Posted on 11/03/2021 3:46:21 PM PDT by rktman
Will “must issue” become the constitutional law of the land for states and counties requiring permits to carry firearms? The Supreme Court heard oral arguments today on that issue in reviewing a challenge to a New York law that left issuance at the discretion of officials. If Josh Gerstein’s instincts are correct — and they seem supported by the exchanges he quotes — the “bear” part of the Second Amendment’s “keep and bear arms” looks headed for significant expansion:
The Supreme Court appears inclined to wipe out a series of gun control measures that require firearm owners to show a particular, unusual need to get a permit to carry a gun outside the home.
During arguments Wednesday on New York state’s strict gun laws, the high court’s conservative majority signaled that it is likely to rule that the constitutional right to keep and bear arms precludes states from insisting that individuals show “proper cause” before being licensed to carry a firearm for self-defense.
Most significantly, the skepticism over discretionary issuance came mostly from the two justices at the center of the court these days:
Justice Brett Kavanaugh said he was troubled that New York’s system allows officials “blanket discretion” to accept or reject a request for a permit. “That’s just not how we do constitutional rights,” Kavanaugh said.
Chief Justice John Roberts expressed similar reservations.
“You don’t have to say when you’re looking for a permit to speak on a street corner that your speech is particularly important,” Roberts said. “The idea you need a license to exercise the right, I think, is unusual in the context of the Bill of Rights.”
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Is this the Roberts Groundhog Day case I.e. once per year he comes out of his rathole and remembers that he’s supposed to be a conservative?
The mere fact we’re even discussing this issue shows how far we’ve drifted from original intent.
There were cases out in the 9th District years back about this. The 9th were extremely legally clever, essentially tying up both the discretionary permit question and the open carry question by saying that the USSC never expressly permitted or banned either form of carry. So the cases got stuck. Intentionally.
The USSC needs to rule to answer the questions.
I don’t trust Roberts.
He was talking sensibly prior to his Obamafellation rewriting of law pretty much “overnight” switcheroo.
He makes a fair number of conservative decisions - just not on the “big” cases.
I listened to it.
Don’t get your hopes up...
“The Supreme Court appears inclined to wipe out a series of gun control measures that require firearm owners to show a particular, unusual need to get a permit to carry a gun outside the home.”
Correction: the permit is for _ownership_ AND carry. It does not differentiate between the two.
Even if marked with a restriction, the permit allows carry. Issuing judge may revoke the permit at any time for any reason, and he spells out a reason in the form of a restriction. Carry outside the restriction will not be prosecuted (it’s legal), but the judge can revoke it nonetheless.
The “bear” part of the 2nd Amendment is not set to see an expansion. It is set to finally have to START being respected in blue states. Looks like some of their unconstitutional infringement of American’s constitutional rights will be stopped. Finally. Years and years after this should have happened.
Exactly correct.
If this happens, I don’t think they’re expanding carry rights but removing the unconstitutional laws trying to restrict carry rights.
I did as well, cautiously optimistic as the questioning was surprisingly on point.
amend comment, “surprisingly” replaced with refreshingly.
Exactly right!
Spot on!
Now repeal the Lautenburg Amendment.
So much discussion about population density determining if a right should exist or not. The judges dragged in the other amendments and constitutional rights as to apply to this population density interpretation for a right to exist or not. Scathing logic.
bkmk
I can’t wait for ‘shall issue’ to get to California. I don’t live there anymore, but this will drive moonbats crazy.
Texas Congressman Chip Roy very clear in his explanation of the specific reason why the 2nd amendment exists. The original intent is so you can defend yourself against tyranny as specifically provided for in the 2nd amendment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-Hiy4ouOWE
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.