NYSRPA v. Bruen Oral Argument

[5pins]

If states like NY and CA intended to just continue to pass laws in an effort make the courts decide on each issue, what's stopping a federal court form striking down the law in its entirety and allowing permtless carry?

This is essentially what happened in DC in 2014 when the court struck down DC's ban on carrying. For three days anyone, who was not a criminal, could carry a firearm in DC open or concealed.

Palmer v. District of Columbia

The court stayed the order only after DC agreed to pass a law that would allow people to carry a firearm outside the home.

It seems to me that a court could see that the new laws are full of infringements and just throw out the whole law.

If states knew there was a chance of that happening, there would be a better chance of them passing laws that are constitutional in the first place.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Two points:

1. NH - the regime you speak of is in some counties but not all. Niagara and Erie are much easier to get unrestricted or carry permits. The reference requirements were not that strict. The interview by a sheriff was easy for me to pass but I have a good training and professional background. Still they are onerous as compared to some. There was no shooting test as in TX and a shorter class.

2. Ed - I'll disagree a bit with the idea of pre-empting the current attacks. Clarence did bring up the idea of extreme sensitive areas and some that are acceptable to him (which I disagree with for most). Thus, the more extreme ideas were out there and could have been pre-empted as his Manhattan discussion. Folks thought it was so clever, so almost every locale was banned. Not so clever.

My question is to the time scale for appeals. Not being a lawyer, is there a fast Scotus route as compared to the lower court, blather, blather, next court, remand back, blather - take the case in the fall maybe, year later for a decision?

[NH Shooter]

1. NH - the regime you speak of is in some counties but not all. Niagara and Erie WAS much easier to get unrestricted or carry permits.

FIFY

[OlongJohnson]

If states like NY and CA intended to just continue to pass laws in an effort make the courts decide on each issue, what's stopping a federal court form striking down the law in its entirety and allowing permtless carry?

This is essentially what happened in DC in 2014 when the court struck down DC's ban on carrying. For three days anyone, who was not a criminal, could carry a firearm in DC open or concealed.

Palmer v. District of Columbia

The court stayed the order only after DC agreed to pass a law that would allow people to carry a firearm outside the home.

It seems to me that a court could see that the new laws are full of infringements and just throw out the whole law.

If states knew there was a chance of that happening, there would be a better chance of them passing laws that are constitutional in the first place.

The process is the punishment. They are not interested in reaching a sustainable, tolerable, legal outcome. They are accumulating salary and pension by playing with the peoples' money. In the long run, they win as individuals, regardless of the outcome for the party. Will a CA or NY politician get unelected because the SC threw out a portion of the gun control scheme they passed as an attack vector to harrass those likely to disagree with them politically?

[NH Shooter]

...and here's the sad part;

[Shotgun]

My question is to the time scale for appeals. Not being a lawyer, is there a fast Scotus route as compared to the lower court, blather, blather, next court, remand back, blather - take the case in the fall maybe, year later for a decision?

Brainstorming here. I wonder if the Supreme Court could simply hold on to a case to ensure compliance with its opinion. I am not aware of the Supreme Court ever having done so, but I am also unaware of any authority which would prevent the Supreme Court from doing so. There certainly is precedence for a federal court to hold on to a case for decades to ensure compliance with its Order(s). Here is a news snippet from 2018 referring to desegregation in East Texas schools:

In 1970, an East Texas-based federal court mandated Longview ISD tackle a long list of tasks designed to make sure its black students were learning and playing in the same classrooms and playgrounds as their white peers — including closing four all-black schools and busing black students to formerly all-white schools throughout the district.

Forty-seven years later, Longview was one of only three Texas districts that remained under a federal court order, along with San Angelo and Garland.

I don't know how to block quote on a forum, so the snippet got underlined. That original Order was signed by William Wayne Justice, a well known federal court judge in the Eastern District of Texas. But, apparently, 47 years after the original Order was signed by Judge Justice, three districts were still subject to the Order, meaning the school districts could be hauled back into federal court for non-compliance without new lawsuits being filed.

So, Judge Justice issues his Order back in 1970, and then his Court has authority to enforce the Order decades later. Unlike a district court perhaps, the Supreme Court does not want to get down in the weeds. It likes to issue an opinion, usually as limited as possible, and then let any issues with that opinion percolate back up. But, just once, wouldn't it be nice for the Supreme Court to actually issue an Order consistent with its opinion and then monitor the case for a year or two to ensure compliance. That would cut through a lot of nonsense here where New York designates public transportation a "sensitive area" which essentially guts the Bruen opinion for New Yorkers who want to carry for self defense. Heck, New York subways may be THE place where New Yorkers would want to carry for self defense.

[Ed L]

New York's system for issuing a "pistol permit" - which only allows possession of a handgun in the home, hunting or back and forth to range - is one of the most vigorous in the country. Finger printing, FBI background check, four character references from non-relatives who have known the applicant for at least five years and live in the same county, and neighborhood interviews are part of the process. I went through it over 40 years ago (took 9 months at the time) and my son in-law went through it last year - it remains as vigorous as ever.

I've also seen it stated that none of the 4 references can live in the same household, and none of them can be an active law enforcement officer. In today's disconnected social environment and hyper partisan political world finding four refences who you have known for 5 years who live in your same county who are willing to provide a reference just isn't possible for a lot of people. What happens if you have just moved into the county that they require you to have the references from? How long is it going to be before you have 4 people from different households who you have known for 5 years who are willing to vouch for you?

Likewise with neighbors. Is it their business that you are getting a handgun? What happens if they are anti-gun or they don't like you because of a political sign that you had on your lawn 4 years ago? Or maybe they don't like you because you drive a pickup truck instead of a hybrid car or an electric car? People don't really know their neighbors like they did 50 years ago. Do you have your neighbors cell number or work number. Is your neighbor even going to look at calls and messages from strange phone numbers much less return the call during the day when the police pistol license bureau is open?

I understand that they are trying to accomplish with references, but the whole process is archaic and difficult in today's society and has the effect of being overly restrictive to the average person. I've often said that the this is something that needs to be challenged in court.

It is as OlongJohnson wrote:

The process is the punishment.

[0ddl0t]

Would be nice if states that are habitual gun rights offenders would become subject to federal preclearance (like states that habitually violated voting rights).

[Wise_A]

Just a heads-up, there's no uniform standard. It varies county by county. Some counties even give you the amendment coupon blank and let you buy the pistol if you already have a permit, and then return the coupon to them. Others will take out-of-state references, but then require those references to be notarized. There's all manner of variation.

Is your neighbor even going to look at calls and messages from strange phone numbers much less return the call during the day when the police pistol license bureau is open?

Typically it's a written form that has to be mailed back.

[Cory]

My Otsego county permit required duplicate applications filled out by me. Passport photos and fingerprints. Listing 4 people who knew me for more than 5 years, lived in the county or a bordering one, weren't LEO or related listed on the form. My references got mailed a form to fill out and mail back. I cant remember if it had to be notarized. Months later I did a phone interview with an investigator. Then I went and did fingerprints and photos at the sheriff's office. Then a while later I was approved. Maybe 9 months?

My county was considered a good one, because I didnt get target restriction. And they would give you a purchase coupon before you provided serial number, so you could purchase on the spot and then provide the serial within 30 days and have your permit amended.


The whole scheme has gotchas built in.