Supreme Court takes up major Second Amendment case

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  texan1211  •  2 months ago  •  50 comments

By:   John Kruzel and Harper Neidig (MSN)

Supreme Court takes up major Second Amendment case
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to restrictions on carrying firearms outside the home, teeing up a potentially landmark dispute over the scope of the Second Amendment.In an unsigned order, the justices took up a bid by two gun owners and a New York affiliate of the National Rifle Association to challenge the state's denial of their applications for concealed carry licenses for self-defense.The case represents the first...

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to restrictions on carrying firearms outside the home, teeing up a potentially landmark dispute over the scope of the Second Amendment.

© Greg Nash Supreme Court takes up major Second Amendment case

In an unsigned order, the justices took up a bid by two gun owners and a New York affiliate of the National Rifle Association to challenge the state's denial of their applications for concealed carry licenses for self-defense.

The case represents the first time the 6-3 conservative court will hear arguments over the nation's long-running and fraught debate about gun rights in America.

It will be heard next term, which begins in October.

The court has declined to insert itself in similar cases in recent years and has not issued a major Second Amendment decision in over a decade when it ruled in a pair of cases in 2008 and 2010 that individuals have a right to keep guns in their homes.

With the addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett last year significantly shifting the court's ideological balance to the right, court watchers have been waiting to see if the new majority would seek to revisit states' gun restrictions.

In the brief order issued Monday, the justices said they would hear the case and focus on whether "the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment."

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Robert Nash and Brandon Koch, who were denied concealed carry permits for self-defense because New York officials had determined that they had failed to show a "special need" to carry weapons as required under state law.

Their lawsuit argues that such restrictions on concealed carry permits violate the Second Amendment. If they prevail in front of the Supreme Court, it could upend concealed carry laws across the country.

In a brief filed with the court in December, the gun rights activists called it "the single most important unresolved Second Amendment question" since the last major guns decision in 2010.

"A law that flatly prohibits ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying a handgun for self-defense outside the home cannot be reconciled with the Court's affirmation of the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation," they wrote. "The Second Amendment does not exist to protect only the rights of the happy few who distinguish themselves from the body of 'the people' through some 'proper cause.' To the contrary, the Second Amendment exists to protect the rights of all the people."

The New York state attorney general's office responded with its own brief, arguing that the law has been in place for over a century and the requirement that concealed-carry permit applicants demonstrate a proper cause is not overly restrictive or incompatible with the Supreme Court's rulings on the Second Amendment.

"This flexible standard, which numerous New York residents have successfully satisfied, generally requires a showing that the applicant has a non-speculative need for self-defense," New York's lawyers wrote. "Absent such a need, applicants may receive a 'premises' license that allows them to keep a firearm in their home or place of business, or a 'restricted' license that allows them to carrying public for any other purposes for which they have shown a non-speculative need-such as hunting, target shooting, or employment."

The brief noted that Nash and Koch were both granted restricted licenses.

According to the gun control activist group the Giffords Law Center, 31 states currently require residents to obtain a permit in order to carry a concealed weapon, with varying degrees of restrictions on those permits.

Updated at 11:27 a.m.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Texan1211    2 months ago

Should be an interesting ruling.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2  Ender    2 months ago

So they want to repeal a hundred year old law.

So much for letting states decide, which was the pro gun argument I heard a couple of days ago.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @2    2 months ago

The age of the law being challenged isn't the issue here at all.

States can't pass laws that restrict rights enumerated in the Constitution.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1.1  Ender  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1    2 months ago

Yes they can per the Heller decision. The right to own a gun as well as the right to regulate said guns.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
Masters Participates
2.1.2  r.t..b...  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1    2 months ago

Unless of course cities, counties, or states preemptively enact sanctuary laws for any number of issues.
Meaning nothing but making attorneys rich in the march toward never ending litigation. 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1.3  Ender  replied to  r.t..b... @2.1.2    2 months ago
never ending litigation

Then they can claim they are doing something...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.4  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @2.1.1    2 months ago

Doesn't seem quite so cut-and-dried to me based on SCOTUS actually taking the case. If there wasn't anything there, then I suspect they would have passed on it.

We'll see.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.5  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  r.t..b... @2.1.2    2 months ago

Sanctuary laws are different than this.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1.6  Ender  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.4    2 months ago

The only reason they are taking the case is the conservative majority.

What they are trying to do is weaken the Heller decision on regulation.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.7  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @2.1.6    2 months ago
The only reason they are taking the case is the conservative majority.

Supposition.

What they are trying to do is weaken the Heller decision on regulation.

Or maybe they are taking the case to preserve rights granted by COTUS.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1.8  Ender  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.7    2 months ago
Supposition.

You think it would have made the docket with a Liberal majority?

There is now the ability for one state or city to decide whether or not they can stop people from carrying weapons around. This whole thing is about, fuck your laws, we are going to carry regardless of whether you want us to or not.

It is taking away the right of a state or city to decide not to have people walking the streets with guns.

They want complete open carry.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  Ender @2.1.8    2 months ago

I say just let them kill each other off in Tex-Ass.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.10  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.9    2 months ago

Should they take lessons from Baltimore or Chicago?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.11  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @2.1.8    2 months ago
You think it would have made the docket with a Liberal majority?

I don't know, nor claimed to have known. Just like you don't know. That is why it is called supposition.

Cities and states can pass laws that don't run afoul of COTUS.

They want complete open carry.

That's as pathetic as me saying that they want to confiscate all guns---which I am certainly not stupid enough to claim.

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Sophomore Principal
2.1.12  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Ender @2.1.8    2 months ago
It is taking away the right of a state or city to decide not to have people walking the streets with guns.

The thing I worry about are those with mental illness that will affect the ability to think clearly and logically and are carrying.

 
 
 
Hallux
Freshman Principal
2.1.13  Hallux  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.10    2 months ago
Should they take lessons from Baltimore or Chicago?

How about taking them from Montreal and Canada?

The urban Montreal area has 4.2 million residents and only 25 homicides for all of 2020 (6 by shooting). 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.14  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Hallux @2.1.13    2 months ago

Maybe Chicago and Baltimore should take lessons from Canada.

 
 
 
Hallux
Freshman Principal
2.1.15  Hallux  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.14    2 months ago

That would only work if US states took lessons from Canadian provinces.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.16  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Hallux @2.1.15    2 months ago

Aaah, Canada........who cares?

 
 
 
Hallux
Freshman Principal
2.1.17  Hallux  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.16    2 months ago

Shall we start with all the folks who share the longest border in the world?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Masters Expert
2.1.18  Greg Jones  replied to  Ender @2.1.8    2 months ago
They want complete open carry.

No they don't, what a silly comment.

And as we pragmatic realists have repeatedly explained to the gun grabber crowd...

common criminals and potential mass shooters ignore gun laws and background checks.

How successful have "gun free zones" been?

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.1.19  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.7    2 months ago
maybe they are taking the case to preserve rights granted by COTUS.

Here i will disagree, COTUS, the Bill of Rights specifically does not grant rights , they recognize already pre existing rights inherent that every individual person already has , what COTUS / Bill of Rights does is limit what the government can do in regards to those already held rights .

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
Professor Expert
3  FLYNAVY1    2 months ago

It will be interesting to see if they take into account the entire 2nd amendment as was written by the framers....

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @3    2 months ago
 the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
Professor Expert
3.1.1  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1    2 months ago

You copied what you want to see/believe, but not what the framers wrote.    The second amendment starts with the capital "A" not the lower case "t" after the comma.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.2  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @3.1.1    2 months ago

I copied what YOU provided. Silly to complain about it now.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
Professor Expert
3.1.3  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.2    2 months ago

Silly of me to think you would be honest with the facts in the matter....   YOU copied PART of what I provided.  

You might try thinking about the bill of rights in it's entirety rather than cherry-picking as you usually do.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.4  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @3.1.1    2 months ago
You copied what you want to see/believe, but not what the framers wrote.   

So the authors didn't write the part I quoted?

That premise is sadly ridiculous.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.5  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @3.1.3    2 months ago

You might try to accurately assess what I write instead of what you want me to write.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
Professor Expert
3.1.6  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.4    2 months ago

What..... Do you think you get brownie points for truncating the 2nd amendment?

[Deleted Pretty sad Tex.]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.7  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @3.1.6    2 months ago

Dishonest?

You should shove that shit back into the hole you pulled it from.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Masters Expert
3.1.8  Greg Jones  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @3.1.6    2 months ago

Knock off the bullying and personal attack.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.9  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.8    2 months ago

It's okay.

You know you are winning when the other side resorts to such cheap tactics.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.10  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.8    2 months ago

Who died and made you moderator?

Fly is no bully.  He doesn't make personal attacks.

That's you and Tex-Ass.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.11  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.10    2 months ago

lol

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Guide
3.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @3    2 months ago

be interesting to see if they take into account the entire 2nd amendment as was written by the framers..

You know they already did in exhaustive detail, right? Look up Heller. 

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
Professor Expert
3.2.1  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2    2 months ago

And the NRA fearing conservatives on the court got the decision wrong and should have joined the other four justices in maintaining of long standing precedence.

Circular reasoning by the conservative members of the court should never have been a basis in the Heller decision.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Guide
3.2.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @3.2.1    2 months ago
And the NRA fearing conservatives on the court got the decision wron\

Please, please explain how life time appointed justices are afraid of a a second tier special interest group? 

rcular reasoning by the conservative members of the court should never have been a basis in the Heller decision.

so you didn't read it. It's actually an exhaustive study into the language of the entire second amendment, which is what you claim to want. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.3  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @3.2.1    2 months ago
And the NRA fearing conservatives on the court got the decision wrong and should have joined the other four justices in maintaining of long standing precedence.

Really? LMAO!

SCOTUS is a lifetime appointment. The NRA or any other organization you wish to malign has diddley-squat to do with "scaring" the poor Justices. The very idea is preposterous!

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Masters Expert
3.2.4  Greg Jones  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @3.2.1    2 months ago

No....they got it right, and upheld the Framer's intent. From the decision.

 "We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this
country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the
many
amici
who believe that prohibition of handgun
ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the
District of Columbia a variety
of tools for combating that
problem, including some measures regulating handguns,
see
supra,
at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of
constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy
choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibi­
tion of handguns held and used for self-defense in the
home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amend­
ment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is
the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces
provide personal security, and where gun violence is a
serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is
not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to
pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.
We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
It is so ordered"
 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.5  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Greg Jones @3.2.4    2 months ago

And yet, this kind of stuff will continue to be peddled:

And the NRA fearing conservatives on the court got the decision wrong and should have joined the other four justices in maintaining of long standing precedence. Circular reasoning by the conservative members of the court should never have been a basis in the Heller decision.

Seems like it wasn't expected that someone would actually quote from the decision itself--I believe we were supposed to swallow the swill.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.6  Tessylo  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @3.2.1    2 months ago

That's all the NRA has along with circle jerks.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Masters Expert
3.3  Greg Jones  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @3    2 months ago
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The courts have settled this issue....do your homework.
 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
3.4  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  FLYNAVY1 @3    2 months ago

So who is the Militia ?

(people ALWAYS get this one wrong and are surprised to find that out)

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
Freshman Participates
3.5  Transyferous Rex  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @3    2 months ago

Miller did discuss it, and Heller has an extensive discussion on the prefatory clause. I'm sure the Court will discuss it again, but my guess is that there is a larger discussion on the level of scrutiny the Court should use when evaluating 2nd amendment cases. That appears to be set up in Heller.

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g. , Sheldon , in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g. , State v. Chandler , 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State , 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. 26

The above is from the Heller opinion. Heller clearly recognizes the states' rights to place reasonable restrictions on possession. The question taken up by the current Court concerns whether or not requiring an otherwise able person to show a "special need" to concealed carry runs afoul of the constitutional right. Again, I think there will be a debate on what level of scrutiny the Court should look at this with. Apart from that, who knows? I am loathe to believe that anyone would think it would be okay to require a person to show a special need to; practice their religion, prevent soldiers from being quarter in their home in a time of peace, be free from an unreasonable search, not be subjected to double jeopardy, have a speedy trial, or be free from cruel or unusual punishment. My bet is that this decision makes a distinction between restrictions such as prohibition on possession by felons, and requiring a showing of a special need in order to exercise a right. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4  Tessylo    2 months ago

178379432_1656740477849845_4990551692907019060_n.png?_nc_cat=104&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=SDZLAtiWP7wAX-uHtDk&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-2.xx&tp=30&oh=fe3c153723f1a3f083537a44be3d2a79&oe=60AAB217

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @4    2 months ago

Oh, yeah, because Rubio has EVERYTHING to do with SCOTUS taking this case.

Sadly for you, Rubio isn't the topic.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1    2 months ago

Well it must be on topic or it would have been deleted.

LOL!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.2  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.1    2 months ago

I didnt bother to flag it, I want everyone to see it!

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
5  Mark in Wyoming     2 months ago

I am starting to think this is actually funny.

 all this case will decide is if a person has a right to carry a firearm for their own self, personal defense if they feel they have the need and remove certain state roadblocks about haveing to "prove ' a need  to do so .

 it will NOT dictate that a state has to do away with any training requirements , or proof of proficiency , or even licencing requirements  it will simply change the states requirement that proof of need has to be provided before they will grant a blessing.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online



pat wilson
Hallux
zuksam
JohnRussell
Gazoo
lady in black
Mark in Wyoming


50 visitors