NYSRPA v. Bruen Oral Argument

[JAD]

Thanks for being here, and for being there, Josh.

[revchuck38]

Thanks for being here, and for being there, Josh.

+1!

[Savage Hands]

Thank you for your insight @joshs !

[RoyGBiv]

Your thoughts matched mine exactly. Simple minds think alike.

Indeed.

Great pic BTW. I saw a story about her on the news yesterday and they showed that pic... I thought... "I've seen that somewhere before"..

/drift

[JohnO]

Fortunately we all have the option to never set foot inside a public school building as long as:

1) You choose not to work for a public school system
2) You choose to home school or send children to private school
3) You choose a spouse correctly and don’t get divorced with joint custodial arrangements that may involve your need to enroll your child in public school

Public schools shouldn’t exist, period. So arguing for guns inside them only puts support into their existence.

As a homeschooler of 4 (all are finished) I agree 100%. I get frustrated seeing parents who hand their kids off to the public schools complaining about the curriculum or the policies. Just don't cede control on your children in the first place!

[JohnO]

That was a trap. Kagan was trying to push him somewhere that might make the marginal justices uncomfortable. Not taking the bait is unfortunately part of arguing at the Court. I'm sure there will be lots of people that are mad that we conceded public schools, but the Court had already enumerated them in Heller, so we didn't have a choice. There is also quite a long history of location restrictions for arms in government buildings that have access control (courthouses, assemblies, etc.). We don't think that those are good policy (that's why we support legislation to eliminate those prohibited places), but we have to work within the reality of the original public meaning of the Second Amendment.

I can see the folly of arguing for a completely unrestricted right. However the class system restrictions create should not exist in my humble opinion.

[DAB]

my prediction: NY loses the case (yay), but turns right around and imposes all sorts of expensive requirements and fees (lots of training, lots of forms, lots of money to the .gov), and also designates all sorts of places as "gun free". private places will hop to and follow suit, and you'll be back where you are today: an average, law abiding person cannot legally carry around a loaded firearm and conduct normal business and commerce without running into all manner of "no guns here" signs, with the threat of fines and imprisonments if caught. but i guess that is another case for another day.

[RoyGBiv]

my prediction: NY loses the case (yay), but turns right around and imposes all sorts of expensive requirements and fees (lots of training, lots of forms, lots of money to the .gov), and also designates all sorts of places as "gun free". private places will hop to and follow suit, and you'll be back where you are today: an average, law abiding person cannot legally carry around a loaded firearm and conduct normal business and commerce without running into all manner of "no guns here" signs, with the threat of fines and imprisonments if caught. but i guess that is another case for another day.

If NY is forced into a Shall-Issue regime, I expect it will likely look like DC, except that in non-NYC places, normal folks will be able to get permits and carry much like the rest of us, and as that percolates they stand some chance of restrictions being eased. DC is, I think, a good example of what permitting would look like in NY State if NYSRPA wins the day here. Not necessarily in terms of restricted places, just the permit process.

Next step would be to work on mandatory reciprocity.
I'd be happy to sign up for lead plaintiff against NY. "Plaintiff desires to visit family in NY State and still enjoy his 2A right to self protection."

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Since the current may issue permits have no unreasonable training or locations bans (unless you are absolutist), legislation to institute such would be fiercely resisted and if passed, immediately challenged in court. Depends on who is the new governor. Hochul is from Western NY and was gun friendly until moving up. She knows that outside of NYC and surrounding areas the populace is not anti and she probably wouldn't want to run with that burden. Now if the AG is the candidate - well we know what she thinks and does DeBlasio. This is a case where the primary will be important.

[Shotgun]

Well, after reading some of the oral argument I am hoping for two things. First, some sort of recognition of and identification of what "bear arms" means outside the home. Second, and perhaps as important, that the court employs a strict scrutiny test for 2nd Amendment cases rather than intermediate scrutiny.