Long Island Shooters Forum banner
1 - 20 of 60 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
138 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
The leftists believe thus case will lead to a restriction on bare Liberty to own a gun for self defense in the home. This case is about carrying outside the home. There is a chance the blanket restrictions imposed by NY State on conceal carry for self defense alive will be struck down. Representing the aggrieved gun owners is Paul Clemente the best oral advocate on earth. Stay tuned.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/04/26/politics/supreme-court-second-amendment-case/index.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,528 Posts
The Dems will now pack the Court to make sure this case loses.
New York will try and moot this case by giving NYC premises a concealed carry license like a Sportsman which allows you to carry loaded and concealed when going to a range.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
839 Posts
Crossing fingers and toes that SCOTUS knows what the words, 'shall not be infringed' means. It's a simple sentence.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,528 Posts
This will bring concealed carry to every state if New York doesn’t remove those administrative restrictions for licensed handgun owners. I was hoping the case from California regarding high capacity magazines can be heard after. This will be a huge win, the media is really giving this case plenty of attention.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
337 Posts
This will bring concealed carry to every state if New York doesn't remove those administrative restrictions for licensed handgun owners. I was hoping the case from California regarding high capacity magazines can be heard after. This will be a huge win, the media is really giving this case plenty of attention.
Nope. That is NOT what the case is about. It it limited to the question of "must issue" or "may issue". The case is about the requirement in NY to show a "need" for a license to possess a pistol (outside the home).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,412 Posts
Nope. That is NOT what the case is about. It it limited to the question of "must issue" or "may issue". The case is about the requirement in NY to show a "need" for a license to possess a pistol (outside the home).
Actually I think the case is addressing the issue of showing a special need to carry for personal protection. Currently you have to show proper cause to carry for personal protection. "The justices announced on Monday that they will only resolve a more narrow question: "whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,528 Posts
Nope. That is NOT what the case is about. It it limited to the question of "must issue" or "may issue". The case is about the requirement in NY to show a "need" for a license to possess a pistol (outside the home).
As you already know, New York has concealed carry and at least one county in the state will issue a Full Carry without any requirements. Those administrative restrictions can be easily removed statewide. New York allows concealed carry.
Shall issue and May issue is the reason?
Many Shall issue states have stringent background checks for obtaining a CCW permit. Many people can't pass a state mandated CCW course. Will this case give every New York pistol license holder the ability to carry concealed in NYC?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
138 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
It depends how far the supreme court goes. They can strike down these draconian regulations/ laws throughout the nation just as they did with anti abortion laws in Roe v Wade when they invented the right to privacy and extending that right to abortion on demand, He there is nothing to invent. The right of law abiding citizens to carry a firearm a fundamental right under the second amendment. How can any person argue these laws are not an infringement? Stay tuned.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
138 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
The question presented is this:

New York prohibits its ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying a handgun outside the home without a license, and it denies licenses to every citizen who fails to convince the state that he or she has "proper cause" to carry a firearm. In District of Columbia v. Heller, this Court held that the Second Amendment protects "the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation," 554 U.S. 570, 592 (2008), and in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Court held that this right "is fully applicable to the States," 561 U.S. 742, 750 (2010). For more than a decade since then, numerous courts of appeals have squarely divided on this critical question: whether the Second Amendment allows the government to deprive ordinary law-abiding citizens of the right to possess and carry a handgun outside the home. This circuit split is open and acknowledged, and it is squarely presented by this petition, in which the Second Circuit affirmed the constitutionality of a New York regime that prohibits law-abiding individuals from carrying a handgun unless they first demonstrate some form of "proper cause" that distinguishes them from the body of "the people" protected by the Second Amendment. The time has come for this Court to resolve this critical constitutional impasse and reaffirm the citizens' fundamental right to carry a handgun for self-defense. 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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
839 Posts
I agree that it should be a simple matter:

1) the police are not required to help you, even if you are being targeted for death, assault, or injury.

2) you have to show 'special' risk above and beyond anyone else (meaning only the rich and famous or politically well connected gets this exemption)

3) NY state is saying by de facto that you will be a victim/dead when criminals attack you. This is especially troubling because random crime is highest in cities and towns, causing the law abiding citizen to be defenseless.

Perhaps my thinking is too simplistic, but I believe that the second amendment was written specifically to state that government is not permitted to disarm citizens. The right to self protection supersedes the constitution itself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,102 Posts
I lost all confidence in the Supreme Court when Justice Robert's failed to follow the law in upholding Obamacare as constitutional.
I lost all confidence when I learned the Supreme Court has never been a friend of ours in it's over 200 year history

even the founders spoke against the judicial system
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,412 Posts
The question presented is this:

New York prohibits its ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying a handgun outside the home without a license, and it denies licenses to every citizen who fails to convince the state that he or she has "proper cause" to carry a firearm. In District of Columbia v. Heller, this Court held that the Second Amendment protects "the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation," 554 U.S. 570, 592 (2008), and in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Court held that this right "is fully applicable to the States," 561 U.S. 742, 750 (2010). For more than a decade since then, numerous courts of appeals have squarely divided on this critical question: whether the Second Amendment allows the government to deprive ordinary law-abiding citizens of the right to possess and carry a handgun outside the home. This circuit split is open and acknowledged, and it is squarely presented by this petition, in which the Second Circuit affirmed the constitutionality of a New York regime that prohibits law-abiding individuals from carrying a handgun unless they first demonstrate some form of "proper cause" that distinguishes them from the body of "the people" protected by the Second Amendment. The time has come for this Court to resolve this critical constitutional impasse and reaffirm the citizens' fundamental right to carry a handgun for self-defense. 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.
Actually this statement isn't 100% accurate. New York State prevents ordinary citizens from carrying a firearm IN or outside the home without a license. Suffolk County only recognizes proper cause for ownership of a firearm with respect to personal protection in the home and for that you have to obtain a license. In the minds of the powers that be that right ends at the front door of your home. But the show cause requirement goes further if you want to carry a firearm outside your home for personal protection. That is the issue this lawsuit is attempting to correct.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,528 Posts
Actually this statement isn't 100% accurate. New York State prevents ordinary citizens from carrying a firearm IN or outside the home without a license. Suffolk County only recognizes proper cause for ownership of a firearm with respect to personal protection in the home and for that you have to obtain a license. In the minds of the powers that be that right ends at the front door of your home. But the show cause requirement goes further if you want to carry a firearm outside your home for personal protection. That is the issue this lawsuit is attempting to correct.
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the fall. The ruling should be big news.
 
1 - 20 of 60 Posts
Top