It's a good ruling and a good day for gun owners in these may issue states.

Should gun owners in those states expect their governments to throw up other barriers to carry, absolutely, but they should expect that anyway considering the past actions of their politicians.

2A Foundations press release indicates they fully expect some roadblocks to be put up by governments in NY. The main one being restrictions on carry locations IE declaration of safe spaces that make carry difficult. Places such as schools, church, hospitals, government buildings, sporting events to name a few, and those are generally off limits in many Shall Issue states anyway.

2AF stated they are watching to see if any of these roadblocks to carry are put up.

For now though, we should let them enjoy the victory it's well deserved.

quote:

Originally posted by Ryanp225:

quote:

Originally posted by BurtonRW:

quote:

Originally posted by Ryanp225:
I don't think we should be celebrating the crumbs they kick in our direction after feasting.

How exactly is this a mere crumb? What would it take from SCOTUS to make you happy?

Just curious.

-Rob

The abolition of all gun laws and prosecution of anyone who pushed gun control legislation.

I'm glad the movement is more grounded in reality than this. Granted, what you stated is the overall goal, but we'd never get any wins if this was all we'd accept.

I remember Heller and MacDonald. This is another huge win.

Alito's response to Breyer's dissent.

This opinion is very interesting (and good, I think) because it rejects applying intermediate scrutiny analysis (or any other degree of balancing tests) to 2d Amendment questions. No means-ends test can be used. The Court said that the 2 Amendment already did the weighing of the competing interests, and it is the arbiter of the balancing. Therefore, it the historical understanding of the contours of the right that matter. This is good, in my view, because it makes it harder for modern sensibilities to matter. In other words, we have to do what they did back when the Constitution was written. (I have used some legal/con-law shorthand here, if you want to know more, Google.)

It proposes a different analysis altogether. This is the test when analyzing a proposed limit:

1) Does the 2d Amendment's plain text cover the questioned conduct?

2) If yes, is the proposed limit consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation?

Presumably this will allow the government to prohibit ownership of weapons of mass destruction - cannons, nukes. Where the line is will take many more cases, and probably decades.

What is good news is that the line prohibits "may issue" carry permits.

The dissents are fun, but what I described above is the meat. What is the test? How do you apply it?

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
OHHHH NOES!!! WOE IS USSSSS!!!

OMG….THE BLOOD WILL RUN IN THE STREETS!

-Every Leftist/Democrat today upon hearing about the NY SCOTUS decision

LOL

They said the same thing when they passed conceal carry in Florida many years ago, and it never happened.
Florida has over 2,000,000 permit holders as of 2019 records and I am going to say after the pandemic we are probably approaching more like 3,000,000.
That is more than 10% of our population.
It still has not happened.

Today is a good day for those who are trapped in states with governments who do not understand "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." That of witch is guaranteed by or constitutional rights under the 2nd amendment.

Remember this day the next time some reflexive pussy insists that "it'll never happen!!!" - and then insist they prove that what they say is true with hard, objective evidence.

There will always be those who whine. If all they ever do is whine, then you might as well ignore them since paying attention to them is demonstrably (see Bruen) a waste of time.

BTW, has anyone else noticed that this eliminates a favorite line of legislative and regulatory attack for gun banners and wokists in general? The Supreme Court has just engraved the principle in stone that Americans have a right to self-defense outside the home. I can still remember that case in North Carolina where the DA tried to prosecute a man for lawfully defending himself from what she admitted was an imminent deadly threat in his own home because she "just doesn't like guns and doesn't think anyone should own one".

More than just the direct effect of this ruling, I think this signals that the SCOTUS is willing to strongly enforce the 2nd Amendment.

I hope all the usual, and maybe even unusual, suspects are filing a lot of lawsuits challenging all aspects of gun control, so they can start percolating up the judicial food chain to the supremes.

My take on where our current SCOTUS stands is that it seems they have a slightly firmer grasp on what is and is not within "the states" rights. And that's a very good thing.

It's not just about the 2nd amendment, it pushes the 10th amendment to the fore as well.

^^^ Oh, I'm already wondering how this will affect what legislation actually comes out of the US Senate on the basis of the "compromise framework" we've heard so much about, too.

What about full faith and credit. Is my FL CCW good in all other states now, like my driver license ?

Short of making the entire country constitutional carry , which 25 states now are, this is a great win.

Having suffered in CA for decades I am very familiar with their capricious application of their may issue law. The main problem was no uniform state law and local sheriff discretion in issuing In liberal Bay Area counties it was next to impossible to get a CCW unless the sheriff was your pal, your name was Dianne Feinstein or you made a generous contribution to his re election ampaigb or you were personal security for a dot.com executive. But in some cases just a few miles away in a different county that sheriff would hand them out to anybody who wanted one and met the min state standard. At least one sheriff and some of her lieutenants in Santa Clara is under indictment for her corruption that this discrimination led to

Likely nothing.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
^^^ Oh, I'm already wondering how this will affect what legislation actually comes out of the US Senate on the basis of the "compromise framework" we've heard so much about, too.

That'll likely take another case on that subject.

quote:

Originally posted by ElToro:
What about full faith and credit. Is my FL CCW good in all other states now, like my driver license ?

Short of making the entire country constitutional carry , which 25 states now are, this is a great win.

Having suffered in CA for decades I am very familiar with their capricious application of their may issue law. The main problem was no uniform state law and local sheriff discretion in issuing In liberal Bay Area counties it was next to impossible to get a CCW unless the sheriff was your pal, your name was Dianne Feinstein or you made a generous contribution to his re election ampaigb or you were personal security for a dot.com executive. But in some cases just a few miles away in a different county that sheriff would hand them out to anybody who wanted one and met the min state standard. At least one sheriff and some of her lieutenants in Santa Clara is under indictment for her corruption that this discrimination led to

quote:

Originally posted by ElToro:
Having suffered in CA for decades I am very familiar with their capricious application of their may issue law. The main problem was no uniform state law and local sheriff discretion in issuing In liberal Bay Area counties it was next to impossible to get a CCW unless the sheriff was your pal, your name was Dianne Feinstein or you made a generous contribution to his re election ampaigb or you were personal security for a dot.com executive. But in some cases just a few miles away in a different county that sheriff would hand them out to anybody who wanted one and met the min state standard. At least one sheriff and some of her lieutenants in Santa Clara is under indictment for her corruption that this discrimination led to

This is a good point. I'm in Placer County and can get a CCW fairly easy. Neighboring Sacramento County used to be near impossible for a CCW. But now the outgoing sheriff approves CCW fairly easy as well. Other neighboring counties are pretty straightforward with minimal training hours. Just west of Sacramento County is Yolo county where CCW are impossible to get. I'd imagine Solano, Napa, Contra Costa et al are impossible to get. It makes no sense.

I guess I can go ahead and apply in San Diego County now, and just leave the "good cause" section blank--or better yet, cite New York Rifle and Pistol Club ruling.

I'm going to ask my brother and father in NJ to file the application and see how it goes. Since "Lack of Justifiable Need" is no longer an acceptable reason for denial, I don't see why else the application would be denied.

Constutional Carry is extant (and always has been) is the gist of the ruling. The parchment is your permission slip.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
I'm going to ask my brother and father in NJ to file the application and see how it goes. Since "Lack of Justifiable Need" is no longer an acceptable reason for denial, I don't see why else the application would be denied.
...snip

I see Other (specify) as the next box they check. And reason being something made up that their DA comes up with as an excuse. And that will need to be litigated.

quote:

Alito's response to Breyer's dissent.

It was glorious!

quote:

Originally posted by stoic-one:
My take on where our current SCOTUS stands is that it seems they have a slightly firmer grasp on what is and is not within "the states" rights. And that's a very good thing.

It's not just about the 2nd amendment, it pushes the 10th amendment to the fore as well.

This decision does not implicate the 10th amendment.