 - 20 of 39 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,537 Posts
Kudos to SCOTUS, at long last. They panned the Peruta case. They buried the logic of "approved need" for the exercise of one's constitutional civil rights. About bloody time.

Though, the panning of Peruta and blasting via the Bruen case show: our rights absolutely are up for grabs, for sale, able to get buried (or protected) when the mood suits them. Beware the future attempts, given this reality.

That said ...


The National Rifle Association's take on the ruling for NYSRPA v. Bruen @ NRA ILA, 6/23/22:


Fairfax, Va. - The National Rifle Association (NRA) welcomes the Supreme Court’s decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen. The Court affirmed that the right to bear arms does not stop at a person’s front door. This is the most significant Second Amendment ruling in more than a decade.

“Today’s ruling is a watershed win for good men and women all across America and is the result of a decades-long fight the NRA has led,” said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. “The right to self-defense and to defend your family and loved ones should not end at your home. This ruling brings life-saving justice to law-abiding Americans who have lived under unconstitutional regimes all across our country, particularly in cities and states with revolving door criminal justice systems, no cash bail and increased harassment of law-enforcement. ”

The NRA has been focused on promoting "shall-issue" protocols and eliminating “may-issue” laws since the late 1980s, and before today's decision, only eight states still operated under "may-issue" statutes. The Supreme Court’s ruling today marks the end of these subjective, unconstitutional permitting schemes.

“This is a monumental win for NRA members and for gun owners across the country. New York’s egregious law, which left its residents’ self-defense rights to the whim of a government bureaucrat, has been declared unconstitutional and must be changed. New Yorkers will soon be able to defend themselves outside of their homes without first having to prove that they have a sufficient “need” to exercise their fundamental rights,” said Jason Ouimet, executive director, National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA). “This is more than just a great day for New York because this ruling opens the door to rightly change the law in the seven remaining states that still don’t recognize the right to carry a firearm for personal protection. The NRA has been at the forefront of this movement for over 30 years and was proud to bring this successful challenge to New York’s unconstitutional law.”

The case challenged New York’s requirement that applicants for concealed carry licenses demonstrate “proper cause” to carry a firearm outside of their home. New York routinely used this requirement to deny law-abiding citizens the ability to properly protect themselves. New York is one of eight states that operate under such a “may issue” regime, and the NRA has long fought to abolish this practice in favor of “shall issue” or “constitutional carry” in which law-abiding citizens can exercise their right to carry as long as they meet certain objective criteria.

While the importance of this case cannot be understated and today NRA members enjoy a well-deserved victory, NRA remains committed to continuing this fight. Today’s ruling established the right to carry does not disappear at a person’s front door, but many unconstitutional gun control laws remain in America. The NRA will continue to fight these laws until every law-abiding American can exercise their right to defend themselves and their families with the firearm of their choosing.

Docket information for NYSRPA v. Bruen @ SupremeCourt.gov:



Exerpt from the SCOTUS ruling (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf):

Held: New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth
Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-de-
fense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and

bear arms in public for self-defense. Pp. 8–63.

(a) In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, and McDonald v.
Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, the Court held that the Second and Fourteenth
Amendments protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for
self-defense. Under Heller, when the Second Amendment’s plain text
covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively pro-
tects that conduct
, and to justify a firearm regulation the government
must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s
historical tradition of firearm regulation. Pp. 8–22 ...

(b) Having made the constitutional standard endorsed in Heller
more explicit, the Court applies that standard to New York’s proper-
cause requirement. Pp. 23–62 ...

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. Pp. 62–63.

818 Fed. Appx. 99, reversed and remanded.
Strong language, indeed.

It'll be interesting to see whether governments (municipalities, counties, states, the fed) will be tolerated for their continued criminalizing of mere possession, via "No guns allowed / No weapons allowed" regulations. After all, if one's rights aren't to be shelved due to the obvious and protected right to self-defense, then it follows gov't shouldn't be allowed to stomp out such rights merely because a person has taken one further step across a property line, into a given building, whatever.

Of course, the destroyers will read this as applying only to "needs" statements; it's all but certain they'll continue attempts in other areas of the RKBA. Such as criminalizing "unsafe" storage, or criminalizing standard-capacity magazine possession.

Today's SCOTUS ruling on Bruen does bring up an interesting question: whether CHL "permission slips" will be tolerated as inhibiting people's guaranteed, protected right to keep and carry arms. Particularly in states that criminalize openly carrying, but I would think it'd be problematic for state-based CHL systems altogether. Today's ruling being so straightforward. Time will tell.

A good day. However ugly the destroyers' future attempts will be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: towboater

·
Administrator
Joined
·
1,236 Posts
Folks:

Please note that the thread has been moved outside of the Politics forum.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oldoutlaw

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,537 Posts
From the ruling: "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."

Makes one wonder about all of the "public" lands, buildings and other properties where people are constrained from carrying. National and state forests, national and state parks, "government" (publicly paid for) buildings that allow general public access, etc.

I would hope this ruling spells the death knell for all of the arbitrary facility constraints that keep people from being armed. (Though, there's good reason "sensitive" spots should be off-limits; ie, nuclear facilities, military bases, active courtrooms with trials, and so forth.)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
It'll be interesting to see whether governments (municipalities, counties, states, the fed) will be tolerated for their continued criminalizing of mere possession, via "No guns allowed / No weapons allowed" regulations. After all, if one's rights aren't to be shelved due to the obvious and protected right to self-defenser, then it follows gov't shouldn't be allowed to stomp out such rights merely because a person has taken one further step across a property line, into a given building, whatever.
Interesting. I didn't think about ramifications like this. Gun free zones??? Hmmmm...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,537 Posts
I’m sure this will bring out some ugly in the parties and watch it’s going to cause more spending to fight it….
Well, I hope that there will be good and substantive discussion and debate about the practical, effective and constitutionally-allowable aspects of improving security in facilities and communities. If recent history is any guide, I'm sure that'll prove a hope too far. The "frothing at the mouth" as begun, and I don't think that the full impact of the ruling is understood yet. It'll take time to work other such cases through the courts, testing the limits of what's tolerable and not, in the laws.

I wish our hired staff would focus on clearly-constitutional, clearly-lawful improvements that can be made. Structural, architectural changes to designs that'll be vastly better from a security standpoint. Working with states and communities to improve the presence of well-armed, highly-capable defensive staff at "soft" facilities to the point they're much-hardened. (Whether that's through increased training, or funding, or whatever.) Greatly improving the "mental" health handling in this country. Greatly improving the ability to identify and move "incorrigibles" out of the public schools or communities once they're identified, so they can be handled with a minimum of disruption in such schools/communities. And I wish they'd avoid all of the typical, clearly-unconstitutional stuff they normally pursue, as though going after all of us via stripping us of the means of survival stops violent felons from doing what they do.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,322 Posts
The way I see it, all this "gun free zone" and gun restrictions stuff hasn't worked at all. It's time to do something different.

It's pretty telling when a hollywood celeb goes to the WH to give his "impassioned" speech, and then walks out with a cluster of armed security. We protect items and other people with guns all the time, so why not our schools or other public places? Why do we insist on making the general public unarmed sheep? It isn't working.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,537 Posts
A decent article written in the wake of the SCOTUS Bruen opinion, speaking of the next "shot across the bow" the anti-RKBA types are likely to push.


The Next Fight Over Guns in America @ The Atlantic, by Timothy Zick and Diana Palmer, 6/23/22.

This morning, the Supreme Court struck down a New York State law that limited concealed-firearm permits to those with a demonstrated need to carry arms outside the home. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the 6–3 majority in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, said, “The Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.” Bruen thus opens one of the next major battlegrounds over guns in America: not who can buy guns or what guns can be bought but where these firearms can be carried, every day, by the millions and millions of Americans who own them.

This question will have major implications for what it’s like to be an American. Are people carrying guns at schools and shopping malls and public parks? What about at churches and synagogues and mosques? What is it like to pray in places where fellow supplicants are armed? Courts and legislatures will have to decide whether people can carry guns at protests and political demonstrations, in voting booths, on the subway and bus, and in pretty much every other public space in American life. The Supreme Court spent several decades determining where in the public square—streets, sidewalks, airports, fairgrounds, public libraries, public plazas—speakers have a First Amendment right to communicate. The Court’s answer—not in every place, and not equally in all places—is probably a harbinger for how the justices will determine the “sensitive places” where firearms can be restricted.

After all, something must be done to stem the flow of weapons into all parts of the public square. Even with the staggering frequency of mass shootings in our country, the Supreme Court in Bruen has now limited states’ discretion in regulating guns. New research by the Violence Project on mass shootings from 1966 to 2019, funded by the National Institute of Justice, finds that more than three-fourths of mass shooters bought “at least some of their guns legally.” If states can no longer use discretion to limit the number of people and places with guns at the permitting stage, identifying “sensitive places” will become an important means of restricting the presence of firearms in the public square.

Most states already have robust public-carry rights. But tellingly, state laws in both red and blue states are also chock-full of bans on public carry in a host of locations. They include public transit, polling places, areas near permitted events, athletic facilities, public swimming pools, riverboat casinos, school-bus stops, pharmacies, business parking lots, public highways, amusement parks, zoos, liquor stores, airports, parades, demonstrations, financial institutions, theaters, hotel lobbies, tribal lands, and even gun shows. Discovering commonalities across such a variety of locations is difficult. But it is possible to identify the core safety, functional, and constitutional-value concerns that have long justified treating some places as “sensitive” for purposes of public carry.

Nearly 15 years ago, the Court indicated that public carry of firearms could be restricted or even banned in at least some places. In District of Columbia v. Heller, which recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that nothing in his majority opinion should “cast doubt” on “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.” These “longstanding” restrictions, the Court held, are “presumptively lawful.” Such wording raised more questions than it answered. What makes these places “sensitive”? And what about all the other public and private places where people engage in worship, commerce, and other activities—are any, or all, of these places “sensitive”? This question was very much on the justices’ mind during the oral argument in Bruen. They asked about public-carry rights in Times Square, on the New York City subway, at public demonstrations, and on university campuses.

For some gun-rights supporters, banning or restricting public carry anywhere violates the right to self-defense recognized in Heller. They argue that the need for protection can arise in any place. That position ignores the historical recognition ...

... That the question of “sensitive places” is now front and center is a sign of where the country is with its gun laws—fighting over the margins of its expansive gun freedoms, not whether those freedoms should be so expansive in the first place.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
81 Posts
I'm a former New Yorker that is now a resident of the free state of Florida. This is a great decision and given the narrow scope of the lawsuit probably the best we could hope for. It not only cancels the proper cause requirement it changes the level of scrutiny other 2nd Amendment cases must be judged by. The decision also addresses what can be deemed a sensitive place saying population density only cannot be used as the sole factor in designating what constitutes a sensitive place. The powers that be can't designate alk of Manhattan a sensitive place based on its high population density.

Unfortunately the case does nothing to change the licensing requirements in NY. In some counties you have to provide four references (non-relatives with no significant criminal history) disclose the criminal and mental health histiry of those living in the household and jump over other hurdles to get a pistol license. The process typically takes over a year to complete.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,537 Posts
Unfortunately the case does nothing to change the licensing requirements ...
Yeah. Though, the case didn't directly address that larger, general aspect. It focused on the specific ridiculousness and arbitrary nature of the "needs" statement used to beg permission.

Of course, the whole question of begging permission in the first place flies in the face of today's ruling. So, perhaps, just maybe, the next case that comes along with directly address the CHL permission slips problem. That they exist at all effectively makes this "right" a privilege in reality. Until the whole CHL scheme of begging permission prior to lawful carry being tolerated is buried, it'll remain a tightly-guarded privilege in far too many states. I'm sure that New York will be one of the last hold-outs, if ever the CHL schemes do get nixed. That'll be erased with their teeth marks still on it, no doubt.

Still, it was a good day.

Far too much work to be done, beyond the simple question of "needs" constraints, so it'll be a long road from here on out. But if before the complexion of the Court changes yet again it'll be interesting to see how many solid cases can be brought before SCOTUS for consideration. I'd like to see nearly all such restrictions upon the average person blasted to Hades as they should be. But we should be prepared for the pendulum to swing to the lefties, if ever they gain the upper hand on SCOTUS and the District/Appeals courts again. The ire and disrespect for the Constitution's BOR that the anti's have shown on the courts is appalling. It'll only get worse once that pendulum swings again. As it almost certainly will, at some point. I hope that the CCRKBA, CalGuns, SAF, GOA, NRA and all the rest are lighting the fires beneath a host of such cases, to get them through the system before the lefties gain more influence. I doubt the BOR could survive another couple of decades of destruction, such as what they've brought against it so far.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2edgesword

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,987 Posts
I was surprised to see Dagan McDowell, FOX Business, actually state why we have CC permits in this country at all. Permits were enacted by corrupt 'political bosses/machines' in this country to dis arm their opposition and the citizens in the community and to arm the corrupt bosses 'enforcers'! WITH THE ARMS GOES THE POWER!!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: G66enigma

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,987 Posts
Roe v wade overturned!
Just announced.
I guess this ruling, Roe, may make us VERY glad we have the 2nd Amendment!!! :) As we may need to 'defend' ourselves and others from the 'babykiller' rioters!:(
 

·
Premium Member
I carry a 9mm. Shield 1.0 or an S&W model 12-2. Mauser shooter & collector
Joined
·
10,057 Posts
The pink vagina hats will be out in full force.
 
  • Like
Reactions: towboater

·
Administrator
Joined
·
1,236 Posts
For the political side of these topics, please use the appropriate forum.
 
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
Top