Anyone else listening to to SCTOUS arguments re: NY Gun Law?

Tim

Tim

Checked Out
Staff member
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Vendor
Multi-Factor Enabled
Joined
Dec 17, 2016
Messages
16,583
Location
A Glass Cage of Emotion
Rating - 100%
85   0   0
listening now, interesting.

Kagan is now leading the questioning re: where the line is re: valid regulation.
 
missed it!

heard last few sentences.

looks like they release the audio on Friday so I will try to listen to it then.
 
This is great!

New York’s solicitor general Barbara Underwood, in an apparent effort to underscore the reasonableness of the state’s licensing regime, said unrestricted concealed carry is more readily available in rural areas than cities.

But she faced pushback from Chief Justice John Roberts over what he saw as a logical inconsistency in her argument concerning self-defense.

“How many muggings take place in the forest?” asked Roberts, who appeared more receptive to the argument advanced by the gun-license applicants.

Justice Samuel Alito, one of the court’s most conservative justices, pressed a similar point.

“How many illegal guns were seized by the New York Police Department last year? Do you have any idea?” he asked Underwood, who said the number was likely substantial. “All these people with illegal guns, they're on the subway, they’re walking around the streets. But the ordinary, hard-working, law-abiding people I mentioned, no, they can't be armed?”
 
Jmoser said:
This seems so reasonable, doesnt it?

“At the end of the day, I think what it means to give somebody a constitutional right is that they don't have to satisfy a government official that they have a really good need to exercise it or they face atypical risks”
Click to expand...
That's kinda the problem not the solution. Government doesn't give rights. We're born with them. Government can either work to protect those rights or they can infringe upon them.
 
Tim said:
listening now, interesting.

Kagan is now leading the questioning re: where the line is re: valid regulation.
Click to expand...


the line is here, they ignore it

"The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for THE POWERS OF THE SWORD ARE IN THE HANDS OF THE YEOMANRY OF AMERICA FROM SIXTEEN TO SIXTY. [82] The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. What clause in the state or federal constitution hath given away that important right.... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people"
 
MP3 and PDF files of the oral arguments are here.

A big aspect of the case is that NY/US confirmed their briefs in not questioning the Second Amendment entails a right to carry outside the home for self defense; they are only arguing how much the right can be regulated.

My observations from the transcript:

(pages 64/65) humor by Roberts questioning the need for self-defense in rural area, first defending against deer and later asking the incidence of muggings in the woods.

(page 86) Alito called out NY's Solicitor General for the state's brief essentially lying by omission.

(page 115) Kavanaugh described the case as a narrow legal issue of "shall issue" versus "may issue."

(page 118) Clement gave a great rebuttal to NY/US argument for restrictions based on population density, saying you can't just simply say we're not going to have Second Amendment rights in areas where there are an awful lot of people who all have Second Amendment rights.
 
Last edited:
I listened to about an hour of it while working this morning. It was great to hear Underwood stumble over, and over, and over, and over again to make a single solid argument. She was dragged across the courtroom by the justices. Even when Sotomayor tried to help Underwood recover by jogging her memory of a point she was trying to make, she struggled and presented another weak argument.

At this rate, it looks like Shall issue will become the standard. The next logical step will be for localities to heavily restrict where & how you can carry and what you can do while carrying. So we’ll be back here in another 10-20yrs.
 
personally, i liked this "take":

Perhaps the most colorful line at Wednesday’s arguments came from Clement who seemed to paraphrase a famous bit of dialogue from the diner scene in “When Harry Met Sally” as he said his clients want the permitting regime many other states have where applicants are presumed eligible to carry a gun for self-defense unless there is a basis to deny a permit.

“The thrust of this case is: We’d like what they’re having,” Clement said.
 
I listened to the audio and read the transcripts.

The Plaintiff's lawyer (Clement) was pretty sharp.

The Attorney General (Underwood) was not very eloquent and didn't seem to present a strong case.

The Solicitor General (Fletcher) was pretty sharp and seemed to make some fairly convincing points on the text, history and tradition side of things. His points were my biggest concern that if his precedents etc were legit, they might hold up. He seemed intent on using Heller interpretations against this argument.

I'm new to listening to that stuff but it didn't seem like a slam dunk win for the 2A community to me.
 
Last edited:
Jmoser said:
This seems so reasonable, doesnt it?

“At the end of the day, I think what it means to give somebody a constitutional right is that they don't have to satisfy a government official that they have a really good need to exercise it or they face atypical risks”
Click to expand...

So kinda like this?


“A citizen may not be required to offer a ‘good and substantial reason’ why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right’s existence is all the reason he needs.” —Federal Judge Benson Everett Legg


.
 
Jerzsubbie said:
At this rate, it looks like Shall issue will become the standard. The next logical step will be for localities to heavily restrict where & how you can carry and what you can do while carrying. So we’ll be back here in another 10-20yrs.
Click to expand...

Yep, they'll just make a 2 tier system. The commoners can get a permit that lets them carry outside, but not beyond any doorknobs or anything posted or in a place with more than 3 people or within 10000 nautical miles of a school or whatever, and then an elite permit that allows for what they have now.

It's not nothing, but shall issue with the same laws applying to us and to them.... that's going to take more than 20 years.
 
Roberts' questions were sympathetic to the 2A side, but I'm still hoping he will vote with the three liberals. I want to see Thomas, or even Alito, write a blistering majority opinion that goes far beyond Roberts' usual minimalist approach.
 
Last edited:
i got a bit of a trip this weekend, so i might listen to the arguments then.
i read through a couple of the highlights. Kagan really wants to know why the government can't decide everything for everybody without any second guessing.
I want to know ... never mind. this is a public forum.
 
Haven’t listened to arguments yet but unfortunately the case seems to only address a small part of NYs atrocious pistol permit scheme - shall issue vs may issue

NY in order to possess or even touch a pistol requires a permit. Permits are controlled at the county level and for many counties a pistol permit to possess = a carry permit. So unless they change it to shall issue AND reduce the requirements NY will just increase the requirements to apply.

Some counties require you to be a resident for a certain time before applying.

We are in NY temporarily for family reasons. The permitting where we are requires 5 references who must live in the county, who aren’t family, who aren’t related to each other, who you’ve known for 5 years. If you haven’t known all 5 for 5 years you need 4 references from the county and then 4 more from wherever you moved from. And once you’ve applied the wait is between 8 months to over a year.

If you have a permit and your spouse does not, they are not allowed to touch the pistol. If they were to use it, even in self defense, they could be charged with a felony. They could even be charged with a felony if they had a pistol permit but if THAT specific pistol was not registered to them. It would be up to the discretion of the judge if they wanted to prosecute.

Shall vs may issue barely scratches the surface of NYs atrocious gun laws.

I don’t see much changing in NY. They will make it shall issue and then add on more requirements.
 
Nebowictz said:
Shall vs may issue barely scratches the surface of NYs atrocious gun laws.

I don’t see much changing in NY. They will make it shall issue and then add on more requirements.
Click to expand...
If SCOTUS invokes ‘strict scrutiny’ a lot of the red tape BS will disappear.
Training, fees, and gun free zones will remain as long as they pass strict scrutiny.
 
Jmoser said:
If SCOTUS invokes ‘strict scrutiny’ a lot of the red tape BS will disappear.
Training, fees, and gun free zones will remain as long as they pass strict scrutiny.
Click to expand...
This should be what is commonly called a no-brainer. Strict scrutiny should automatically apply when dealing with anything that is clearly and directly a constitutional issue, especially when it's one enumerated in the BOR.

Undoubtedly the tyrants will try to tyrant and try to impose all sorts of restrictions, much like Illinois did. The problem in all of these cases is that there aren't enough people willing to tell the govt. tyrants to go pound sand and be willing to back that up with force.
 
noway2 said:
This should be what is commonly called a no-brainer. Strict scrutiny should automatically apply when dealing with anything that is clearly and directly a constitutional issue, especially when it's one enumerated in the BOR.

Undoubtedly the tyrants will try to tyrant and try to impose all sorts of restrictions, much like Illinois did. The problem in all of these cases is that there aren't enough people willing to tell the govt. tyrants to go pound sand and be willing to back that up with force.
Click to expand...
Yup - will take another 5+ years of lower court battles before all the hassles get sorted.
But ultimately this right will get recognized.
 
Nebowictz said:
seems to only address a small part of NYs atrocious pistol permit scheme - shall issue vs may issue
Click to expand...

Nebowictz said:
Shall vs may issue barely scratches the surface of NYs atrocious gun laws.
Click to expand...
I respectfully disagree - not that NY won't continue to impede & infringe as much as ever! They will. Rather that "Shall vs. May" is the core issue in any permitting requirement.

"May" issue gives ultimate power to the issuing authority - you can be absolutely above board and have good reason and pay all the moneyfees, etc., and they may or may not issue a permit. It is entirely at the pleasure of the bureaucrat.

"Shall" issue compels the issuing authority to grant the permit unless they can find a legal reason not to. It grounds the power of issuance into the law, not the legal bureacracy.

That's not to say in any way that a permit requirement isn't an infringment! Just pointing out that "shall" more closely aligns with "innocent until proven guilty," whereas* "may" translates directly to "Nah, you're guilty and untrustworthy because I suspect so and even though you proved you meet the requirements I still say buzz off."

__________________________
* I coulda used "while," but don't whereas sound all leagal-y n sh... such? :)
 
Last edited:
Jmoser said:
If CNN says it things must really look bad for NYC:

www.cnn.com

Supreme Court seems poised to expand Second Amendment rights and strike down NY handgun law

The Supreme Court seemed ready to expand Second Amendment rights after hearing arguments for over two hours and expressing skepticism about a New York law that restricts individuals from carrying concealed handguns outside the home for self-defense.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com
Click to expand...

The headline is garbage and really gets under my skin... Instead of "Supreme Court set to expand rights" -
it really should say something closer to "Supreme Court set to stop unconstitutional infringement of inalienable rights"
 
Jakerson9 said:
The headline is garbage and really gets under my skin... Instead of "Supreme Court set to expand rights" -
it really should say something closer to "Supreme Court set to stop unconstitutional infringement of inalienable rights"
Click to expand...
That would mean the left would have to acknowledge that rights are not actually granted by the gov, and we know that’s not going to happen.
 
Catfish said:
For those of you who still have faith in the system, where did Heller get us in DC?
Click to expand...
From a total handgun ban and a requirement to keep all firearms unloaded & disassembled to... not having those infringements? I'd say that is a positive result, albeit only a small fraction of the way to proper protection of the right to keep and bear arms. If George W. Bush had actually given a crap about the constitution, he would have picked a better justice than John Roberts, and we would have a constitutionalist chief justice to write quality opinions. Instead, we got Roberts, who picked Scalia to write the opinion, and Scalia was an absolute coward to write such a narrow opinion in this case (or, alternatively, he had to write it so narrowly because Roberts wouldn't have concurred if it were any stronger).
 
What about the point, and perhaps I am unaware if it has been addressed:
NY state has laws that NYC blatantly ignores, going so far as to make their own much stricter laws.
Seems like that should be addressed.
 
Spartan01 said:
What about the point, and perhaps I am unaware if it has been addressed:
NY state has laws that NYC blatantly ignores, going so far as to make their own much stricter laws.
Seems like that should be addressed.
Click to expand...
Can you give an example? My understanding is that NY has essentially zero state preemption of local firearms law except to clarify that issued permits are valid statewide, and even that clause has special carveouts for NYC, meaning NY allows NYC to not accept NY state permits as valid. All permitting schemes are obviously unconstitutional on 2A grounds, but, separate from that issue, I am not aware of NYC violating NY law in that regard. Besides, even if there was a violation of New York law by the city, that would be an issue for New York state's courts to decide, not the federal courts/SCOTUS.
 
DuncanLempRIP said:
From a total handgun ban and a requirement to keep all firearms unloaded & disassembled to... not having those infringements? I'd say that is a positive result, albeit only a small fraction of the way to proper protection of the right to keep and bear arms. If George W. Bush had actually given a crap about the constitution, he would have picked a better justice than John Roberts, and we would have a constitutionalist chief justice to write quality opinions. Instead, we got Roberts, who picked Scalia to write the opinion, and Scalia was an absolute coward to write such a narrow opinion in this case (or, alternatively, he had to write it so narrowly because Roberts wouldn't have concurred if it were any stronger).
Click to expand...

Nailed it! Between Roberts playing the Great Compromiser and Kennedy playing Mr. Swing Voter I doubt Scalia had any choice but to take what he could get to have the 2nd Amendment recognized as an individual right.
 
OK … the SCOTUS shoots down NYC/NY gun laws BUT the city and state does not stop enforcing them … who do the citizens turn to for help? With Slo Joe and the liberals running the DOJ, ATF, etc who can actually back them down … especially the de Blasio and now Adams regime?
 
NCFubar said:
OK … the SCOTUS shoots down NYC/NY gun laws BUT the city and state does not stop enforcing them … who do the citizens turn to for help? With Slo Joe and the liberals running the DOJ, ATF, etc who can actually back them down … especially the de Blasio and now Adams regime?
Click to expand...

The militia, same body are armed free men that have always been able to
 
Diablos said:
The militia, same body are armed free men that have always been able to
Click to expand...
I am speaking legal recourse …

… and if a citizen militia did stand up to the tyranny then who the city/state dictator askes the Feds for help … and as of now Slo Joe & Co sends in the Army and/or Marines.
 
NCFubar said:
I am speaking legal recourse …

… and if a citizen militia did stand up to the tyranny then who the city/state dictator askes the Feds for help … and as of now Slo Joe & Co sends in the Army and/or Marines.
Click to expand...

After tens of thousands leave because they refuse the kill shot...on top of that we'd only need a dozen royal marines
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom