Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner
21 - 40 of 43 Posts

·
Lawyer and Gun Activist
Joined
·
28,312 Posts
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

No way. This is a pipe dream. The Supreme Court only granted review on the following question:

"Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment."

The Court will not touch the issue as to whether permits themselves are in infringement, but only the question of whether the states policy of requiring extraordinary circumstances and only issuing such permits to people who can show "good cause" passes constitutional muster.

I predict the court will strike down New York State's laws (or at least the current judicial interpretation of those statutes). The Court will demand that New York issue carry permits to all qualified individuals, and one "qualification" cannot be that you must face an extraordinarily and remarkably high risk of being victimized.
The Right enshrined in the second amendment is for the masses, not a select few.
 

·
Lawyer and Gun Activist
Joined
·
28,312 Posts
Permit-issuing authorities in New York have traditionally had great discretion in deciding whether somebody had a good enough reason for a carry permit. Some counties would issue the permits pretty much on request, even for personal protection, without limiting such permits to only during sporting activities and traveling to and from a site of sporting use of a handgun.

Many other counties, however, including the county I lived in, Erie County, (in western New York) had a policy that said if you give "target shooting" as a reason for wanting a gun permit you will not be allowed to buy a handgun that is not suitable for target shooting; that purchase will be disapproved. Your permit will also be visibly stamped with the restrictions saying "only valid to and from the target shooting club or practice range."

If you wanted a unrestricted carry permit, you had to you have a good enough reason.
In my case I admitted that I did not face an elevated risk of being attacked by violent criminals out on the street, but I asked for the personal protection carry privilege anyway based on the fact that I'd already been carrying concealed handguns on my person legally for years in Georgia, where I had a GFL (carry license) for over 10 years prior to moving into New York. I got my unrestricted carry license!

P.S. When my dad applied for his first New York State carry permit back in the middle 1950s, he listed hunting and target shooting as the reason. He showed authorities proof of membership in a game club and a bull's-eye shooting target team. His permit was approved without any special restrictions. That was standard practice back in the day. But 45 years later when his physical license was falling apart and his picture didn't look much like him anymore, he asked for a new license to be issued. The replacement was mailed to him promptly after he submitted a new photograph of his face. But the authorities decided to stamp it "valid for hunting and target only" in big red letters! They looked back at his old 1950s original application and decided to restrict his license to conform with the proffered reasons he gave way back then!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,205 Posts
Don't forget that NYC is essentially allowed to write their own laws and ignore carry permits issued by other jurisdictions. I predict that NY will be required to issue permits on a "shall issue" basis, but they will be location-specific (city/county) and other jurisdictions within the state will be allowed to ignore them (and not issue permits out of jurisdiction), thus buying NYC another ten years to ignore the Second Amendment.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,149 Posts
Discussion Starter · #24 ·
May 11 2021Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including July 2, 2021. The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including August 23, 2021.
May 27 2021Consent to the filing of amicus briefs received from counsel for New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al. submitted.
 

·
Man of Myth and Legend
Joined
·
14,795 Posts

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,149 Posts
Discussion Starter · #26 ·
View from the other side. With an actually decent analysis.

Should a dedicated thread on Corlett be started?

Nemo


End paragraph of link above.
From the article:

In fairness, there is one early sign that the Court may be inclined to place some limits on its decision in Corlett. Although the plaintiffs asked the Court to rule on a broad question — “whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense” — 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.”

Nevertheless, this narrower question is still broad enough to allow the Supreme Court to rewrite a decade of Second Amendment precedents, to unwind a consensus within the lower courts that permits many gun regulations to stand, and then to allow those lower courts to complete the process of dismantling other gun laws.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,149 Posts
Discussion Starter · #27 ·
The article also gives the prevalent misinterpretation of Miller that seems to be gospel now and makes me wonder whether anybody (including judges) even bothers to read the case before declaring what it held.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,149 Posts
Discussion Starter · #28 ·
Also from the article, an interesting view into the internal debates that lead to the Heller 5-4 decision.

Kennedy was powerful back in the day.

***

Shortly before his death in 2019, retired Justice John Paul Stevens revealed some of the internal deliberations behind the Supreme Court’s Heller decision. After former Justice Antonin Scalia, the author of Heller, circulated his original draft to the Court, former Justice Anthony Kennedy asked for “some important changes” to that draft.

Because Heller was a 5-4 decision, Scalia needed Kennedy’s vote to hold onto his majority. According to Stevens, it was Kennedy who requested that the opinion include language stating that Heller “should not be taken to cast doubt” on many existing gun laws.

But Kennedy retired from the Supreme Court in 2018 and was replaced by Kavanaugh. And Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who joined the dissent in Heller, died in 2020 and was replaced by Barrett.

****

That link above is to a NYTimes article that I cannot read (used up all my free peeks). Anybody who can want to pull some fair use quotes for discussion? I find this fascinating. So Scalia did not originally include the sentence about Heller not casting doubt on long standing gun regulations. (I note the article did not use the words "long standing," but called them "many existing." Very different.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,952 Posts
Nevertheless, this narrower question is still broad enough to allow the Supreme Court to rewrite a decade of Second Amendment precedents, to unwind a consensus within the lower courts that permits many gun regulations to stand, and then to allow those lower courts to complete the process of dismantling other gun laws.
Perhaps the recent spat unanimous decisions portends well for 2nd Amendment issues.
Tuesday the Supreme Court issued two more unanimous decisions in Garland v. Dai and United States v. Cooley. This follows two unanimous decisions last week. The weekly display of unanimity is notable given the calls by Democratic leaders to pack the court.
... Chief Justice John Roberts and his colleagues seem to be sending a message that the court is not as rigidly ideological as Democratic members and activists suggest.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,149 Posts
Discussion Starter · #31 ·
There has been at least one recent Second Amendment case from the US Supreme Court that was unanimous.

Caetano


The court offered three explanations to support its holding that the Second Amendment does not extend to stun guns. First, the court explained that stun guns are not protected because they “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment.” Id., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. This is inconsistent with Heller’s clear statement that the Second Amendment “extends . . . to . . . arms . . . that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” 554 U. S., at 582.


and from Alito's concurrence in which Thomas joined:

The state court repeatedly framed the question before it as whether a particular weapon was “‘in common use at the time’ of enactment of the Second Amendment.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693; see also id., at 779, 780, 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692, 693, 694. In Heller, we emphati cally rejected such a formulation. We found the argument “that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment” not merely wrong, but “bordering on the frivolous.” 554 U. S., at 582. In stead, we held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” Ibid. (emphasis added).3 It is hard to imagine language speaking more directly to the point. Yet the Supreme Judicial Court did not so much as mention it.
. . .

While stun guns were not in existence at the end of the 18th century, the same is true for the weapons most commonly used today for self-defense, namely, revolvers and semiautomatic pistols. Revolvers were virtually unknown until well into the 19th century,4 and semiautomatic pistols were not invented until near the end of that century.5 Electronic stun guns are no more exempt from the Second Amend ment’s protections, simply because they were unknown to the First Congress, than electronic communications are exempt from the First Amendment, or electronic imaging devices are exempt from the Fourth Amendment.
. . .

In any event, the Supreme Judicial Court’s assumption
that stun guns are unsuited for militia or military use is untenable. Section 131J allows law enforcement and correctional officers to carry stun guns and Tasers, pre sumably for such purposes as nonlethal crowd control. Subduing members of a mob is little different from “sup press[ing] Insurrections,” a traditional role of the militia. U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 15; see also ibid. (militia may be called forth “to execute the Laws of the Union”). Addition ally, several branches of the U. S. armed services equip troops with electrical stun weapons to “incapacitate a target without permanent injury or known side effects.” U. S. Army, Project Manager Close Combat Systems, PD Combat Munitions: Launched Electrode Stun Device (LESD), http://www.pica.army.mil/pmccs/combatmunitions/ nonlethalsys/taserx26e.html (all Internet materials as last visited Mar. 18, 2016); see U. S. Marine Corps Admin- istrative Message 560/08 (Oct. 2, 2008) (Marine Corps guidance for use of Tasers), Home News / Messages / MessagesDisplay /tabid/13286/Article/1130 24/marine-corps-training-and-use-of-human-electro-muscular incapacitation-hemi-dev.aspx; Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate, Non-Lethal Weapons (NLW) Reference Book 3 (2012) (Department of Defense report stating that “[m]ultiple Services employ” Tasers), http://dtic.mil/dtic/ tr/fulltext/u2/a565971.pdf.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clark

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,149 Posts
Discussion Starter · #32 ·
Also from Caetano's concurring opinion:

The more relevant statistic is that “[h]undreds of thou sands of Tasers and stun guns have been sold to private citizens,” who it appears may lawfully possess them in 45 States. People v. Yanna, 297 Mich. App. 137, 144, 824 N. W. 2d 241, 245 (2012) (holding Michigan stun gun ban unconstitutional); see Volokh, Nonlethal Self-Defense, (Almost Entirely) Nonlethal Weapons, and the Rights To Keep and Bear Arms and Defend Life, 62 Stan. L. Rev. 199, 244 (2009) (citing stun gun bans in seven States); Wis. Stat. §941.295 (Supp. 2015) (amended Wisconsin law permitting stun gun possession); see also Brief in Opposi tion 11 (acknowledging that “approximately 200,000 civil ians owned stun guns” as of 2009). While less popular than handguns, stun guns are widely owned and accepted as a legitimate means of self-defense across the country. Massachusetts’ categorical ban of such weapons therefore violates the Second Amendment.



I found this interesting to quote because there are hundreds of thousands of fully automatic weapons legally in private hands (indeed, more than the 200,000 cited above), and there would be plenty more if not for FOPA's enactment in 1986. I am guessing that these two would strike down FOPA's enactment of 18 USC 922(o). They don't call him "machine gun Sammy" for nothing. See Rybar (3rd Cir.) and Justice Alito's dissent, arguing at length that Congress has no authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate machine gun possession.

Here is a discussion of Alito's dissent in Rybar with prominent personalities on both sides of the debate, including ramifications for Alito's appointment to the Supreme Court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clark

·
Man of Myth and Legend
Joined
·
14,795 Posts
  • Like
Reactions: Malum Prohibitum

·
Man of Myth and Legend
Joined
·
14,795 Posts
oops
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,149 Posts
Discussion Starter · #35 ·
Amicus Brief.

Nemo


Glad Georgia joined. Surprised to learn that NY is among only 8 states. I would have thought there are a lot more for some reason. I have failed to keep up with the changes.
 

·
Man of Myth and Legend
Joined
·
14,795 Posts
25 Senators joining with their own Amicus Brief.

Nemo

 

·
Man of Myth and Legend
Joined
·
14,795 Posts
And if anyone is interested in more details on other Amici.

Interestingly, I see no Amici in support of Corlett.

Further looking shows numerous more Amici not linked thru below.

scotusblog.com is way behind on linking in all the filings.

Go to the source.

The one filed by the National African American Gun Association put an interesting new light on history.

Nemo


<----- Link to case on SCOTUS website.

NAAGA

 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,149 Posts
Discussion Starter · #38 ·
Interestingly, I see no Amici in support of Corlett.
That is remarkable. I clicked on the "Black Attorneys of Legal Aid" brief in an attempt to prove you wrong, but they are supporting Corlett, too.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,149 Posts
Discussion Starter · #40 ·
In a case before the Court for oral argument, the deadline to file an amicus brief is 7 days after the brief for the party supported. If the amicus brief is in support of multiple parties, the due date is 7 days after the last timely-filed brief of a party supported. If the amicus brief is in support of neither party, the deadline is 7 days after the time allowed for filing the petitioner’s or appellant’s brief, irrespective of when party briefs are actually filed. The Court will not entertain a motion to extend either of these deadlines. Rule 37.3(a). The 10-day notice requirement for amicus briefs at the cert stage does not apply to cases before the Court for oral argument.

 
21 - 40 of 43 Posts
Top