[Malum Prohibitum]

MISSOURI AG AND ARIZONA AG LEAD 23 STATE AMICUS BRIEF CHALLENGING SUBJECTIVE-ISSUE FIREARM PERMITTING IN SUPREME COURT CASE

​

The safety advantage of carrying a firearm is even more pronounced for women: Women are 2.5 times more likely to suffer a serious injury if they offer no resistance to a criminal attacker (as compared to women who resist with a gun), and 4 times more likely to suffer injury if they resist without a gun."​

Georgia joined it.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Apparently the National Association of Chiefs of Police is finally on the right side of this issue.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...ef of LE and firearms rights groups FINAL.pdf

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/new-york-state-rifle-pistol-association-inc-v-corlett/

 

[Nemo]

Well written Petition for Certiorari. Worth the read.

Nemo

 

[Craftsman]

SCOTUS has granted cert. Case to be heard on the fall docket.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Corlett - SCOTUSblog

 

[Enfield1C]

Not totally up to date on the case, but Looserounds is making the claim that "SCOTUS is about to rule you have no right to firearms outside of your home".

SCOTUS is about to rule you have no right to firearms outside of your home

20-843 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE, ET AL. V. CORLETT, KEITH M., ET AL.The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited tothe following question: Whether the State’s denial ofpetitioners&#82…

looserounds.com

Lovely picture of CJ John Roberts but no text to back up the claim.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

SCOTUS has granted cert. Case to be heard on the fall docket.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Corlett - SCOTUSblog

Interesting. This is clearly an "outside the home" carrying a pistol question and whether the government can require "proper cause" for permission to exercise this constitutional right outside the home.

In particular, these courts have ruled that an applicant seeking a license to carry a handgun for self- defense “must ‘demonstrate a special need for self- protection distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession.’” Id. (quoting Klenosky v. N.Y. City Police Dep’t, 428 N.Y.S.2d 256, 257 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980)). Thus, “‘[a] generalized desire to carry a concealed weapon to protect one’s person and property does not constitute “proper cause.”’ Id. Good, even impeccable, moral character plus a simple desire to exercise a fundamental right is, according to these courts, not sufficient. Nor is living or being employed in a “high crime area.” Id. at 86-87 (citations omitted) (quoting In re O’Connor, 585 N.Y.S.2d 1000, 1003 (N.Y. Cty. Ct. 1992), and Martinek v. Kerik, 743 N.Y.S.2d 80, 81 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)). Instead, it is only by demonstrating that he or she is “special” (i.e., not a typical law-abiding citizen) and by showing an atypical reason for wanting to carry a handgun for self-defense that an individual applicant can hope to satisfy New York’s “proper cause” test. As a practical matter, New York’s insistence upon something atypical precludes typical New Yorkers from carrying their handguns for self-defense.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Not totally up to date on the case, but Looserounds is making the claim that "SCOTUS is about to rule you have no right to firearms outside of your home".

SCOTUS is about to rule you have no right to firearms outside of your home

20-843 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE, ET AL. V. CORLETT, KEITH M., ET AL.The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited tothe following question: Whether the State’s denial ofpetitioners&#82…

looserounds.com

Lovely picture of CJ John Roberts but no text to back up the claim.

Quite a headline, but it leaves me scratching my head. Looking around, I don't see the author having any deep thoughts or analysis about much of anything.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

This is exciting.

I don't see a way to punt now that cert has been granted. There is no way NY will moot the case at the behest of gun control groups, like the last time around (NYC).

This case seems to squarely address the issue that has been lurking out there for 13 years now.

 

[Craftsman]

This is exciting.

I don't see a way to punt now that cert has been granted. There is no way NY will moot the case at the behest of gun control groups, like the last time around (NYC).

This case seems to squarely address the issue that has been lurking out there for 13 years now.

Pretty much my thought. I wonder if they were waiting for the Ninth to rule on Young v. Hawaii so that the various major circuits had a chance to weigh in. Definitely a circuit split on this issue, heck a whole country split. This is going to be as epic as Heller, hopefully for the same reasons. Is it too much to hope that Justice Thomas gets to write the majority opinion?

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Is it too much to hope that Justice Thomas gets to write the majority opinion?

That would be awesome.



Unfortunately, I expect a very limited and narrow opinion, with plenty of wiggle room for future district and appellate court decisions to go wrong for many more years in the future . . .

On its face, this resolves only the "proper cause" for licensing issue. I doubt it is going to open the door to, for example, letting you carry while visiting New York or Illinois or California or Oregon or Puerto Rico or US Virgin Islands or Hawaii or Washington or Nevada or Minnesota or Connecticut or New Jersey or Massachusetts or . . .

 

[Craftsman]

That would be awesome.



Unfortunately, I expect a very limited and narrow opinion, with plenty of wiggle room for future district and appellate court decisions to go wrong for many more years in the future . . .

On its face, this resolves only the "proper cause" for licensing issue. I doubt it is going to open the door to, for example, letting you carry while visiting New York or Illinois or California or Oregon or Puerto Rico or US Virgin Islands or Hawaii or Washington or Nevada or Minnesota or Connecticut or New Jersey or Massachusetts or . . .

I'll take any progress in the right direction. It takes a lot for the leftist justices to actually read and understand the Constitution.

 

[OWM]

I'm no lawyer so correct me if worded wrong but I hope the Court rules on the merits of the case and what the Constitution provides as guidance and not the wave of progressiveness sweeping the Country.

 

[phantoms]

I'm no lawyer so correct me if worded wrong but I hope the Court rules on the merits of the case and what the Constitution provides as guidance and not the wave of progressiveness sweeping the Country.

My thought exactly. Too often the courts in our Country have an outcome they want and then work towards it rather than staying nuetral and ruling based on what the Constitution and laws say. A judge with an agenda is a terrible thing.

 

[Craftsman]

Eugene Volokh has an interesting take. He noticed the subtle reframing of the question by SCOTUS:
Making Sense of the Limited Cert Grant in NYS Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett – Reason.com

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Eugene Volokh has an interesting take. He noticed the subtle reframing of the question by SCOTUS:
Making Sense of the Limited Cert Grant in NYS Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett – Reason.com

So the court is going even narrower than the question as framed. "I see this slippery change as a way for the Court to issue a very, very narrow decision that will leave the issue unsettled."

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

"I am nervous this QP is setting up a punt: a remand to consider whether permitting open carry would be consistent with the Second Amendment. Specifically, can New York prohibit conceal carry if it permits open carry? And by the time the case returns, there will be 17 Justices and the Court can deny review."

 

[Nemo]

If this comes out proper (as I believe) it will basically grant whats considered Constitutional Carry, more accurately no permit required. But felony conviction and some other limits make carry unlawful. I suspect it will be more of a shall issue based on limited requirements aka, training class and background check.

Nemo

 

[Craftsman]

Looking forward to oral arguments. That should be interesting, especially since Justice Thomas no longer defers to Justice Scalia's questions.

 

[OWM]

If this comes out proper (as I believe) it will basically grant whats considered Constitutional Carry, more accurately no permit required. But felony conviction and some other limits make carry unlawful. I suspect it will be more of a shall issue based on limited requirements aka, training class and background check.

Nemo

I pray you are right on this Nemo. What concerns me is that we have a conservative advantage in the Court in theory only. We could very well end up eventually with guns in our homes only and no where else.