Supreme Court Takes Up Concealed Carry 2nd Amendment Case
A potentially huge 2nd Amendment case will go before the Supreme Court, as SCOTUS agrees to hear a challenge to New York State concealed carry restrictions in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett.
The Supreme Court announced Monday it will hear a major new gun control case next term, accepting a National Rifle Association-backed challenge that asks the court to declare there is a constitutional right to carry a weapon outside the home.
The court will hear the challenge to a century-old New York gun control law in the term that begins in October. It is considering a law that requires those who seek a permit to carry a concealed weapon show a special need for self-defense. It is similar to laws in Maryland, Massachusetts and elsewhere that the court in the past has declined to review.
But the court’s new conservative majority has signaled it is more receptive to Second Amendment challenges. Several justices have said they are anxious to explore gun rights first acknowledged by the court in 2008, when it ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that individuals have the right to gun ownership for self-defense in their homes.
“Perhaps the single most important unresolved Second Amendment question” in the time since then, the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association says in its brief to the court, “is whether the Second Amendment secures the individual right to bear arms for self-defense where confrontations often occur: outside the home.”
The association contends that “the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment and this Court’s binding precedents compel the conclusion that the Second Amendment does indeed secure that right.”
The court’s consideration of the petition coincides with recent mass shootings in Georgia and Colorado that left 18 dead. While President Donald Trump opposed gun control, President Biden wants more.
Biden has urged the Senate to pass broader checks on gun buyers already approved by the House, and has said he supports restrictions on certain weapons. His administration has said it would also pursue measures that did not require congressional action.
The Supreme Court previously turned down a request to review the New York laws, and the state’s Attorney General Letitia James (D) had asked it to do so again.
The state’s law “has existed in the same essential form since 1913 and descends from a long Anglo-American tradition of regulating the carrying of firearms in public,” she wrote in a brief to the court.
She said it complied with the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Heller: “that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited and can be subject to state regulation consistent with the historical scope of the right.”
The case is brought by two men, Robert Nash and Brandon Koch. Each received a permit to carry a gun outside the home for hunting and target practice, but were turned down to carry a concealed weapon for self-defense.
The case is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett.
Binding Precedents? Huh? The Roberts court is all about tossing binding precedents, as are most Republican politicians and pundits.Report
It is considering a law that requires those who seek a permit to carry a concealed weapon show a special need for self-defense.
I thought for a second whether this was a “may issue” vs “shall issue” debate but I don’t think it’s even there.
I think it’s one of those things where the state wasn’t even a “may issue” state.
Am I reading that wrong?Report
All 50 states and DC will issue concealed carry permits. Some won’t honor permits issued by other states, some will.
NY is one that requires you to show a specific reason. Eg, my friend had no problem getting a permit after jumping through the hoops. She lived in a relatively rural area and had been verbally threatened by one of the child pornographers she helped convict who was being released from prison. Plaintiffs in this case want to be allowed to carry for much more vague “self defense” purposes.
My own inclination is to suggest that the plaintiffs need to either consider changes in their lifestyle, or have their meds adjusted.Report
Too late for that.Report
My ex-sister in law is insane. It would take her cooperation to prove this so officially she is fine. There is certainly no evidence that would be admissible in a court of law. She has occasionally made heinous allegations that the police look at and then dismiss. If she really believed what she’s claiming (which she claims she does), then imho her best option would be to kill members of my family.
I would like to be able to decide for myself how much “self defense” my family needs. If one of my daughter’s ex-boyfriend’s starts stalking her, I’d like to be able to arm up before he commits crimes.
I don’t like the idea of needing to justify to anti-gun fanatics or anti-gun police why I need a gun. If the level of proof needed is “the person you’re concerned about needs to have been convicted of a crime and on the official record as having made threats against you”, then that’s way too high. Further I can think of a case where the person who wanted a gun could even pass that threshold and the powers that be tried very hard to pretend it was all in her head.Report
The problem, as I understand it (I may be wrong) is that in NY, it’s not just May Issue, it’s May Issue that is dependent on the issuing authority deciding that the applicants reason is ‘good enough’.
I.e. a person who helped law enforcement and is getting threats gets a quick green light, but the BLM activist who is getting threats from right wing militias is told to change their lifestyle and adjust their meds.
If the issuing authority is permitted to allow their subjective judgement to hold, and their is no higher authority to appeal to, then May Issue only applies to those with the appropriate connections to the issuing authority.Report
Subjectivity with a Constitutional right seems like its unlikely to withstand continued legal scrutiny.
I believe Illinois was the last state to issue concealed carry permits (after the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled its no-issue law violated the Second Amendment), and they went with mandatory issue either because they saw the writing on the wall or they didn’t want to spend a lot on litigation. I think a handy analogy would be to ask what kind of discretionary judgment would be applied in abortion cases?Report
There are 9 full discretion “May issue” states (Including the District of Columbia);
There are 11 discretionary “Shall Issue” states;
12 No Discretion “Shall Issue” states; and
19 states that do not require a permit to carry concealed – though all but Vermont issue permits(including Mississippi where I live).
So the discretionary function only applies to a small minority of states, all of which are considered classically Blue. Seven of those first nine require showing good cause (like in New York); 12 of those first two groups require showing good character or being “suitable.” Interestingly there are 15 across all the groupings that a “Character” Requirement that “Allow Denials When There is Reason to Believe the Person is Dangerous.”
I can’t for the life of me figure out why we aren’t regulating this nationally . . . especially if we are going to drag the minority of full discretion “May Issue” states kicking and screaming into alignment with the rest using activist judges on the Supreme Court.
Source – https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/policy-areas/guns-in-public/concealed-carry/#:~:text=Law%20enforcement%20has%20full%20discretion,Good%20moral%20character%2C%20andReport
I can’t for the life of me figure out why we aren’t regulating this nationally
What would the consensus be?
especially if we are going to drag the minority of full discretion “May Issue” states kicking and screaming into alignment with the rest using activist judges on the Supreme Court.
Human rights are a weird thing.
Some people think that it’s okay to give them to half of everybody.
Others think that everyone should have them.Report
It seems apparent form the statistics that we are a Shall Issue country.
Thanks to Heller, SCOTUS has made it clear this right indeed applies to everyone inside their home. The present case simple seeks to define the hurdles outside your home. That’s not a denial to anyone.Report
It seems apparent form the statistics that we are a Shall Issue country.
I think I’d agree with this (or something close to this).
But if someone asked me why we haven’t regulated ourselves to be a Shall Issue country nationally, I’d say that there is a small but very vocal minority that argues for something close to Gun Control to the point where they see it as absurd that someone might want to concealed carry in the first place. Like, absurd to the point where they can’t believe that the burden of proof would be on them instead of on the phallocentric losers who want to bolster their manhood by carrying an extra metal dick in a holster like they think that they’re in Taxi Driver.
The present case simple seeks to define the hurdles outside your home. That’s not a denial to anyone.
We agree that you can’t shout fire in a crowded theater.
The question is whether a license to carry concealed weapons is speech or shouting fire.Report
Technically, firearm regulation should be up to the states. The feds should only be concerned with transportation across state lines, and, IMHO, setting up some kind of system for states respecting each other’s carry rules (just like they have to respect marriages, drivers licenses, etc.).Report
Only if we’re good letting them regulate speech to the same degree.Report
I’m just going off of what I understand current law to be. The BOR was only originally held against the federal government and had to be held against the states in separate actions.
IIRC, Heller says the 2nd restricts the fed; McDonald holds it against the states, but only on a Due Process basis, not a P&I basis. So SCOTUS has decided it is different from the 1st Amendment.Report
Posting to see if I can post.
Philip H just posted something which my feed showed (to my email), but I can’t see here.Report
I’ve noticed a weird lag between when things post here, when they show up in email and when comments become visible. On many days I have seen notices in my email about new topics which take 30 minutes to a couple of hours to show up on the landing page.Report
No, looking at my email feed: You edited your post and Your post has a link. That got it jailed until someone (probably JB) freed it.
So I came here to look for the original post but it didn’t exist and your new (edited) one hadn’t been freed yet.Report