[Malum Prohibitum]

Any day now, the Supreme Court will release its opinion in this case, assuming it is not leaked before then. I think everybody anticipates that "may issue" schemes will be struck down, as a fundamental right that can be denied capriciously on a whim, or to which a citizen must show a special need, is not really a "right" at all.

But I would like to hear from anybody who disagrees.

I would also like to hear what you believe the consequence will be. My prediction is that New York and Hawaii and California and every other state with Democrat majorities (like Georgia in a few more election cycles) will start enacting very strict regulations of the places where one may carry, making it nearly impossible to carry a pistol outside the home without running afoul of some regulation or another. It will be like the open carry advocates in Florida who attend a "fishing" day in a pack nervously watching the nervous police who are in turn watching them, basically leaving special carry for special events.

Imagine living in Manhattan with no car, like many in Manhattan, and having it be illegal to carry a pistol on the subway, for instance. Maybe you will carry for a walk to a park if it is close enough to your residence, but otherwise you will not carry as a part of your day to day existence. Oh, but they will probably make it illegal to carry in parks, too, so . . .

I expect these states to become like Georgia back in the bad old days before GCO when we had a public gathering law and other nonsense and folks did not dare carry openly.

On the subject of carrying openly, I expect these states to ban that manner of carrying.

I also expect something else - the federal courts to uphold these restrictions on the basis of "sensitive" locations or similar reasoning.

Those are my thoughts.

What are yours?

 

[gunsmoker]

Agreed.

I think the anti-gun States will do two things
1) as you say, they will create a huge number of off-limits locations and designate certain circumstances where you have no right to carry, or even possess a firearm in your car.

2) They will keep or make the application process expensive and burdensome to discourage people from even applying for the carry permit. It could take 12 months to get approval, because the background check may not be just a standard criminal history report, but involving you submitting the names of
several character references and investigators with the permit issuing authority will actually call or write to those persons.
And if your references do not respond to the official inquiry, your application will be delayed or denied.

 

[gunsmoker]

I Don't think any iteration of the Supreme Court or any high-level appellate court will actually follow what I believe is constitutional-- which is to stop the government from putting any significant time delay between you and your decision to exercise your right to keep and bear arms.

I think an instant background check is constitutional. But one that requires a waiting a week, A month, or a year, is unconstitutional.

In my mind a gray area with exist around three business days.

 

[45_Fan]

I expect 2-3 states to pass “emergency safety acts”, 4-5 states to say a bunch of words and do little to nothing, several somebodies on the internet to do dumb things thinking the NFA was overturned, and smart attorneys to advance challenges to the most unreasonable restrictions outside the home.

I’d expect HI or NY to pass some silly restrictions that mean one can obtain a license and carry but in some cases not at the bottom of one’s own driveway or front stairs or in elevators where others may be present. HI will have something that gets in front of the 9th circuit about 5 times before and modified or mooted before a dozen years have passed so the next challenge can bubble up. NYC will surprise but unclear if that will be terribly obtuse or far more reasonable than expected out of the gate.

Will Chicago add anything?

 

[Nemo]

Anyone expect a clarification of the scrutiny standard will be included?

Nemo

 

[Craftsman]

As most predict, I agree that the non-free states will do everything in their power to deny the ruling even exists. Their "carry permit" will be useless. People who do obtain one will be subjected to harassement and infringement of other rights. (Washington State makes you give up medical privacy in order to get a permit). I expect at least two or three round trips back to the Supreme Court before they hand down an enforcement with teeth. This is just a step, not a victory lap. My dream is a designated special master to oversee "shall issue" permits. Perhaps Alan Gura would like that job.

 

[Nemo]

Wow, Alan will be busy.

Nemo

Concealed carry applications spike 600% in Philadelphia amid crime surge: 'People are scared'

Firearm instructor Terrence Lappe said registrations for his firearm lessons have gone "through the roof" in recent years, with a majority of interest from women.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Nemo]

CNN discussion of the remaining major cases.

Nemo

Supreme Court rushes to end a term like no other

Because of a blockbuster docket, an unprecedented leak, a fraught political atmosphere and Covid, everything has changed at the Supreme Court.

www.cnn.com

 

[45_Fan]

Anyone expect a clarification of the scrutiny standard will be included?

Nemo

I’m hoping for strict but would expect a severe-intermediate definition would advance the cause.

 

[gunsmoker]

The lady governor of NY State said that the SCOTUS decision is not only wrong but reprehensible, and that it's not what people in her state want (oh, so now we put fundamental constitutional rights up for a majority vote, and you can only do what 51% of your fellow citizens approve of doing?)

She said that NY State "has just begun" stripping its citizens of their gun rights and will meet this Supreme Court decision with new restrictions, maybe banning any guns other than black powder muskets!

 

[Phil1979]

Even when NY becomes "shall issue", any licensing scheme to carry a gun in public should be shot down if onerous, such as a high cost, too many hours of training, or too short a license duration.

I believe any licensing process should not pass muster, since the Founding Fathers would have never considered it a requirement to exercise a right, if this is the new standard now.

I could accept a license to carry in "sensitive places", if not onerous to get.

 

[Nemo]

Thomas was wrong with his analysis and understanding of the meaning of the words. Per this guy anyway.

Nemo

A Federal Judge Calls Clarence Thomas’ Bluff on Gun Rights and Originalism

Reeves’ order is bracingly honest about the sorry state of Second Amendment jurisprudence today.

slate.com

 

[Craftsman]

Judge is too dumb to read the 50+ pages of historical analysis that Justice Thomas thoughtfully provided in the Bruen opinion. Or maybe too dumb to throw out any citations that don't reference founding-era law and custom. This would be a badly written resignation letter anywhere else but a Federal Lifetime appointment.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

we are not experts in what white, wealthy, and male property owners thought about firearms regulation in 1791


Kind of tells you where he is coming from.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23255743/us-v-bullock-historian-order.pdf

It's only 6 pages, more like 5 considering the caption at the beginning and white space at the end. Give it a read.

The issue is whether the Second Amendment is violated by 18 USC 922(g)(1), the ban on Martha Stewart* possessing firearms.



*Well, those convicted of a felony, like Martha Stewart.

 

[rmodel65]

Of course it violates the 2a. The prohibition on felons possessing arms is new and not a long-standing prohibition since what 1968.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

New York is Sticking to its Guns by Prohibiting Firearms in Times Square - CityLand

Times Square’s “gun-free” status remains a contentious issue in the face of legal challenges, but the City is determined to forge ahead. Earlier this summer, the United States Supreme Court struck down New York’s concealed carry permitting requirements, which has resulted in an ongoing legal...

www.citylandnyc.org

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

New York’s “Gun-Free” Stunt | City Journal

Governor Hochul and Mayor Adams penalize legal owners of firearms, while doing nothing about the real problem: illegal possession.

www.city-journal.org

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Not really on topic, but, well . . . Bruen resigns.

Superintendent says goodbye to State Police after abrupt resignation

Outgoing New York State Police Superintendent Kevin P. Bruen sent a memo to the agency's...

www.timesunion.com

 

[Phil1979]

I generally agree. But if a person unjustly and physically harmed another with any weapon to the extent of needing professional medical care, then I'm okay with a lifetime ban. They forfeited their right to keep and bear arms.

Of course it violates the 2a. The prohibition on felons possessing arms is new and not a long-standing prohibition since what 1968.