I would imagine if it goes our way, the left will hold it up as proof more justices are needed. They wouldn't make a good case for that but they'd do it loudly.

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:
Would this case be an opportunity to attach strict scrutiny to the right to carry?

Since it involves a fundamental right, the court is likely to use the Strict Scrutiny test which means NYC must show that they are using the least restrictive and narrowly tailored means to achieve a compelling government interest. I don't think NYC has shown that and for that matter, it also appears that their laws would also fail an intermediate scrutiny test which mandates an important government interest is being furthere by methods that are substantially related to that interest.

NYC will cite public safety as the overriding concern since that's all they have but the laws levied against gun owners aren't substantially related to safety of the public, at least not how I read the laws that are being challenged.

quote:

Originally posted by Flash-LB:
I have faith this will go the right way, either 5-4 or 6-3.

I agree. Fingers crossed.

I'm with the positive thinkers here.

quote:

Originally posted by 6guns:
I'm with the positive thinkers here.

You can't do that! You're a conservative!

Seriously, conservatives are the most cynical bunch on the planet. If a conservative pessimist said it can't get worse than this. The conservative optimist would say, oh yes it can!

My crystal ball is broken, and I can’t find any tea leaves, so I won’t begin to predict. I’ll just hope for the best.

There's two conservatives, four liberals, and three wildcards. I don't like the odds.

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:Would this case be an opportunity to attach strict scrutiny to the right to carry?

Maybe. The lower courts have cobbled together a two-tier system whereby restrictions that go to the "core" of the second amendment, which they construe as the right to defend one's home, are subject to strict scrutiny and restrictions that reach only the periphery, like concealed carry outside the home, are subject to intermediate scrutiny.

The most limited favorable ruling I can think of would hold that a need-based approach to issuing carry permits fails to pass even intermediate scrutiny, thereby making the entire nation "shall issue." They could do this and not reach whether strict scrutiny ought to apply to carry outside the home.

A more sweeping ruling would hold that the right to keep a gun in the home and the right to carry it outside them home for protection are both "core" rights protected by the second amendment and, therefore, restrictions on either are subject to strict scrutiny.

There's certainly middle ground between the two but my guess is it will be the first or something close to it. Even if the majority thinks the second ruling is more correct, they are going to want to warm the water up slowly rather than jump right into it to, among other things, keep the "pack the court' folks on the fringes.

I'm going to go optimist on this one.

This is a very narrow case. The court has been gradually expanding the 2A's scope with Heller and McDonald.

Heller found the right to keep and bear arms for all lawful purposes was NOT connected to service in a militia. I know some folks are pissed that Heller contains the words "in the home" but that is an artifact of the case which was over the power of Washington DC to require that hand guns "in the home" be disassembled and locked, and is not a key holding of the case.

McDonald then "incorporated" the Heller ruling to the 50 states through the 14th Amendment. Because Heller was a DC case, and DC is not a state, it was possible that Heller was only intended to limit the federal government. The court made it clear, through incorporation, that the 2A applied to the states also. This means, that while states may regulate gun ownership, carry, and use, they may not do more stringent regulation than the 2A allows. Incorporation means that the Court is moving in the direction of considering the 2A a fundamental right, on par with speech.

Thus, this case is an opportunity to further chip away at state interference in the 2A. This is a straight up case about whether or not a state can use bureaucratic inertia, expense and meaningless "process" to interfere or delay the exercise of a constitutionally protected right.

I'm hoping for strict scrutiny.

This case originated in Rensselaer county which is located 2 hours North of Westchester county so it’s not about NYC concealed carry.

I'm optimistic. Either way, it will be historic.

I hope you’re right but given how quickly they hung President Trump out to dry at every turn I don’t have much faith in the thugs in robes to do what they swore to do.

From the NRA ILA

Supreme Court Grants Cert in Second Amendment Concealed Carry Case

MONDAY, APRIL 26, 2021

Today the U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear an NRA-backed case challenging New York’s restrictive concealed-carry-licensing regime. This sets the stage for the Supreme Court to affirm what most states already hold as true, that there is an individual right to self-defense outside of the home.

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.

Speaking on the Court’s decision, Jason Ouimet, Executive Director of NRA-ILA said, “The Court rarely takes Second Amendment cases. Now it’s decided to hear one of the most critical Second Amendment issues. We’re confident that the Court will tell New York and the other states that our Second Amendment right to defend ourselves is fundamental, and doesn’t vanish when we leave our homes.”

In addition to ruling on this statute, this case will give the Supreme Court the opportunity to clarify the precedent that it has created surrounding the Second Amendment. It has been over a decade since the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a handgun in the home for self-defense in District of Columbia v. Heller. In 2010, the Court also ruled that the Second Amendment is a fundamental right that applies to the states in McDonald v. City of Chicago.

It is hard to overstate how important this case is. The decision will affect the laws in many states that currently restrict carrying a firearm outside of the home. NRA-ILA is working hard to defend your constitutional rights and is prepared to argue this case in order to protect the rights of Americans everywhere.

The case is called New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen.

https://www.nraila.org/article...m_campaign=ila_alert

From SAF

Mandatory Linky Thing

SAF HAILS HIGH COURT ACCEPTANCE OF NEW YORK SECOND AMENDMENT CASE
The Second Amendment Foundation today is hailing the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a Second Amendment right-to-carry case challenging New York State’s restrictive gun control law, declaring that a favorable ruling in this case will almost certainly impact challenges to similar laws in other states, which SAF and others are contesting.

The case is known as NY State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett. It is the first time in more than a decade the high court has accepted a Second Amendment case for review since the 2010 case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, which was a SAF case decided in June 2010.

“This case was made possible by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Supreme Court victory in McDonald v. City of Chicago that incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “SAF’s victory in that case built the foundation for this and other lawsuits against states and localities to be heard by the Supreme Court to protect and expand gun rights, and we are proud of that.”

Gottlieb said it is certain the current makeup of the high court has opened this important door. With the addition last year of Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett to fill the vacancy created by the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the court now has a majority of constitutional jurists who will no longer treat the Second Amendment as “a constitutional orphan,” as once observed by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas.

“The Second Amendment protects an individual right to not only keep arms, but to bear them,” Gottlieb observed. “SAF has several right-to-carry cases filed which include challenges to restrictive laws in New Jersey, Maryland and New York City. A favorable ruling in this case will almost certainly impact those and other cases.

“The entire gun rights community has waited for many years for this news,” he added. “A right that exists only in one’s home is not a right at all. We do not limit the right of free speech, or freedom of the press, or the practice of one’s religion, or the right to legal counsel just to someone’s residence. And ultimately, that’s what we’re talking about, constitutionally-protected fundamental rights.”

quote:

Originally posted by Ripley:
I would imagine if it goes our way, the left will hold it up as proof more justices are needed. They wouldn't make a good case for that but they'd do it loudly.

Boy, and they call me a "little ray of sunshine."

So does this need to be ruled on by the end of the term in June?

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

I would imagine if it goes our way, the left will hold it up as proof more justices are needed. They wouldn't make a good case for that but they'd do it loudly.

It depends on the basis for the ruling and how broad it is, but that is definitely a concern if the Court reaches as far as some want it too (in either direction).

It's frustrating that the Court has to consider the political ramifications of its decisions but the framers built that into the Constitution as part of the "checks and balances" that are critical to dividing power among the three co-equal branches. The judicial branch does not have the ability to enforce its rulings without cooperation from the other branches, and the other branches can change its composition or restrict the Court's jurisdiction if they don't like how it's behaving, all of which is designed to keep the Court from acting too radically.

This is a tough balance to strike, especially now that the Court has very contentious political issues foisted on it by the inaction of the other branches or where it has decided to wade into areas that the Constitution doesn't address (abortion being the most obvious example of the latter). It is easy to be critical of the Chief Justice for trying to hold the various factions together but, for better or worse, the framers decided that should be part of his job.

SCOTUS has been returning a number of cases involving the 2AM and abortion; basically Roberts using everything at his disposal to avoid being apart of the landscape. This will be interesting and could be as pivotal as Heller is.

Does anyone have a good link describing the procedural posture of the case, and the reasons why the Supremes have granted cert?

Those things are what you need to know to speak intelligently about where this case may go.

I don't mean a source with a stake in the outcome. I mean something describing the legal lay of this land.

I found one: https://www.scotusblog.com/cas...ation-inc-v-corlett/

quote:

Originally posted by 12GA:
This case originated in Rensselaer county which is located 2 hours North of Westchester county so it’s not about NYC concealed carry.

I thought that each county judge (sheriff?) set rules for issuing permits. Is it correct that Rensselaer County is "no issue?"