NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. v. BRUEN, SUPERINTENDENT OF NEW YORK STATE POLICE, ET AL.

SCOTUS ^ | 6/23/22 | Clarence Thomas

[1Old Pro]

Ruling in favor of guns outside the home, big win for the 2nd amendment

[Rusty0604]

“The parties nevertheless dispute whether New York’s li-
censing regime respects the constitutional right to carry
handguns publicly for self-defense. In 43 States, the gov-
ernment issues licenses to carry based on objective criteria.
But in six States, including New York, the government fur-
ther conditions issuance of a license to carry on a citizen’s
showing of some additional special need. Because the State of New York issues public-carry licenses only when an ap-
plicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we con-
clude that the State’s licensing regime violates the Consti-
tution.

New York is not alone in requiring a permit to carry a
handgun in public. But the vast majority of States—43 by
our count—are “shall issue” jurisdictions, where authorities
must issue concealed-carry licenses whenever applicants
satisfy certain threshold requirements, without granting li-
censing officials discretion to deny licenses based on a per-
ceived lack of need or suitability.1 Meanwhile, only six States and the District of Columbia have “may issue” licens-
ing laws, under which authorities have discretion to deny
concealed-carry licenses even when the applicant satisfies
the statutory criteria, usually because the applicant has not
demonstrated cause or suitability for the relevant license.”

[Rusty0604]

Sorry, I thought the conversation was about Thomas’s opinion.

[wny]

They will simply slow-walk the process. It already takes 2-6 months in small rural upstate/western NY counties....and that was pre ‘the summer of mostly peaceful protests’....

I’ve heard from friends it’s always been 6-months plus on Long Island, I imagine even longer for NYC. So all this means is that unlike before, after the 4,5,6,7+ month process they can’t turn you down.

But all they need to do is have a single bureaucrat processing ALL applications and it’ll take over a year....

[FLT-bird]

OUT-FREAKING-STANDING!

[FLT-bird]

I think all “May issue” states (and there are 8 of them) are going to have to change their laws. As we all know, may issue effectively means will not issue.

So its open carry or shall issue for concealed carry. There are no other choices.

[1Old Pro]

It already takes 2-6 months in small rural upstate/western NY counties

Around the Capital District it can be fairly quick - Rensselear County, a bit slower in Saratoga County, and like molasses in Albany and Schenectady Counties. In Saratoga County they require a permit for 1 year and then a shooting and classroom course. I like the course if voluntary, but it's mandatory.

[zeugma]

The way I read the ruling, it sounds like it goes much farther than just the New York rule. It says individuals have a constitutional right to self defense with a gun outside the home. That would seem to me to strike down pretty much every restriction or licensing scheme for concealed carry nationwide.

You'd think so, but in the wonderland that the court lives in, it is perfectly reasonable to 'license' people to carry, or have all kinds of other insane crap related to firearms. Barrett actually somes out and specifically notes in her concurrence that it does not affect such schemes.

The decision is a good start, but the court could, and should have gone a lot further than it did. Frankly, I think the court should have done so with the Heller opinion.

[zeugma]

6-3 ruling. I am shocked Roberts went with the right, but then he already had cover since it would have been 5-4. This is Roberts’s MO. He goes far left when he is the 5-4 swing vote, but when the conservatives have a 5-4 without him, then he votes with them 6-3 to give himself cover and pretend to be conservative.

+1 insightful. I've noticed the same thing.

[imardmd1]

No, if everybody must be licensed, not according to "need," but according to requirements for "training" (as for skill and judgment in driving a vehicle), or age (under adult supervision), maybe these restrictions may be implied not as infringements, but as ability on a scale applied to everyone.

The question regarding the driver licensing interchangeanility may come into play also.

If you read through this document, the issue of licensing by a state is not forbidden under the right conditions that apply to everybody and restrict only those whose use of them is recorded, predictable, and not to be allowed.

[zeugma]

It sounds like they just eliminated the need for a CCW permit for the 25 states that still required them

You'd think so. However, this is from Kavenaugh's Concurrence:

First, the Court’s decision does not prohibit States from imposing licensing requirements for carrying a handgun for self-defense. In particular, the Court’s decision does not af- fect the existing licensing regimes—known as “shall-issue” regimes—that are employed in 43 States.

It's a win, just not that big a win. Frankly I'm surprised that not a single justice mentioned the fact that half (or more) of the states have gone full-on Constitutional Carry, and have seen no adverse effects.

[zeugma]

Yeah, Alito’s concurrence was hilarious, and dead on target!

[zeugma]

Yes, I think this means a CCW issued in one state must be accepted by another.

Sadly, untrue, at least as I read it. Still, it's a win. Wish they'd gone further, but the court is not really interested in clarifying things. The multiple mention given to 'dangerous and unusual weapons will likely be used as a loophole for a lot of crap. I don't recall the opinion itself talking specifically about other state 'licensing' requirements that are 'non-discriminatory', but one of he concurrences did specifically say that such things are not touched by the opinion.

I got the impression that Thomas has been waiting a while to write this opinion. However, decisions are consensus documents, and he likely couldn't get enough on board to be really sweeping in language. He did have some really strong quotes in it though, such as "In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct."

[zeugma]

Long ago, I heard of a blue city (I forget which) where open carry became legal, due to some court decision. So the police would arrest people who openly carried guns, not for violating gun laws, but for "disturbing the peace." (Because some people were traumatized by seeing other people carrying guns.)

Houston tried that when Texas passed concealed carry initially.

[Erik Latranyi]

No, CCW reciprocity will require another case. We need to make it happen soon while we have this majority on the court.

The allowance for background checks, mental health checks and passing a training course remain in place (for those states that require it)

[ExGeeEye]

Cool.

It’s just that Heller and McDonald were on one side of the issue (IIRC) and Bruen on the other but maybe that’s not how these things are decided.

[William Tell]

So the police would arrest people who openly carried guns, not for violating gun laws, but for "disturbing the peace."

I think Wisconsin recently (1998?) added a right to keep and bear arms to its state constitution. Wisconsin residents began testing the utility of the law by openly carrying in public. The police responded by arresting them for "disorderly conduct". Cases reached the Wisconsin Supreme Court and they ruled that the simple act of openly carrying a firearm in public was NOT disorderly conduct.

(This is from memory. I hope I got this right.)

[Toughluck_freeper]

Thank you President Trump.

For giving us a conservative majority in the supreme court

[1Old Pro]

What strikes me the most from the media and the Democrat responses is once again their inability to read and comprehend and then state the facts.

Instead we get hyperbole, lies, scare tactics i.e. this has unleased a wild west atmosphere and each dispute will be another shootout at the O.K. Corral.

We need to start with honestly, until we have that this country is going to continue to be a mess. And the dishonestly is most pronounced from the media/Dems.