NYSRPA v. Bruen Oral Argument

[karandom]

Massachusetts already changing from may issue to shall issue:

https://www.mass.gov/news/ags-office...sachusetts-law

"Following the Bruen decision, licensing authorities can no longer enforce the “good reason” provision of the Massachusetts law, which allowed license restrictions or denials if an applicant lacked a sufficiently good reason to fear injury to person or property. "

Now I need to figure out if the restrictions on my license are no longer valid and I can CC or if I need to get them removed. Hopefully the former since Boston likes to slow walk permits to make it as hard as possible.

[5pins]

Maryland is still dragging their feet but I'm applying later this week anyway.

[Wise_A]

Out of curiosity, what's the objection to LEO references? You'd think that was the best kind of reference.

We don't want our deputies involved in the permitting process, and we want to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. When I go to drop off an amendment, I walk around the front and stand in line, in (non-sworn, civilian) uniform, like everybody else. But it's a county that's amenable to firearms.

Besides, LEOs are just regular folk, and just are just as prone to knowing shittums.

[5pins]

Maryland just became shall issue.

Hogan orders suspension of 'good and substantial reason' for Maryland gun permits

https://wjla.com/news/local/maryland...ndards-handgun

Over the course of my administration, I have consistently supported the right of law-abiding citizens to own and carry firearms, while enacting responsible and common sense measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.

“Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a provision in New York law pertaining to handgun permitting that is virtually indistinguishable from Maryland law. In light of the ruling and to ensure compliance with the Constitution, I am directing the Maryland State Police to immediately suspend utilization of the ‘good and substantial reason’ standard when reviewing applications for Wear and Carry Permits. It would be unconstitutional to continue enforcing this provision in state law. There is no impact on other permitting requirements and protocols.

“Today’s action is in line with actions taken in other states in response to the recent ruling

[HeavyDuty]

So, now the battle becomes for reciprocity?

[AMC]

It is naive in the extreme to believe that these restrictive blue states are going to transform into "Shall Issue" states with a sudden new found respect for the Constitutional Rights of their citizens. Look to New York for the types of Fuck-Fuck games that these states will continue to play. If forced to issue permits, they will make the process the punishment, or make carry essentially unworkable. "Oh....is this infringement? I guess you better sue us again, and we'll see what SCOTUS says this time." This cycle will continue as long as they get to play the game with other people's money.

[WobblyPossum]

So, now the battle becomes for reciprocity?

Reciprocity and very narrowly defining “sensitive locations” is my guess. If carrying a a firearm outside the home is a civil right protected by the second amendment, I don’t see how state governments can successfully argue that they don’t have to honor CCW permits from other states. Places like NY will try though so it’ll be up to the courts to put them in their place again.

[wvincent]

Just living for the day NJ honors my home state permit and I can walk into White Manna in Hackensack with my LCR in my pocket.
C'mon Joisey, hurry it up.

[RoyGBiv]

I keep telling family in NY that my next visit will be when I can legally carry a gun there.
I doubt I'll live to see the day, honestly.

[Kanye Wyoming]

If carrying a a firearm outside the home is a civil right protected by the second amendment, I don’t see how state governments can successfully argue that they don’t have to honor CCW permits from other states.

I suspect the language in this footnote would allow State A to say we have room to establish our particular standards for determining whether a resident is a sufficiently law abiding, responsible citizen; if State B’s standards aren’t as rigorous we have no obligation to be bound by what State B determines.

But I could very well be wrong. Could the full faith and credit clause come into play? I’m guessing no, but I haven’t dug into it. In another context, could State A make it illegal to drive in State A with a valid license from State B if State B doesn’t require a written test?

9 To be clear, nothing in our analysis should be interpreted to suggest
the unconstitutionality of the 43 States’ “shall-issue” licensing regimes, under which “a general desire for self-defense is sufficient to obtain a [permit].” Drake v. Filko, 724 F. 3d 426, 442 (CA3 2013) (Hardiman, J., dissenting). Because these licensing regimes do not require applicants to show an atypical need for armed self-defense, they do not necessarily prevent “law-abiding, responsible citizens” from exercising their Second Amendment right to public carry. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 635 (2008). Rather, it appears that these shall-issue regimes, which often require applicants to undergo a background check or pass a firearms safety course, are designed to ensure only that those bearing arms in the jurisdiction are, in fact, “law-abiding, responsible citizens.” Ibid. And they likewise appear to contain only “narrow, objective, and definite standards” guiding licensing officials, Shuttlesworth v. Birming- ham, 394 U. S. 147, 151 (1969), rather than requiring the “appraisal of facts, the exercise of judgment, and the formation of an opinion,” Cant- well v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 305 (1940)—features that typify proper-cause standards like New York’s. That said, because any permit- ting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitu- tional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.