NY RIFLE AND PISTOL VS BRUEN SCOTUS OPINION DROPPED

[Haskell_Hunter]

Quote

In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see what legitimate purpose can possibly be served by most of the dissent’s lengthy introductory section. See post, at 1–8 (opinion of BREYER, J.). Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years? Post, at 4–5. Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atroc- ities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator.

What is the relevance of statistics about the use of guns to commit suicide? See post, at 5–6. Does the dissent think that a lot of people who possess guns in their homes will be stopped or deterred from shooting themselves if they cannot lawfully take them outside?

Alito is really taking them to task!  This opinion is pretty punishing.

[Haskell_Hunter]

Quote

And while the dissent seemingly thinks that the ubiquity of guns and our country’s high level of gun vi- olence provide reasons for sustaining the New York law, the dissent appears not to understand that it is these very facts that cause law-abiding citizens to feel the need to carry a gun for self-defense.

 

[Bucksnbows]

11 minutes ago, Haskell_Hunter said:

Don't count on that.  They could only allow open carry and use the public shaming that is the current Go-To in progressive's playbook.  This kind of move wouldn't surprise me.

Then I will stand tall and strap my S&W .44 wheel gun to my hip and freak out liberals in Shop rite all day long 😁

[Bucksnbows]

8 minutes ago, Haskell_Hunter said:

Alito is really taking them to task!  This opinion is pretty punishing.

Seems aimed at Sotomayor. 

[Haskell_Hunter]

Quote

Like that dissent in Heller, the real thrust of today’s dis- sent is that guns are bad and that States and local jurisdic- tions should be free to restrict them essentially as they see fit.3 That argument was rejected in Heller, and while the dissent protests that it is not rearguing Heller, it proceeds to do just that. See post, at 25–28.

He is not holding back.

[Haskell_Hunter]

Quote

In 1791, when the Second Amend- ment was adopted, there were no police departments, and many families lived alone on isolated farms or on the fron- tiers. If these people were attacked, they were on their own. It is hard to imagine the furor that would have erupted if the Federal Government and the States had tried to take away the guns that these people needed for protection.

Today, unfortunately, many Americans have good reason to fear that they will be victimized if they are unable to pro- tect themselves. And today, no less than in 1791, the Sec- ond Amendment guarantees their right to do so.

 

[Haskell_Hunter]

Quote

First, the Court’s decision does not prohibit States from imposing licensing requirements for carrying a handgun for self-defense. In particular, the Court’s decision does not af- fect the existing licensing regimes—known as “shall-issue” regimes—that are employed in 43 States.

The Court’s decision addresses only the unusual discre- tionary licensing regimes, known as “may-issue” regimes, that are employed by 6 States including New York. 

KAVANAUGH's concurring opinion.  He is clarifying that the decision really affects a small minority of states; which NJ is part of.

[Haskell_Hunter]

Quote

New York’s outlier may-issue regime is con- stitutionally problematic because it grants open-ended dis- cretion to licensing officials and authorizes licenses only for those applicants who can show some special need apart from self-defense. Those features of New York’s regime— the unchanneled discretion for licensing officials and the special-need requirement—in effect deny the right to carry handguns for self-defense to many “ordinary, law-abiding citizens.” Ante, at 1; see also Heller, 554 U. S., at 635. The Court has held that “individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767 (quoting Heller, 554 U. S., at 599). New York’s law is inconsistent with the Second Amendment right to possess and carry handguns for self-defense.

Swap out New York for New Jersey.  It applies.

[Haskell_Hunter]

Quote

Likewise, the 6 States including New York potentially affected by today’s decision may continue to require licenses for carrying hand- guns for self-defense so long as those States employ objec- tive licensing requirements like those used by the 43 shall- issue States.

Meaning "may issue" is unconstitutional.  NJ's permitting apparatus can still remain in place as long as it is "shall issue" and does not require "justifiable need".

[Cyanide02Z06]

Here is an excellent podcast discussion between attorney Dan Schmutter and 2A leader Anthony Colandro contemplating the possibilities.

https://gunforhire.com/blog/the-gun-for-hire-radio-broadcast-episode-577/

 

[Haskell_Hunter]

JUSTICE BREYER, with whom JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR and JUSTICE KAGAN join, dissenting.

If you didn't already know that.

[DJ0808]

6 minutes ago, Haskell_Hunter said:

Meaning "may issue" is unconstitutional.  NJ's permitting apparatus can still remain in place as long as it is "shall issue" and does not require "justifiable need".

They even noted the following on page 30

Quote

That said, because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy waittimes in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinarycitizens their right to public carry.

So if states try to make process too burdensome it can be challenged as unconstitutional.

[Haskell_Hunter]

The dissent reads like a predictable response from "woke" progressives.  These three justices use their descent to justify legislating from the bench.  They seem to think it's the court's responsibility to advance legislature not based on the rule of law, but based on selective societal trends supported by a particular political group.

After reading judgements like these, and if you can make it through it I encourage everyone to read it, you can clearly see that one set of judges on the SCOTUS issued an opinion based on law and the justices spend 60 pages walking through every detail of their legal rulings.

However, the dissent opens with pages of emotional rhetoric in an attempt to illustrate a problem in society that must be address with unconstitutional regulations.  They produce reason after reason to support firearms regulations, and none of their arguments are based in law.  These three judges are trying to "save the citizens of the US from themselves".

Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan,  your job is to judge based on the rule of law, not to expand legislation from the bench.  Why don't you three start doing your job?

[hostak126]

I don't have a UT or FL ccw permit yet, I'm waiting on the NJ language and procedures to get one. Then I'll do NJ, FL, and UT all at once

[mazzgolf]

Say what you want about Trump - good, bad, or ugly - we who are pro-2A should thank him for the justices that he appointed to SCOTUS. Can you imagine if Hillary Clinton appointed justices to those seats?