SCOTUS strikes down anti carry NY gun law

Joined
Aug 31, 2007
Messages
117,576
Supreme Court Strikes Down New York’s Proper Cause Requirement for Concealed Carry

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...rks-proper-cause-requirement-concealed-carry/

AWR HAWKINS 23 Jun 2022

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled 6-3 on June 23 that New York’s proper cause requirement for concealed carry permit issuance is unconstitutional.

New York State Rifle and Pistol Association (NYSRPA) v. Bruen centered on denials for permits under New York’s concealed carry permitting law. The NYSRPA filed suit claiming that one of its members was eligible for a permit but was denied because of New York’s requirement that concealed carry applicants prove why they need to carry a gun.

The case ultimately dealt with the scope of the Second Amendment — whether the right to keep and bear arms applies only in the home or outside the home as well.

When SCOTUS granted cert in the case the NYSRPA responded:

This case challenges New York’s requirement that applicants demonstrate “proper cause” to carry a firearm. New York regularly uses this requirement to deny applicants the right to carry a firearm outside of their home. The NRA believes that law-abiding citizens should not be required to prove they are in peril to receive the government’s permission to exercise this constitutionally protected right.

NRA-ILA director Jason Ouimet also commented on the suit after the Supreme Court agreed to hear it:

Under current New York law, a law-abiding resident becomes a felon the moment he or she steps outside their home with their firearm. This is a clear infringement of the Second Amendment. The NRA is grateful that the Supreme Court is tackling this critical issue. We are proud to be a part of this case, and we look forward to a future in which law-abiding Americans everywhere have the fundamental right to self-defense the way the Constitution intended.

The immediate impact of the June 23 ruling is that New York’s proper cause requirement is struck down. What is yet to be seen is how this decision will impact other states–like California and New Jersey, both of which have concealed carry issuance guidelines similar to New York’s proper cause requirement–and whether the success of NYSRPA .v Bruen leads to suits against those states as well.

The case is NYSRPA v. Bruen, No. 20-843, in the Supreme Court of the United States.
 
Last edited:
Who would have thought that the Supreme Court would make NYC a slighty better place to live with this ruling?
 
I just wish we can all live together happily, until that time, I can surely see that some people in some places would feel the need to be protected. Where I live nothing ever really happens so I really see no need for carrying a weapon. And it's not allowed here either... Doesn't stop the criminals from having them, but they tend to shoot each other for the most part.

I'm happy that the SC looks at the 2nd for what it says, not what they consider it should be today. That's encouraging. Why does that matter to me ? Well, the outlook on European stability isn't that great. At least, that's my perception.
 
Supreme Court Strikes Down New York’s Proper Cause Requirement for Concealed Carry

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...rks-proper-cause-requirement-concealed-carry/

AWR HAWKINS 23 Jun 2022

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled 6-3 on June 23 that New York’s proper cause requirement for concealed carry permit issuance is unconstitutional.

New York State Rifle and Pistol Association (NYSRPA) v. Bruen centered on denials for permits under New York’s concealed carry permitting law. The NYSRPA filed suit claiming that one of its members was eligible for a permit but was denied because of New York’s requirement that concealed carry applicants prove why they need to carry a gun.

The case ultimately dealt with the scope of the Second Amendment — whether the right to keep and bear arms applies only in the home or outside the home as well.

When SCOTUS granted cert in the case the NYSRPA responded:

This case challenges New York’s requirement that applicants demonstrate “proper cause” to carry a firearm. New York regularly uses this requirement to deny applicants the right to carry a firearm outside of their home. The NRA believes that law-abiding citizens should not be required to prove they are in peril to receive the government’s permission to exercise this constitutionally protected right.

NRA-ILA director Jason Ouimet also commented on the suit after the Supreme Court agreed to hear it:

Under current New York law, a law-abiding resident becomes a felon the moment he or she steps outside their home with their firearm. This is a clear infringement of the Second Amendment. The NRA is grateful that the Supreme Court is tackling this critical issue. We are proud to be a part of this case, and we look forward to a future in which law-abiding Americans everywhere have the fundamental right to self-defense the way the Constitution intended.

The immediate impact of the June 23 ruling is that New York’s proper cause requirement is struck down. What is yet to be seen is how this decision will impact other states–like California and New Jersey, both of which have concealed carry issuance guidelines similar to New York’s proper cause requirement–and whether the success of NYSRPA .v Bruen leads to suits against those states as well.

The case is NYSRPA v. Bruen, No. 20-843, in the Supreme Court of the United States.

What else could "keep and bear" arms mean other than the right to both "keep" them in the home and "bear" them outside the home?
 
290127499_550833903235314_7697307018649984867_n.jpg
 
Last edited:
Today: States are not free to enact such gun control laws. They violate the 14th Amendment.

Tomorrow(?): States are free to enact such abortion laws. They do not violate the 14th Amendment.

I just wish we had actual federalism. If New Yorkers want these laws, more power to them.
 
Who would have thought that the Supreme Court would make NYC a slighty better place to live with this ruling?

It's not just NYC.. it's any state or county that has "may issue" concealed carry permits.

A lot of places you have to fill out paperwork to get a concealed carry, then you have to tell them why you need it. You can say "self defense" and they can just tell you to f-off. It's completely arbitrary.

Now they will have to issue permits, also known as "shall issue". The best states don't require the permit.
 
Today: States are not free to enact such gun control laws. They violate the 14th Amendment.

Tomorrow(?): States are free to enact such abortion laws. They do not violate the 14th Amendment.

I just wish we had actual federalism. If New Yorkers want these laws, more power to them.

The Second Amendment ALWAYS applied to the states!

https://everything.explained.today/Nunn_v._Georgia/

Nunn v. Georgia explained
Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846) is a Georgia Supreme Court ruling that a state law ban on handguns was an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. This was the first gun control measure to be overturned on Second Amendment grounds.[1]

Background
In 1837, Georgia passed a law banning the sale and carry of certain types of weapons included Bowie and other types of knives, and pistols. Hawkins H. Nunn was charged and convicted for carrying a pistol in violation of the law.[2] [3] He appealed the ruling, claiming the state law was a violation of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. He did not make a claim under the Georgia constitution because Georgia, unlike many other states, did not have a similar protection of the right to bear arms within its constitution.[4] [5]

Ruling
The Nunn court ruled that while the legislature could prohibit the concealed carry of weapons, it could not prohibit the open carry of weapons. To do so would be a violation of the Second Amendment right to carry weapons for self-defense. As there was no proof that Nunn had been carrying his pistol concealed, the conviction was overturned.

Legal analysis
The court relied on guidance from other state decisions and general theories of rights to explain its decision.

Other state courts
The Nunn court referenced Bliss v. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) and State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612, 35 Am. Dec. 44 (1840). In Bliss, the defendant was charged with carrying a weapon concealed, in violation of a Kentucky statute. The Bliss court invalidated the law as a diminution of the Kentucky constitution which provided, "that the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned." The court reasoned that the right as defined has no limits and "in fact consists of nothing else but the liberty." Any restriction on the right, including the prohibition of concealed carry was a violation of the right.[6]

In contrast the court in Reid upheld a similar ban on concealed carry. The Alabama constitution read, "that every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the State." The Reid court held that the law "to suppress the evil practice of carrying weapons secretly," did not violate the Alabama constitution. While the legislature could not prevent the carrying of arms, it did retain the right "to enact laws in regard to the manner in which arms shall be borne." Because the restriction on concealed carry was not a prohibition on the right, it was within the ambit of the legislature to restrict concealed carry.[7]

Fundamental rights
The Nunn court recognized that Reid and Bliss were applying clauses in state constitutions. But, their decisions were relevant to Georgia because the state constitutional protection of the right to keep and bear arms was not a newly given right, but was a recitation of an already existent right.

The court held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protected the rights of Georgia citizens because free people have the right to self-defense. The fact that Georgia did not have a constitutional amendment did not empower the Georgia legislature to infringe on the right. The right is fundamental, and no free society could exist where the right was prohibited.[8]

The court also held that the whole people, not just militia were afforded the right to keep and bear arms. And the type of arms was not restricted only to those borne by the militia but arms of every type and description.

The court's concept of rights meant that other portions of the Bill of Rights would also apply to the States. For example, the court explained that the right to peaceably assemble, protected under the First Amendment, was applicable to both the national and state governments. The court also cited to the New York case of People vs. Goodwin, 18 John. Rep. 200 (N.Y.Sup. 1820) which applied Fifth Amendment double jeopardy prohibitions to New York state court operations. The court explained how to determine which constitutional provisions apply to the state and which applied only the federal government; the relevant question is whether the concepts in the constitution were confined only to the national government or if they could be extended to the states as well. Citing Goodwin:

Modern significance

The Nunn court's decision has continuing relevance to the ongoing debate over gun rights. The Supreme Court in its ruling in Heller v. District of Columbia said Nunn, "...perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second amendment furthered the purpose announced in the prefatory clause. ... "[9] The Nunn court concept of fundamental rights was relevant to determine whether or not the Second Amendment is a restriction only on the federal government or whether the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right that cannot be infringed by the state governments



Note the difference between the first and second amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.​

Contrast with the Second Amendment.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

Note that the first amendment says Congress shall pass no law. The prohibition of infringement of the Second amendment was NOT limited to Congress. So...what happened? The freeing of the slaves. After the U.S. Civil War there was the Cruikshank case were the KKK and a racist Democratic party militia disarmed black freeman and then lynched them. A case was brought against the killers in part for violating the freeman's constitutional rights under the first and second amendments. The U.S. Supreme Court, for the first time ever, interpreted the 2nd amendment as only applying to Congress even though the word "Congress" is NOWHERE to be found in the 2nd amendment.

https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/united-states-v-cruikshank/

The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.” This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.​

Gun control is inherently and perpetually racist and unconstitutional whether it's done at the federal level or the state level. As for abortion, find me any language about abortion in the U.S. constitution and get back with me.
 
Last edited:
What else could "keep and bear" arms mean other than the right to both "keep" them in the home and "bear" them outside the home?

Constitutional "scholars" will be happy to tell you that those words don't mean what they clearly mean.
 
Today: States are not free to enact such gun control laws. They violate the 14th Amendment.

Tomorrow(?): States are free to enact such abortion laws. They do not violate the 14th Amendment.

I just wish we had actual federalism. If New Yorkers want these laws, more power to them.

Murdering babies is not found in the Bill of Rights, nor should it be there.
Guns and self defense are.
If only we could give the babies guns with which to defend themselves.
 
Lots of other gun laws are now on the chopping block:

In addition, the Court threw out the “intermediate scrutiny” approach that appellate courts turned to. Instead, the Court ruled that the application of the Second Amendment should be the history, text, and tradition of the right to keep and bear arms.

“This a massive victory for the Second Amendment and the rights of law-abiding gun owners everywhere,” declared Dudley Brown, President of the National Association for Gun Rights. “The Second Amendment is an individual right, and no law-abiding gun owner should be denied the right to carry a firearm for personal protection while in public – and thankfully the Court has now affirmed it.”

New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen is the first major Second Amendment case the Supreme Court has taken up in over a decade. Justice Clarence Thomas issued the following opinion:

The Court has little difficulty concluding also that the plain text of the Second Amendment protects Koch’s and Nash’s proposed course of conduct—carrying handguns publicly for self-defense. Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, and the definition of “bear” naturally encompasses public carry. Moreover, the Second Amendment guarantees an “individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” id., at 592, and confrontation can surely take place outside the home.

More at: https://bigleaguepolitics.com/the-n...g-that-affirms-the-individual-right-to-carry/
 
FTR, AFAIAC the incorporation doctrine (and every other form of federal supremacy) can go kick rocks.

If you're gonna have feds at all, then the states should be the bosses of the feds, not the other way around.

But that doesn't mean I can't enjoy the spectacle of progressives' heads exploding ...


VJfQxz3.png


Here's a sampling of others (hidden to save space - see the link above for more):
 
3R11ihg.jpg
QyjiOvO.jpg
aDxjNfS.jpg
UblHQdh.jpg
94q1kGd.jpg
XYQNDif.jpg
 
Last edited:
FTR, AFAIAC the incorporation doctrine (and every other form of federal supremacy) can go kick rocks.

If the BoR doesn't apply to the states then the rights are not GOD given and liberty doesn't exist.
The states agreed to the BoR as part of the union and they can secede if they don't like it.
 
If the BoR doesn't apply to the states then the rights are not GOD given and liberty doesn't exist.

TIL that god-given rights and liberty didn't come into existence until some politicians wrote the BoR.

The states agreed to the BoR as part of the union and they can secede if they don't like it.

Or the feds can just go kick rocks, like I said, Same difference.
 
Back
Top