Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > us.talk.constitution > #243

Supreme Court to weigh New York's limit on carrying a handgun

Cross-posted to 6 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/sep/20/supreme-court-weigh-new-
yorks-limit-carrying-handg/

The Supreme Court will grapple with the right to bear arms outside the 
home during the upcoming term in a case court watchers are calling 
significant because it’s been more than a decade since the justices 
weighed the limits of the Second Amendment.

Democrats are concerned the 6-3 conservative majority on the high court 
will curtail the government’s ability to impose regulations and 
requirements on gun ownership.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s presence on the bench — she’s one of the three 
Supreme Court picks former President Donald Trump made during his one term 
in office — especially worries progressives because of a pro-gun opinion 
she wrote while serving as a judge on the U.S. Circuit Court for the 
Seventh Circuit.

“Gun rights advocates are hoping that her addition will make five justices 
who are more willing to take a more active role and start striking down 
what most people consider gun safety rules,” said Elliot Mincberg, senior 
fellow with People for the American Way.

While on the 7th Circuit, Justice Barrett authored a dissent, disagreeing 
with her colleagues over bans on convicted felons possessing firearms.

In the case, a nonviolent felon challenged the restriction on Second 
Amendment grounds. Justice Barrett’s position was that legislators have an 
interest in stripping violent felons from owning guns — not nonviolent 
felons.

Her dissent was lauded by gun rights’ supporters.

But in the New York case, the justices will consider New York’s scheme on 
granting a license to carry to applicants.

Two men and the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association are 
challenging the state’s law requiring anyone who wants to carry a handgun 
outside the home to apply for a license and show “proper cause” for the 
need to carry the gun.

Robert Nash was denied his license despite pointing to a string of 
robberies in his neighborhood and verifying that he had taken an “advanced 
firearm training course.” 

Brendan Koch, similarly, applied for a license, noting his “extensive 
experience” with handling firearms in a safe manner.

But New York officials denied both men their licenses, saying they did not 
show a “proper cause” for carrying a gun in self-defense.

The men and the New York gun rights group argue courts have split rulings 
over a state’s discretion in denying the right to keep and bear arms 
outside the house.

“Despite the wealth of authority confirming that the Second Amendment 
guarantees the people’s right to keep and bear arms for self-defense 
outside the home, several courts of appeals continue to resist that 
conclusion, leaving the law in a state of chaos and the fundamental right 
to carry a firearm dependent on where one lives,” they argued in court 
papers.

But the state of New York contends the Second Amendment right is not 
unlimited and that the state has had laws regulating the carrying of 
firearms in public since 1913. They said it’s not impossible to meet the 
“proper cause” requirement.

?“This flexible standard, which numerous New York residents have 
successfully satisfied, generally requires a showing that the applicant 
has a nonspeculative need for self-defense,” the state’s court filing 
read.

The lower courts ruled for New York officials, upholding the state’s 
licensing scheme. But the men took the case to the high court and at least 
four of the justices voted to hear the legal conflict, announcing in April 
they would review the case.

Lawyers for both sides will present oral arguments in person before the 
justices on Nov. 3.

A decision is expected by the end of June next year. The case is New York 
State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Kevin P. Bruen, superintendent of New 
York State Police.

Carrie Severino, chief counsel for the Judicial Crisis Network, said 
strict licensing schemes for carrying a gun outside the house are a 
problem across the country — not just in New York.

“It really has to do with the overlap of the open carry and closed carry 
laws that work together to make it impossible for individuals to have a 
gun in any sense outside their home,” she said. “That is something that is 
going to have an impact much further than New York.”

But she views the conservative majority on the high court as encouraging, 
saying there are justices who will protect constitutional rights.

It’s been about a decade since the justices grappled with the limits of 
the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the high court 
ruled 5-4 that it was unlawful for D.C. officials to restrict the 
possession of firearms inside the home.

At the time, the makeup of the high court was much different. Five of the 
justices who took part in considering the Heller case are no longer on the 
bench.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Samuel 
A. Alito Jr. and Justice Stephen G. Breyer were all on the court at that 
time — and they still remain on the bench. All but Justice Breyer ruled 
against the District of Columbia’s restriction.

Daniel Goldberg, legal director for the Alliance for Justice, said it’s 
“deeply concerning” that the new 6-3 conservative majority with Mr. 
Trump’s three appointments will now weigh the right to carry firearms 
outside the home.

“President Trump — backed by the NRA — made clear that one of his litmus 
tests was justices that would turn back the clock when it came to the 
ability of the state and local governments to protect citizens from gun 
violence,” Mr. Goldberg said.

“I hope I am wrong, but I think these justices — the ultraconservative 
justices on the court — are on the court with the backing of the NRA, and 
I think are teed up to handcuff the ability of local officials to keep 
their citizens safe,” he added.

Comments:

White Lightning
22m
"Limit?" New Yorkers need to carry as many handguns as they can.

AwakeNow
6h
In New York, if you want to carry in more places, you have to own more 
homes.

Next year, ownership will be re-defined to exclude bank-ownership (aka 
Mortgages).

If you call this harassment, you will be canceled and audited. Power to 
the people.

stosh
Sep 20
Democrats are concerned the 6-3 conservative majority on the high court 
will curtail the government’s ability to impose regulations and 
requirements on gun ownership.


RBG's legacy.

Scott C Bailey
Sep 20
I find it hard to feel safe from gun violence, when criminals are the only 
ones with guns!!!

1



-- 
"LOCKDOWN", left-wing COVID fearmongering.  95% of COVID infections 
recover with no after effects.

No collusion - Special Counsel Robert Swan Mueller III, March 2019.  
Officially made Nancy Pelosi a two-time impeachment loser.

Donald J. Trump, cheated out of a second term by fraudulent "mail-in" 
ballots.  Report voter fraud: sf.nancy@mail.house.gov

Thank you for cleaning up the disaster of the 2008-2017 Obama / Biden 
fiasco, President Trump.  

Under Barack Obama's leadership, the United States of America became the 
The World According To Garp.  Obama sold out heterosexuals for Hollywood 
queer liberal democrat donors.

President Trump boosted the economy, reduced illegal invasions, appointed 
dozens of judges and three SCOTUS justices.

Back to us.talk.constitution | Previous | Next | Find similar

Thread

Supreme Court to weigh New York's limit on carrying a handgun "Leroy N. Soetoro" <democrat-criminals@mail.house.gov> - 2021-09-24 18:58 +0000

csiph-web