Sounds like SCOTUS will hear the case in the fall, whether NY residents are allowed to carry without a license for "proper cause"
www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court- ... -in-public
Supremes to hear NY carry case
-
Springfield
- Posts: 240
- Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2018 6:56 am
- Location: Orlando
I thought the specific question the SCOTUS would be addressing is if the 2nd amendment protects the ability to carry concealed outside of your house/property for self defense purposes .
From FPC
In granting the petition, the Court limited the question presented to: “Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.” In comparison, the question presented in the cert petition was: “Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.”
While it’s impossible to predict how the court will rule in NYSRPA v. Bruen, it’s clear that the outcome of this case will have a significant and wide-ranging impact on the right to keep and bear arm
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
From FPC
In granting the petition, the Court limited the question presented to: “Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.” In comparison, the question presented in the cert petition was: “Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.”
While it’s impossible to predict how the court will rule in NYSRPA v. Bruen, it’s clear that the outcome of this case will have a significant and wide-ranging impact on the right to keep and bear arm
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Plenty of time for the Kommies-in-charge to pack SCOTUS. Not that they really need to. Majority of justices are Brain Dead Zombie Libiturds, or at least they rule like they are.
Ah that's one thing about our Flame, doesn't play any favorites! Flame hates everybody!
Strap yourselves in, gentlemen. I don't see how they avoid the Second Amendment standard of review issue any longer, which is the real overarching question that needs to be addressed.
“Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.”
-
MiamiOffshore
- Posts: 282
- Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2020 1:33 am
What's the time line looking like on this?
Decision in late spring of 2022. It could be consolidated with a case out of Hawaii as well.
“Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.”
I agree with tector, I actually thought that the case from Hawaii would have been a better choice to get accomplished what we are hoping for
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
It is, so I am hoping for consolidation.
“Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.”
I'm not sure Kavanaugh and Amy Barrett can be trusted on this, but we shall see.
Looking forward to reading Alito and Thomas's opinions, no matter how it shakes out. Hopefully they don't pack the court between now and then.
Looking forward to reading Alito and Thomas's opinions, no matter how it shakes out. Hopefully they don't pack the court between now and then.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/co ... d=msedgdhp
“There is no Second Amendment issue more pressing than whether the fundamental, individual right to self-defense is confined to the home,” they argue. “While the vast majority of states have correctly affirmed the individual’s right to decide for him or herself whether to carry a handgun for self-defense, a minority of jurisdictions seem determined to control the very people and rights that the Second Amendment promises ‘shall not be infringed.’ That minority includes some of the nation’s most populous cities and states, located in circuits that have stubbornly resisted the controlling decisions of this Court in Heller and McDonald. As a result of decisions that failed to abide by this Court’s precedents, tens of millions of citizens are being deprived of individual, fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. That is untenable.”
“There is no Second Amendment issue more pressing than whether the fundamental, individual right to self-defense is confined to the home,” they argue. “While the vast majority of states have correctly affirmed the individual’s right to decide for him or herself whether to carry a handgun for self-defense, a minority of jurisdictions seem determined to control the very people and rights that the Second Amendment promises ‘shall not be infringed.’ That minority includes some of the nation’s most populous cities and states, located in circuits that have stubbornly resisted the controlling decisions of this Court in Heller and McDonald. As a result of decisions that failed to abide by this Court’s precedents, tens of millions of citizens are being deprived of individual, fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. That is untenable.”