NYSRPA v. Bruen Oral Argument

[Glenn E. Meyer]

As a psychologist, I wonder about any provisions regarding a pre-permit mental health certification. Who or what will do this? What peer viewed and evaluated tests will be given as personal opinions of a mental health professional has lots of problems as to predictive validity. Also, what professional will take the risk of making such an evaluation?

The profession has pushed back strongly on mental illness being a general and strong predictor of violence. I can't see many joining into the fray. You might get ideologues on both sides - always deny, always pass. It's known in the field, for example with insanity determinations that prosecutions have had pets that would always find someone who was clearly bat shit crazy to be sane. They would use experts with suspect credentials like being know Nazi sympathizers to make a case in one classic example.

Proving good character - how might you do that with predictive validity? Some dude says so? I'd like to see if the two APAs, psychiatric and psychological speak to these issues of evaluation. Now they are probably all for gun bans but that's different from entering the fray as determining who gets a gun.

Here's a quote: https://www.apa.org/about/policy/firearms

The research on firearm violence indicates that while empirically-derived structured clinical judgment and actuarial tools have been shown to distinguish relative violence risk among researched populations (e.g., male domestic violence offenders, offenders with violence histories and mental disorders), no methods currently exist for reliably predicting whether or not specific individuals will behave violently, nor the specific time, place or manner (including firearm use) in which they will behave violently (Lidz, Mulvey, & Gardner, 1993; Meehl & Rosen, 1955; Monahan, et al. 2005; Nielssen, et al. 2009). On the other hand, science-based risk assessment and management strategies using empirically-derived assessment tools for individuals with histories of violence have developed as the standard for preventing targeted violence in many settings ( Kinscherff, Evans, Randazzo, & Cornell , 2013). In the behavioral threat assessment model, teams use highly individualized and situation-specific methods to prevent violence by specific persons identified as making or posing a threat of violence, including risk of using a firearm.

....

WHEREAS there are currently no reliable methods to accurately predict which individuals will or will not engage in firearms violence at a particular time or under specific circumstances, although there are methods for behavioral threat assessment and person-specific violence risk management planning once an individual has been identified as making or posing a threat of violence, including firearm violence;

If you read the entire piece, you see an emphasize on education about firearms risk and Threat assessment for pretty well defined risk situations. The general stigma given to mental illness is opposed and there is no support for societal screening in general for owning a firearm. Clear history of abuse and violence - they support.

I would think the laws that are launching general pseudo-personality tests by non-experts can be opposed.

[5pins]

Here in liberal wonderland Illinois, the threat handed down to them was basically "develop a shall issue framework, or you're gonna get constitutional carry"

So now we have shall issue.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

That is basically what happened in DC also, and for three days you could carry in DC open or concealed without a permit. Take the new NY law, there is no reason a federal court could not strike down the whole law and leave NY without any carry law at all.

[Ed L]

Law suits have already been filed challenging new restrictions that NY state has passed into law in the wake of the Supreme court decision that rueld that NY State cannot require people to show cause to be granted a concealed carry permit.

It turns out that NY state now requires pistol permit applicants to provide all of their social media accounts for the last 3 years. It doesn't specify whether or not they also have to provide a password so that private messages could also be read. It will then be up to pistol permit units, judges, or country clerks to check the profiles to see whether an applicant has made statements "indicating dangerous behavior." Exactly what is dangerous behavior? I feel that this requirement is over the top and leaves lots of room for abuse. So if someone expresses a view that the person reviewing the account considers problematic--such as supporting a political candidate or a political view--the reviewer of the account now has the authority to deny them a gun permit. Not to mention that the NY State pistol issuing authorities probably does not have enough people to do these reviews in any type of reasonable time frames.

Evaluating people's character and judgment based on what they post on Facebook? There is a huge difference between first amendment protected speech that might express unpopular opinions and making terroristic threats or discussing plans of committing violence.

From: https://www.engadget.com/new-york-co...154624629.html

"Critics have taken issue with the social media provision of the legislation. It's unclear how the state will address concerns over privacy and free speech, and how it will assess the intent of applicants' social media posts.

Peter Kehoe, the executive director of the New York Sheriffs’ Association, argued that the law infringes rights under the Second Amendment and suggested local officials may not actually review an applicant's social media accounts. “I don’t think we would do that,” Kehoe told the AP. “I think it would be a constitutional invasion of privacy.” Others have expressed concern about the law in relation to surveillance of people of color."

[Ed L]

Excerpted from The NY Daily News: https://archive.ph/YDKvZ

"Conservative lawmakers are preparing to challenge New York’s recently enacted gun laws in court, arguing rules requiring people to let officials access their social media accounts to assess “character and conduct” are unconstitutional.

State GOP chairman Nick Langworthy and Conservative party head Jerry Kassar jointly vowed to file a suit against the new restrictions. “We have been working the phones and talking to legal experts to build a coalition and bring a winning case that will stop this law in its tracks,” Langworthy said.

The new law carves out “sensitive locations” such as Times Square, schools, parks and hospitals as gun-free zones and outlaws concealed weapons at private businesses unless a sign is posted saying armed patrons are welcome.

It also requires permit applicants to undergo 15 hours of in-person training at a firing range, sit down for an in-person interview, provide contact information for household members, renew licenses after three years and provide access to social media accounts.

Concerns have been raised about the social media component of the law.

Adam Scott Wandt, a public policy professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, told the Associated Press that while he supports gun control measures, he worries the statute could set a precedent for mandatory disclosure of social media activity for other types of licenses from the state.

“I think that what we might have done as a state here in New York is, we may have confirmed their worst fears — that a slippery slope will be created that will slowly reduce their rights to carry guns and allow a bureaucracy to decide, based on unclear criteria, who can have a gun and who cannot,” Wandt said. “Which is exactly what the Supreme Court was trying to avoid.”

The law requires applicants to provide licensing officials, often local sheriffs or county clerks’ offices, with a list of current and former social media accounts from the previous three years. Officials will then have to scour the profiles to see if the person has posted anything indicating dangerous behavior.

Conservative party head Jerry Kassar, however, said he believes Democrats have gone too far and is gearing up for another legal fight.

“We have proven that we will use every resource at our disposal to fight Democrats in court and win,” he said. “One-Party rule has emboldened Democrats to trample over the constitution and rule of law to enact their radical agenda.”

Tom King, the chairman of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, which was part of the lawsuit that led to the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision, said he would welcome another legal battle as well.

“The Supreme Court ruled decisively on this issue and Democrats once again showed complete disregard for New Yorkers’ rights and the rule of law,” he said. “We have also been pulling together legal resources and we are 100% behind their efforts to challenge this law in court.”

[Ed L]

Previous reasons for granting NY Carry permits was the transporting of large amount of money or other valuables like gems from one place to another. Now under the new law a bank would have to post a sign saying legal concealed carry welcome in order for a license holder to carry a concealed handgun while making a deposit. Violation of this new law would be a felony on the part of the permit holder.

Several law suits have been filed to challenge NY State's new restrictions that were put into place after the Supreme Court ruling.

Excerpted from: https://nypost.com/2022/07/11/lawsui...carry-permits/

"Gov. Kathy Hochul tried to thwart the US Supreme Court with a new law that makes virtually all of New York a gun-free zone and requires applicants for carry permits to give the state information about their social media accounts, according to a federal lawsuit filed Monday.

The suit — filed against State Police Superintendent Kevin Bruen by an upstate gun owner and three affiliated gun-rights groups — says the “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” signed by Hochul on July 1 contains a slew of “blatantly unconstitutional” provisions and should be thrown out as unenforceable.

The Northern District of New York filing alleges that Hochul was “unhappy” with last month’s ruling in which the high court struck down a 1913 state law that required permit applicants show “proper cause” for wanting to pack heat.

Hochul “called an extraordinary session of the New York State Legislature for the purpose of enacting a new statutory scheme (the CCIA), designed to give the appearance of compliance with the Supreme Court’s but in reality thwarting and bypassing the Supreme Court’s decision.”

The suit also says that despite the Supreme Court’s “clear pronouncements,” Hochul and state legislators “apparently did not ‘get the memo.'”

Instead of “representing a good-faith attempt to bring New York law into compliance with the Second Amendment” and the high court ruling, state lawmakers allegedly doubled down on strict gun control laws, “flouting the people’s right to keep and bear arms.

“This Court’s intervention is therefore necessary, to again make it clear to New York that it is not free to thumb its nose at the text of the Second Amendment and the opinions of the Supreme Court, and that the Second Amendment is neither a ‘constitutional orphan’ or a ‘second-class right,'” according to the filing.

Court docs say provisions that designate 20 categories of public places as “sensitive locations” and “by default” designate all private property as a “restricted location” mean that “it is hard to imagine how a carry license holder could so much as leave home without running afoul of the CCIA.”

It also says that the requirement for applicants to provide lists of their social media accounts for the past three years could limit their free expression, in violation of the First Amendment, out of fear that their postings “may one day give a licensing officer pause in issuing a license.”

The suit was filed by upstate resident Ivan Atonyuk, who’s had a carry permit since 2009 and who immigrated to New York from Ukraine, “not seeking to exchange one totalitarian regime for another,” it says.

The other plaintiffs are the Gun Owners of America, its New York state chapter and its nonprofit arm, the Gun Owners Foundation.

Another suit challenging the law was filed Monday in Manhattan federal court, where lawyer Jon Corbett, who’s representing himself, took aim at the social-media provisions, saying they effectively ended the ability for pistol-permit applicants to post online anonymously.

“An applicant who has had an abortion and has used the anonymity of social media to seek comfort is now outed, as is the gay person struggling to come out to their family,” says the suit, in which Hochul is named as the defendant.

“An applicant with an ‘Only Fans’ who sells nude pictures of themselves online would now be required to let police officers take a look at their body.”

[Ed L]

If anyone is tired of me posting in this thread, speak up. I have info on one of the people who is suing NY about their pistol license process. He is a lawyer who seems to have lived in NY City and Miami, and has previously sued for the excessive requirements to get a handgun permit and a carry permit after he was denied one. He seems to currently live in California and NY, and has a website titled professional troublemaker. https://professional-troublemaker.com/ (yeah, I know . . .). He seems to be a bit of a professional litigant. He describes himself as a "Jonathan Corbett is a technology expert turned civil rights attorney." I did not read the links to all of his suits, but some seem legitimate. I will say this, that if organization of a website was a requirement to get a Pistol Permit in NY(not that it should be), he would be denied.

He is currently suing NY State regarding the new requirements to get a handgun permit, most notably the requirement to hand over all social media information. He previously applied for a NYC carry permit related to his business but was denied. At the time he lived in Miami and NYC.

Here is a link to the wording of his specific suit: https://professional-troublemaker.co...r-gun-license/

He makes some valid points:

"In practice, the ordinary citizen is denied gun licensure via two means: the “proper cause” requirement (requiring an applicant to demonstrate a greater need to have a gun than the ordinary citizen) and via intrusive application questions that serve no purpose other than to predicate a denial."

Regarding the requirement for 4 character references who have known the applicant at least 5 years:
"Second, S51001 also adds to subsection (o) a requirement of “names and contact information of no less than four character references who can attest to the applicant's good moral character” (hereafter, the “References Requirement”). Our Constitutional rights are not contingent on whether we can find four friends to vouch for us, and this is precisely the spirit of “proper cause” – whereby the government decided if an applicant had a good enough reason or not – that was struck down in Bruen."

He previously applied for a carry permit in NY City and was denied: https://tsaoutofourpants.files.wordp...-exhibits1.pdf

He refused to answer certain questions on the pistol permit application, claiming they were irrelevant and unconstitutional:

Corbett refused to answer Questions 11, 12, and 13 on the 3-page application.These questions ask whether Corbett has ever been “discharged from employment,” “used narcotics or tranquilizers” (including under the care of a doctor), or “ever been subpoenaed to, or testified at, a hearing or inquiry conducted by any executive, legislative, or judicial body.”

Corbett’s application stated the following regarding Questions 11 – 13: “I refuse to answer questions 11, 12, and 13 because they are entirely irrelevant as to whether I am qualified to carry a handgun. Additionally, I refuse to answer question 12 because a)nearly every adult in the U.S. has been prescribed, at some point, a narcotic pain reliever or tranquilizer, and therefore I believe this question is used as subterfuge to allow the NYPD to unlawfully deny licenses, and [b]) the NYPD does not have the qualifications, nor any appropriate procedure, to determine if the usage of such medication is an indicator that a license should not be granted.”

Upon belief, the NYPD has no medical staff to evaluate, and has never sought advice from medical staff as to, whether an applicant’s use of doctor-prescribed narcotics or tranquilizers is a cause for concern regarding their ability to possess a handgun.

42. Upon belief, the NYPD has no means of securely storing Protected Health Information (PHI) as defined by the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), 42 U.S.C. § 1320d(4) and 45 CFR § 160.103, and therefore the NYPD is requiring those who wish to exercise their Second Amendment rights, even if only to possess a gun in one’s home, to submit their PHI with no guarantees on its safe storage nor limits on its dissemination.

43. The notion that testifying in front of our government may be a basis for disqualification from one’s Second Amendment rights is patently absurd.

44. Upon belief, the sole basis for Questions 11, 12, and 13 is to provide the reviewing officer an excuse to deny an application, not a reason.

[RoyGBiv]

What if P-F membership is as close as you get to having a social media account?
I don't consider this place "social media"....?

Fb, Twitter, Instagram, tiktok... All no, other than business accounts that I don't manage or even know the password for.

"Sorry Mr RGB, you're too Boomer for a permit."

[Guerrero]

What if P-F membership is as close as you get to having a social media account?
I don't consider this place "social media"....?

Fb, Twitter, Instagram, tiktok... All no, other than business accounts that I don't manage or even know the password for.

"Sorry Mr RGB, you're too Boomer for a permit."

That's interesting. I guess I didn't consider P-F to be "social media" either.

[HeavyDuty]

That's interesting. I guess I didn't consider P-F to be "social media" either.

I’m sure NYS does.

[Le Français]

What if P-F membership is as close as you get to having a social media account?
I don't consider this place "social media"....?

That's interesting. I guess I didn't consider P-F to be "social media" either.

Sorry to break it to you folks:

Definition of social media: forms of electronic communication (such as websites for social networking and microblogging) through which users create online communities to share information, ideas, personal messages, and other content (such as videos)