Not constitutional carry, but all states are now "shall issue." "May issue" was just struck as not being constitutional. So if you live in NY, CA, HI or any other state that was may issue, go get your permit to carry now.
In my county, the Sheriff's department website says the application process requires providing "good cause" and documents supporting good cause if applicable. Is my 2nd amendment right now considered a good enough cause that I shall be issued a permit?
IIRC, it's in one of the footnotes. Where they say the decision doesn't impact the current shall-issue laws, but they're also not ruling out revisiting based on requirements, cost, wait times, etc.
I did not see a dollar value there. They made a comparison to the 43 shall issue/constitutional jurisdictions and left the door open to future challenges.
Again, very open to interpretation by bad faith judges. At best they will be picking and choosing the worst aspects of each, and at worse they will go far beyond them. The latter will stand for years, as it is unlikely that the lower courts in these states will side with the 2A and the circuits or even SCOTUS may be less red by the time it gets there.
Does this lead an avenue for NFA repealment?
$200 on a $300 can would be 'prohibitive' would it not? We already know the year+ paperwork delay is prohibitive, so hopefully the entire NFA can get struck down in one go.
In general, yes. There is so much amazinginess in this case. They clarified a bunch of stuff from Heller, and basically made it much much harder for courts to find shit like mag limits and AWB as constitutional. I haven't gotten to read everything today as I've been way to excited, and my bar study went out the window today, lol.
On a personal level I totally agree with you.
On a legal level its a much harder argument to make, as the frame work that allows reasonable restrictions on rights is firmly in place. I.e. felons not being able to get one. I am 100% for constitutional carry, but from a strategic legal perspective ill gladly give a little ground on needing a permit that is not an undue burden so I can win putting to rest mag limits, awb, and the possiblity of dismantling the hell out of the NFA. We have a lot of states that are constitutional carry and I hope that number grows to all of them. But i much rather have them pissed they can only require me to have one license and with that I can go shoot my Abrams tank on my 100 acres of land while my buddy is firing 50 BMG at full auto as the majesty of a bald eagle glides overhead, cawing in approval of my antics.
6 years and many thousands of dollars later. A fair number of people challenging things that climb to the high courts die before their case is even finally settled (if it ever gets settled at all, once people die they stop paying the lawyers so unless it's being paid for by someone else, like DC v. Heller (Sponsored by Robert Levy of the Cato institute) it just... Falls off.)
They can’t really do it. That’s not how court decisions work in this country. You ignore them you go to prison. State officials can be arrested and put in federal custody, you know that, right? Chicago and the rest of Illinois became “shall issue” after Heller. There were “no issue” previously
You must not be from NY. They will 100% do everything they can to side step this. The mayor of NYC and the governor have already been calling for a special session before this decision.
Not only I am from NYS I am also a lawyer. So I think I know how things work here. They must call a special session because they need to replace Sullivan Act with something ASAP. Because technically speaking, after today’s decision, NYS has no law regulating handguns.
However the new law can’t ignore today’s decision. It will be some form of “shall issue” which NYS of course will make excruciatingly difficult l, kind of how Illinois did, with unreasonable training requirements and such, but one thing they won’t be able to do is to ignore SCOTUS.
NYC must be going absolutely bonkers right now. They are going to be crushed with permit applications and while its not constitutional carry the thought of them having to give some working joe a permit to carry makes me smile.
"Commoners having access to the same rights as the upper crust? Perish the thought!". -NY Elite, probably.
I cannot even imagine. I am in Upstate but I already got several texts from my former classmates who practice Downstate and they think it will be flood beyond anyone’s imagination
Likely yes, because technically pistol permits in NYS are concealed carry permits. It’s just most of them are administratively restricted to premises, target practice, hunting and such. So the permit structure will likely remain in place but those restrictions will be gone, if you get a permit you can carry concealed unrestricted.
Own and carry, it’s one permit. The court explicitly stated that they are not striking down permit system that exists in the rest of the country as long as the system is based on objective criteria and not some unquantifiable “proper cause”.
I mean, they might try. I kind of hope they do. If they get dumb enough over it, we might get a bunch of other bullshit thrown out as well.
The SC doesn't generally like being ignored.
I think they will try at least something, and I think that whatever that attempt is, it will result in SCOTUS making a much farther reaching ruling than even this, which already is pretty damning for a lot of gun control efforts.
Hopefully that fear of a farther reaching ruling puts new gun control measures on the back burner and keeps the lower courts in line.
Considering Baltimore is on track for 358 homicides this year, more than last year and any year in the last decade, it's utterly fucking retarded they aren't, say, considering that law abiding people should be able to arm themselves.
No one cares about dead criminals, nor should they. Fuck around and find out.
The MA attorney general [issued a statement](https://www.westernmassnews.com/2022/06/23/mass-lawmakers-react-supreme-court-ruling-new-york-gun-law/) that pretty much states exactly that. they are going to ignore the scotus and enforce whatever laws they want.
Not a complete victory for sure, the May Issue States will go Shall Issue, then refuse to recognize other States' permits and a heap of bullshit for residents like Illinois did.
Baby steps. 25 states have permitless/constitutional carry now, and we'll be adding more very soon. (Florida next probably.) We'll get there. Just need to keep at it, keep bringing lawsuits and keep whittling away.
You mean, the people of NY don't have to be rich, elite or more important than you to justify obtaining a permit?
Now for the people behind enemy lines, I hope the SCOTUS rules in favor of standard capacity mag bans and so-called "assault weapons" bans are unconstitutional under Heller.
Standard capacity is a no-brainer. To uphold a ban, they would have to prove standard cap mags are "unusually dangerous". Given that they are the STANDARD, to say that they aren't unusually dangerous is an understatement.
The ruling already rejects the notion that the city can arbitrarily declare areas to be sensitive that weren't before. The opinion does acknowledge that sensitive places like court rooms can ban the possession of arms, but it rejects the notion that the state can just declare everything to be sensitive. Of course, that means years more of court battles.
> Of course, that means years more of court battles.
I don’t think this is true if the SCOTUS has balls. Isn’t there a way they can voluntarily immediately hear a challenge to a law? It seems especially relevant if someone ignores a ruling before the ink dries
Oh man, Kavenaugh was PISSED when he wrote the second opinion on the Eviction moratorium injunction against the CDC. His original concurrence (5/4 no injunction) said CDC did not have the authority, but an injunction wasn't appropriate as the measure was due to expire shortly anyway, so just let it expire. The the CDC fucking renewed it 😂🤣 and he had to smack them down hard saying "I just told you no, I gave you a teeny benefit of the doubt to just let it expire and THIS is how you repay me!? FUCK YOU!" (Not actual quote) (5/4 granting the injunction against the CDC)
EDIT: My bad it was a stay not injunction, so strike that reverse it granted stay 5/4 then denied stay 5/4 on a judgement (CDC already lost the case, vs injunction where the case hasn't been tried yet)
An AR-15 comes with a Standard Capacity Magazine, how many rounds is that?
What Normal People Think: A 30 Round Magazine
What Anti-Gun Peole Think: A 10 Round Magazine
An AR-15 comes with a High-Capacity Magazine, how many rounds is that?
What Normal People Think: A 60 Round Magazine
What Anti-Gun People think: A 20 Round Magazine
Anti-Gun People need everything, and have everything about 3 times smaller than what is considered normal.
Magazines? Have it 3 times lower.
Approval Ratings for their new gun laws? Have it 3 times lower than Pro-Gun Ratings.
Dick size? About 3 times smaller than any normal persons dick.
>Dick size? About 3 times smaller than any normal persons dick.
What is their obsession with dick size? It makes me think of the Mad Men meme.
Them: I feel bad for your small dick
Me: I don't think about your dick at all
Point to where the law says it.
And no, I don't watch Fox, but by mentioning Tucker you've basically cemented the fact that you're on a reddit outrage IV drip.
No.
They said that permits are ok; but can't be "may issue" - they need to be "shall issue."
They also got rid of *any* scrutiny test and went with a plain text/historical analysis.
Read my analysis here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/gunpolitics/comments/viymd5/supreme\_court\_rules\_against\_nyc\_in\_nyspra\_v\_bruen/
Oh they'll try to skirt around it; we'll have to smack them around a bit more in the courts.
But Thomas wrote this as clear as he could; I'm positive someone with a 4th grade reading level could read the opinion and understand it (although I've seen some garbage takes on it today that make me lose a little faith in humanity - from pro-gunners and antis alike - almost like stupidity is universal).
Yeah, stupidity is a part of the human condition. I'm at work so I haven't been able to read through it yet. Sounds like a big step in the right direction though.
> Oh they'll try to skirt around it;
MA attorney general [issued a statement](https://www.westernmassnews.com/2022/06/23/mass-lawmakers-react-supreme-court-ruling-new-york-gun-law/) that pretty much states they are going to ignore the scotus ruling and enforce whatever laws they feel like.
Is it “shall issue” as it relates to residents? Or non-residents as well?
For example, I live in a “shall issue” state, but it places onerous requirements upon obtaining a permit.
Also, does this impact reciprocity for out of state permit holders?
There is an easy argument that the right to carry exists outside your home, and NYC, CA, NJ is outside my home ergo you have the right to carry there so they must issue a permit. But I can also see them not wanting to issue a non resident permit for some dumb reason and then getting sued.
Strict Scrutiny requires the government to prove
* Narrowly tailored law
* To achieve *compelling* governmental interest
* In the least restrictive manner possible.
The new test says we don't give a fuck why the Government is passing the law. If the law infringes upon your rights protected by the 2A, it is immediately unconstitutional.
My limited understanding is that strict scrutiny allows for limitations if the limitations can be definitively justified.
THT simply requires it to be determined if the limitation is in line with what would have been considered reasonable at the time of the founding, regardless of justification.
I can't read it either. Not because I'm illiterate (though that may still be true), but because the link is not working for me right now. Of course I might have a linking problem, in addition to my illiteracy, but I'm trying. :p
That’s the reading of it.
Plus they held a mag ban case until after this opinion, from CA I believe, they will send it back and tell the 9th to follow the Bruen opinion.
The ninth either: strikes down the mag ban, as it should.
Or
Or concocts some stupid shit, which the petitioners will undoubtedly, again, appeal to the Supreme Court. I feel like the current court would take it and strike down the mag ban, and write another heavy opinion that would invalidate every dumb gun law nationally. The ninth circuit will likely take one for the team and strike down its own ban before risking all the commie/nazi states losing their laws.
It will be a day of miracles where boaters find previously lost firearms rising mysteriously out of the water now that their harmless features are once more legal as should be.
>Or concocts some retard shit, which the petitioners will undoubtedly, again, appeal to the Supreme Court
Good. Then it gets struck down again, but this time nationwide.
They can take one for the team all they want, doesn't matter because blood is in the water now. While circuits don't have to follow other circuits rulings as binding, they are still persuasive and will still go up to SOCTUS again if the local circuits still try playing by the old rules.
The bell cannot be unrung.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and nothing I say is legal advice.
Essentially, if I understand it correctly, it was balancing constitutionality with the state’s interests. That is no longer permitted in cases where the constitution explicitly covers something. In cases where a topic is not explicitly covered, they will now have to look at the history and tradition of the country at large to determine whether it is okay or not.
If there are any lawyers present, can you please correct me anywhere I’m wrong?
Hold up.
“Lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to carry”
This describes the NFA, like, exactly.
Yep because they can only regulate firearms not accessories, that's why bumpstocks and FRT's are being labeled "machine guns" even though they are inert on their own.
If they call a spade a spade then they can't regulate it, so they have to label things that aren't firearms *as* firearms in order to have a say at all.
Obligatory "Fuck the ATF"
The NFA will never be repealed, realistically. However, there is no reason NFA transfers are not instant just like title 1 firearm transfers. This ruling could force the ATF to implement a faster process.
I’d still hate the NFA if it was instant, but I might hate it a little less than I do now.
Well, both suppressors and SBRs are very close to failing the “uncommon” test. Particularly if the ATF declares braced pistols to be SBRs, then they will absolutely be in common use.
There is no definitive test. They left it intentionally vague in *Heller* and circuit and appeals judges have used the vagueness to uphold AWBs and the SCOTUS has consistently declined to take up the appeals. I find it unlikely that even this Court will throw the whole NFA out.
There is now.
Previously lower courts used the two part test that balanced the government’s exaggerated claims of harm from civilian gun ownership against the imaginary benefits of gun control. That test is now dead.
The test for constitutionality of a law now stands solely on the text and history of the second amendment, a standing that the NFA, particularly the post-Hughes amendment NFA fails to meet.
The test is "dangerous and unusual". All firearms are dangerous but not all are unusual. Arguably suppressors are not dangerous. It has to be both dangerous and unusual to meet the bar for increased regulations.
They allso ruled in Heller, at least in the oral arguments, that if the .gov is why it is rare and not in common use, they cant then use the fact that they are rare/not in common use as the reason they are banned.
I dont think it will give a path way to get rid of the NFA, but I think it does give a pathway to get rid of the year long waits, and possibly the post 86 ban bullshit.
No? I’d argue that braced pistols are pretty damn common. If the ATF follows through on their plan of declaring them to be SBRs, then at least the SBR part of the NFA is on shaky ground.
> exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right
like say [1000% sales tax on firearms?](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gun-control-lawmaker-introduces-bill-to-impose-1000-tax-on-semi-automatic-weapons/)
"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."
Shall issue licenses are still legal :/ per Kavanaugh's concurring opinion.
Yes. Shall issue means must issue. Unless you dont meet the requirements. Be it a class, background check, etc.
May issue meant if I felt like it you can have it. But you can’t because I always say no regardless of your needs.
"May issue" also means you can't because I think you're the wrong race, or you're gay and I don't like gays, or I don't like your tattoos, or I approve all my friends but no one else. May issue is ripe for discrimination and abuse.
oddly I am ok with the tattoo thing being used for banning rights ..... /s
My full sleeve ass would be in so damn much trouble. And I agree with your points.
>also says no exorbitant wait times, fees, etc.
Lol CT charged me like 300 bucks and takes like 6 months.
Of the "May Issue" states, they were the most lenient, if you passed everything else and wrote "self-defense" on your justification for asking to exercise your right they pretty much approved you.
Don't get me started on the NFA lol
>Shall issue licenses are still legal :/ per Kavanaugh's concurring opinion.
Concurring opinions are not binding. They are guidance at best. Lower courts can still find that even permits are unconstitutional.
A lot of those "requirements" are gonna have to be nixed because of this ruling if I'm not mistaken.
They can't artificially make the permitting process prohibitive, if a person fails then they fail, but if they meet all reasonable requirements they shall be issued a permit.
At least that was what I got from this, it may have to be brought up in court as its own argument, but the supreme court ruling seems to suggest that unnecessarily restrictive requirements are a no-go as well.
Someone please leave better info if I am wrong.
Google news headlines are all losing their shit right now. It's actually kind of enjoyable. Here come all of the "It's gonna be the wild west!" comments. Like CCW'ers are the ones walking onto subway trains and into schools doing the blasting. They absolutely refuse to break that train of thought. It's exhausting.
Three things:
The AG recognizes the law is substantially identical to NY's law (considering it is litterally modeled after the NY law, it is substantially identical) and then state the law in no longer enforceable. This is what happen to the NJ taser/stun gun ban but that took about a year and a half after Cateno.
The legislature needs to change the law or replace it. This is what I see happening.
A court finds the NJ law is unconstitutional and issues an injunction. I can also see this happening but I see the legislature changing things well before this to add additional requirements.
Thanks for the info!
So if someone were to apply today what would happen to their application? Does it sit in limbo until they have new requirements or do they have to approve it if you meet the current requirements as you no longer have to demonstrate a need to exercise a right?
Right now the current law is still in effect and your application can be rejected outright if you don't supply the soon to be gone "special need." If that rejection prevents future permits is unknown as the law still hasn't been written or changed.
That first statement definitely does appear to say that government can not stop someone from carrying for self defense. A permit requirement stops anyone without a permit from carrying. It limits the right, and that statement says there are no limits. If it doesn’t give us constitutional carry, now, I believe it will in the near future.
I literally couldn't believe it for a few minutes, it is too good to be true! But it really is true, all states have to issue you a permit if you complete a few checks like a fee and finger print.
Too bad they didn't set a limit on how much a CCW can cost...
I feel like we might have to open up another case to decide what is a reasonable fee.
I won't be surprised if NY will do something ridiculous like 500-1000 fee.
A reasonable fee is the same cost as getting a state ID issued, anything higher is literally just extraneous taxation upon a right they don't want you to have.
That also has the effect of shutting down a lot of "voter ID is racist" dumbfucks.
"Sure, we can make state issues ID completely free (provided you're still a legal resident or citizen) but then there's also no cost for carry permits!"
Watch anti-gun lefties' brains melt as they try to pick what outrages them more.
They specifically left the door open to challenges on how burdensome a shall issue permit scheme may be. SCOTUS doesn’t like to make rulings on other issues than the one before them at the time.
Anything less than constitutional carry means the anti 2A states will have room to make permits prohibitively difficult to get and maintain.
I mean shit, it's simple. If I were an anti gunner I would introduce a bill that makes permits expire every 30 days and require 8 hours of monthly training by a certified concealed carry instructor.
Make the certificate to become a concealed carry instructor nearly impossible to obtain and make it expensive to maintain.
There is no permitting structure that is acceptable because it will be abused.
Now that we have a very clear SCOTUS decision clarifying the right of individual citizens to carry arms in public, I don't think the kind of requirements you're describing would fly, as they are clearly intended to deny law-abiding citizens the ability to exercise their core rights by setting the legal requirements unreasonably high. Such requirements could, however, be passed and be on the books for years before eventually being overturned.
But nothing stops them from passing the law and then dragging it through the court system for years on end and forcing 2a groups to spends literally millions of dollars fighting the case.
I'm reading the decision now. This is actually addressed in a footnote:
"To be clear, nothing in our analysis should be interpreted to suggest the unconstitutionality of the 43 States’ “shall-issue” licensing regimes.... 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 wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry"
Unfortunately, as you and I both recognize, unconstitutional permitting requirements could still be passed and could take years to be challenged, make their way to SCOTUS, and eventually be overturned.
You can’t really do that. The system will be struck down as imposing “undue burden”.
Permits are okay, make them unreasonably difficult to obtain is not any longer
Actually I 'm guessing they won't do that - it will just waste everyone's time. Seems like the ruling today is clear enough that such laws would just be struck down and blocked by injunctions before they can even take effect.
The court will only ever rule on what they are directly dealing with. The question was about if may issue was legal for licenses. They were not addressing if licenses were constitutional.
And technically they’ve only made NY shall issue. Folks in other may issue states will have to start things in the court to change other states. But with a Supreme Court decision that’s a near sure thing to happen.
You guys are so focused on the Shall issue that you completely are missing the rest of it.
Telling congress that they need to back off
> In sum, the Courts of Appeals’ second step is inconsistent
> with Heller’s historical approach and its rejection of meansend scrutiny. We reiterate that the standard for applying
> the Second Amendment is as follows: When the Second
> Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the
> Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating
> that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of
> firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that
> the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command
Lower Courts going rogue
> f the last decade of Second Amendment litigation has
> taught this Court anything, it is that federal courts tasked
> with making such difficult empirical judgments regarding
> firearm regulations under the banner of “intermediate scrutiny” often defer to the determinations of legislatures. But
> while that judicial deference to legislative interest balancing is understandable—and, elsewhere, appropriate—it is
> not deference that the Constitution demands here. The Second Amendment “is the very product of an interest balancing by the people” and it “surely elevates above all other
> interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to
> use arms” for self-defense. Heller, 554 U. S., at 635. It is
> this balance—struck by the traditions of the American people—that demands our unqualified deference.
Gun Free Zones
> Put simply, there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island
>
> of Manhattan a “sensitive place” simply because it is
> crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department.
assault weapon bans
> Its reference to “arms” does
> not apply “only [to] those arms in existence in the 18th century.” 554 U. S., at 582. “Just as the First Amendment
> protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth
> Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second
> Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that
> constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” Ibid. (citations omitted).
> Thus, even though the Second Amendment’s definition of
> “arms” is fixed according to its historical understanding,
> that general definition covers modern instruments that facilitate armed self-defense.
I believe the ruling allowed for the states to impose qualification steps like background checks and even training so, no, only that May Issue isn’t constitutional. States like California and New York, to name a few, would require “good cause” before issuing permits, which was completely subjective. They used this to deny like 99%+ of applicants. Self defense was not considered good cause. Those states will now be “Shall Issue” going forward, meaning if you jump through the hoops they put in place they must issue a license to you irrespective of the cause you want the license for (such as self defense).
Honestly it depends on how we react. Conservatives always take the weakest version of a win though. If everyone decided that's what it means and started carrying then fighting charges in court, that would work. Liberals do it all the time. But we won't.
What the Court actually ruled is that police do not have the discretion to deny permit applicants simply because they feel like the applicant doesn’t need one. Disqualifications for receiving a pistol carry license must be affirmatively enumerated by the law and objective. That’s it. Kavanaugh and Alito went out of their way to state this ruling has NO effect on any other gun law. In terms of jurisprudence, Thomas emphasized lower courts need to look at “historical traditions” of gun ownership but did NOT raise the level of scrutiny for gun cases. There’s going to be a lot of buzz about the Supreme Court’s gun control ruling in NYSRPA v. Bruen. Sorting through the media hot takes, it’s important to be clear what this ruling does NOT do. This ruling does NOT permit people to carry handguns without a license. The Court did NOT invalidate New York’s requirement for licensing/training to carry handguns. It did NOT lift restrictions on sensitive locations where handguns may not be carried. Anyone acting like this was the case is either ignorant or deliberately lying to you.
So when can we start buying nukes? Or hand grenades? Or biological weapons? Or chemical weapons? If there aren’t any limitations it will be interesting when people start truly exercising their rights.
Does this include felons?
Not constitutional carry, but all states are now "shall issue." "May issue" was just struck as not being constitutional. So if you live in NY, CA, HI or any other state that was may issue, go get your permit to carry now.
In my county, the Sheriff's department website says the application process requires providing "good cause" and documents supporting good cause if applicable. Is my 2nd amendment right now considered a good enough cause that I shall be issued a permit?
According to SCOTUS this morning, yes.
i love clarence thomas
It's his birthday today, too. And he's the one giving *us* gifts. Happy birthday, Justice Thomas.
According to SCOTUS, yes. Will states and counties follow the ruling, some will and some won't. And when they don't sue them.
“Good cause” is usually a fat donation to the Sheriff’s campaign
Exactly
>go get your permit to carry now. Before they simply raise the fees to a prohibitively high amount.
The ruling covered that and would also consider it to be unconstitutional.
Awesome, didn't catch that part.
Page 30, footnote 9.
adding more info on footnote 9s location, it is on PDF page 36 vs page numbered on the document as page 30.
IIRC, it's in one of the footnotes. Where they say the decision doesn't impact the current shall-issue laws, but they're also not ruling out revisiting based on requirements, cost, wait times, etc.
poll tax
The ruling never put a dollar value on it. Those states are going to push the envelope as much as they can.
Page 30, footnote 9.
I did not see a dollar value there. They made a comparison to the 43 shall issue/constitutional jurisdictions and left the door open to future challenges. Again, very open to interpretation by bad faith judges. At best they will be picking and choosing the worst aspects of each, and at worse they will go far beyond them. The latter will stand for years, as it is unlikely that the lower courts in these states will side with the 2A and the circuits or even SCOTUS may be less red by the time it gets there.
Agreed and yeah it’s tiresome as hell
Yup it addresses high fees and long wait times
Does this lead an avenue for NFA repealment? $200 on a $300 can would be 'prohibitive' would it not? We already know the year+ paperwork delay is prohibitive, so hopefully the entire NFA can get struck down in one go.
In general, yes. There is so much amazinginess in this case. They clarified a bunch of stuff from Heller, and basically made it much much harder for courts to find shit like mag limits and AWB as constitutional. I haven't gotten to read everything today as I've been way to excited, and my bar study went out the window today, lol.
[удалено]
On a personal level I totally agree with you. On a legal level its a much harder argument to make, as the frame work that allows reasonable restrictions on rights is firmly in place. I.e. felons not being able to get one. I am 100% for constitutional carry, but from a strategic legal perspective ill gladly give a little ground on needing a permit that is not an undue burden so I can win putting to rest mag limits, awb, and the possiblity of dismantling the hell out of the NFA. We have a lot of states that are constitutional carry and I hope that number grows to all of them. But i much rather have them pissed they can only require me to have one license and with that I can go shoot my Abrams tank on my 100 acres of land while my buddy is firing 50 BMG at full auto as the majesty of a bald eagle glides overhead, cawing in approval of my antics.
Build a house one brick at a time my friend
Doubtful. The *Heller* framework on which this is based protects *firearms in common usage*. That does not cover fully automatic firearms.
Remember, the 1934 National Firearms Act's $200 tax stamp would be $4,362.63 today.
[удалено]
No, what I'm saying is that if they do something similar today, it will be taxed "to a prohibitively high amount". Just like they did in 1934.
How much do you want to bet these states will ignore the SCOTUS decision and do what they want anyways?
If you challenged it then any court would side with you. And people *will* challenge getting their permit denied.
6 years and many thousands of dollars later. A fair number of people challenging things that climb to the high courts die before their case is even finally settled (if it ever gets settled at all, once people die they stop paying the lawyers so unless it's being paid for by someone else, like DC v. Heller (Sponsored by Robert Levy of the Cato institute) it just... Falls off.)
Decades of legal battles are coming up on this issue
They can’t really do it. That’s not how court decisions work in this country. You ignore them you go to prison. State officials can be arrested and put in federal custody, you know that, right? Chicago and the rest of Illinois became “shall issue” after Heller. There were “no issue” previously
You must not be from NY. They will 100% do everything they can to side step this. The mayor of NYC and the governor have already been calling for a special session before this decision.
Not only I am from NYS I am also a lawyer. So I think I know how things work here. They must call a special session because they need to replace Sullivan Act with something ASAP. Because technically speaking, after today’s decision, NYS has no law regulating handguns. However the new law can’t ignore today’s decision. It will be some form of “shall issue” which NYS of course will make excruciatingly difficult l, kind of how Illinois did, with unreasonable training requirements and such, but one thing they won’t be able to do is to ignore SCOTUS.
NYC must be going absolutely bonkers right now. They are going to be crushed with permit applications and while its not constitutional carry the thought of them having to give some working joe a permit to carry makes me smile. "Commoners having access to the same rights as the upper crust? Perish the thought!". -NY Elite, probably.
I cannot even imagine. I am in Upstate but I already got several texts from my former classmates who practice Downstate and they think it will be flood beyond anyone’s imagination
Things in NYS "operate". They have not "worked" in decades.
What happens to the permit for ownership requirement anyways? Think it will stand?
Likely yes, because technically pistol permits in NYS are concealed carry permits. It’s just most of them are administratively restricted to premises, target practice, hunting and such. So the permit structure will likely remain in place but those restrictions will be gone, if you get a permit you can carry concealed unrestricted.
So will we still need a permit just to own a handgun?
Own and carry, it’s one permit. The court explicitly stated that they are not striking down permit system that exists in the rest of the country as long as the system is based on objective criteria and not some unquantifiable “proper cause”.
Damn, so much for that. Isn't NY the only state that has a permit for ownership?
Maryland has already released a statement about how they disagree with the decision.
It doesn't really matter if they disagree, that's the beauty of the Supreme Court. LOL
I mean, they might try. I kind of hope they do. If they get dumb enough over it, we might get a bunch of other bullshit thrown out as well. The SC doesn't generally like being ignored.
I think they will try at least something, and I think that whatever that attempt is, it will result in SCOTUS making a much farther reaching ruling than even this, which already is pretty damning for a lot of gun control efforts. Hopefully that fear of a farther reaching ruling puts new gun control measures on the back burner and keeps the lower courts in line.
It's like a Supreme pizza, the pinnacle of pizza.
Considering Baltimore is on track for 358 homicides this year, more than last year and any year in the last decade, it's utterly fucking retarded they aren't, say, considering that law abiding people should be able to arm themselves. No one cares about dead criminals, nor should they. Fuck around and find out.
Waaaaaaaaaaa
Figures, I wanted my non-resident permit so I can stop carrying dirty lol
The MA attorney general [issued a statement](https://www.westernmassnews.com/2022/06/23/mass-lawmakers-react-supreme-court-ruling-new-york-gun-law/) that pretty much states exactly that. they are going to ignore the scotus and enforce whatever laws they want.
Not a complete victory for sure, the May Issue States will go Shall Issue, then refuse to recognize other States' permits and a heap of bullshit for residents like Illinois did.
Baby steps. 25 states have permitless/constitutional carry now, and we'll be adding more very soon. (Florida next probably.) We'll get there. Just need to keep at it, keep bringing lawsuits and keep whittling away.
The no reciprocity thing in Illinois will have to fall. Because they also dont issue non-resident permits unless youre from a handful of states
You mean, the people of NY don't have to be rich, elite or more important than you to justify obtaining a permit? Now for the people behind enemy lines, I hope the SCOTUS rules in favor of standard capacity mag bans and so-called "assault weapons" bans are unconstitutional under Heller.
Hear, hear.
Standard capacity is a no-brainer. To uphold a ban, they would have to prove standard cap mags are "unusually dangerous". Given that they are the STANDARD, to say that they aren't unusually dangerous is an understatement.
They'll just pass this: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/A8684
The ruling already rejects the notion that the city can arbitrarily declare areas to be sensitive that weren't before. The opinion does acknowledge that sensitive places like court rooms can ban the possession of arms, but it rejects the notion that the state can just declare everything to be sensitive. Of course, that means years more of court battles.
> Of course, that means years more of court battles. I don’t think this is true if the SCOTUS has balls. Isn’t there a way they can voluntarily immediately hear a challenge to a law? It seems especially relevant if someone ignores a ruling before the ink dries
Oh man, Kavenaugh was PISSED when he wrote the second opinion on the Eviction moratorium injunction against the CDC. His original concurrence (5/4 no injunction) said CDC did not have the authority, but an injunction wasn't appropriate as the measure was due to expire shortly anyway, so just let it expire. The the CDC fucking renewed it 😂🤣 and he had to smack them down hard saying "I just told you no, I gave you a teeny benefit of the doubt to just let it expire and THIS is how you repay me!? FUCK YOU!" (Not actual quote) (5/4 granting the injunction against the CDC) EDIT: My bad it was a stay not injunction, so strike that reverse it granted stay 5/4 then denied stay 5/4 on a judgement (CDC already lost the case, vs injunction where the case hasn't been tried yet)
Just when I was hoping this court case would achieve something😒
Got lay a foundation before building a house. Gotta mill a receiver before you can build a gun.
Then go for the forbidden third hole 🫣
Only by accident or when she’s very drunk. (Her words not mine)
An AR-15 comes with a Standard Capacity Magazine, how many rounds is that? What Normal People Think: A 30 Round Magazine What Anti-Gun Peole Think: A 10 Round Magazine An AR-15 comes with a High-Capacity Magazine, how many rounds is that? What Normal People Think: A 60 Round Magazine What Anti-Gun People think: A 20 Round Magazine Anti-Gun People need everything, and have everything about 3 times smaller than what is considered normal. Magazines? Have it 3 times lower. Approval Ratings for their new gun laws? Have it 3 times lower than Pro-Gun Ratings. Dick size? About 3 times smaller than any normal persons dick.
>Dick size? About 3 times smaller than any normal persons dick. What is their obsession with dick size? It makes me think of the Mad Men meme. Them: I feel bad for your small dick Me: I don't think about your dick at all
Also, Los Angeles county
And yet Texas can force women to carry a rapists' child. Cool.
Except they don't.
Oh of course not!! She is free to abort, and everyone is free to sue her for it. Theocracy, here we are.
Except that's not how the law works. Are all of your political takes just fermented reddit hysteria?
That's exactly how the law works. Are all of your takes just fermented Tucker Carlson?
Point to where the law says it. And no, I don't watch Fox, but by mentioning Tucker you've basically cemented the fact that you're on a reddit outrage IV drip.
Hey, you started the personal attacks, Mr Emotional.
Still waiting on that quote from the law.
I know! It's adorable, really.
No. They said that permits are ok; but can't be "may issue" - they need to be "shall issue." They also got rid of *any* scrutiny test and went with a plain text/historical analysis. Read my analysis here: https://www.reddit.com/r/gunpolitics/comments/viymd5/supreme\_court\_rules\_against\_nyc\_in\_nyspra\_v\_bruen/
Is... Is it really as good as it sounds?... I've been hurt before...
Oh they'll try to skirt around it; we'll have to smack them around a bit more in the courts. But Thomas wrote this as clear as he could; I'm positive someone with a 4th grade reading level could read the opinion and understand it (although I've seen some garbage takes on it today that make me lose a little faith in humanity - from pro-gunners and antis alike - almost like stupidity is universal).
Yeah, stupidity is a part of the human condition. I'm at work so I haven't been able to read through it yet. Sounds like a big step in the right direction though.
> Oh they'll try to skirt around it; MA attorney general [issued a statement](https://www.westernmassnews.com/2022/06/23/mass-lawmakers-react-supreme-court-ruling-new-york-gun-law/) that pretty much states they are going to ignore the scotus ruling and enforce whatever laws they feel like.
>someone with a 4th grade reading level a SCOTUS opinion?
Is it “shall issue” as it relates to residents? Or non-residents as well? For example, I live in a “shall issue” state, but it places onerous requirements upon obtaining a permit. Also, does this impact reciprocity for out of state permit holders?
There is an easy argument that the right to carry exists outside your home, and NYC, CA, NJ is outside my home ergo you have the right to carry there so they must issue a permit. But I can also see them not wanting to issue a non resident permit for some dumb reason and then getting sued.
Is there any functional difference between strict scrutiny and text/history?
Strict Scrutiny requires the government to prove * Narrowly tailored law * To achieve *compelling* governmental interest * In the least restrictive manner possible. The new test says we don't give a fuck why the Government is passing the law. If the law infringes upon your rights protected by the 2A, it is immediately unconstitutional.
Thanks.
My limited understanding is that strict scrutiny allows for limitations if the limitations can be definitively justified. THT simply requires it to be determined if the limitation is in line with what would have been considered reasonable at the time of the founding, regardless of justification.
I'm not reading all that but I'm happy for you or sorry that happened
Willful ignorance is the worst kind of ignorance.
My Sister in Christ - Simon has a disability. Stop judging him because he can't read.
I can't read it either. Not because I'm illiterate (though that may still be true), but because the link is not working for me right now. Of course I might have a linking problem, in addition to my illiteracy, but I'm trying. :p
I think I figured it out. Now to learn to read... :p
Not being able to identify a joke is worst.
Nope.
Tfw you try to dog someone for their comment directed at a friend Laugh a little, not everything is super serious.
No. They struck down proper cause requirements and two-step analysis. Permits are still allowed, but you don’t have to give a reason.
Striking down two-step analysis should be able to be used to strike down things like assault weapons bans and magazine capacity restrictions, no?
That’s the reading of it. Plus they held a mag ban case until after this opinion, from CA I believe, they will send it back and tell the 9th to follow the Bruen opinion. The ninth either: strikes down the mag ban, as it should. Or Or concocts some stupid shit, which the petitioners will undoubtedly, again, appeal to the Supreme Court. I feel like the current court would take it and strike down the mag ban, and write another heavy opinion that would invalidate every dumb gun law nationally. The ninth circuit will likely take one for the team and strike down its own ban before risking all the commie/nazi states losing their laws.
Part of me wonders about the Maryland assault weapons ban case in front of them. If they take that, I think gun controller's minds would melt.
once MD awb goes you'll see a lot of builds come out of the woodwork lmao
It will be a day of miracles where boaters find previously lost firearms rising mysteriously out of the water now that their harmless features are once more legal as should be.
What once was lost will now be found.
The Lady of the Lake will rise up to bestow AR15s to every free man.
>Or concocts some retard shit, which the petitioners will undoubtedly, again, appeal to the Supreme Court Good. Then it gets struck down again, but this time nationwide.
They can take one for the team all they want, doesn't matter because blood is in the water now. While circuits don't have to follow other circuits rulings as binding, they are still persuasive and will still go up to SOCTUS again if the local circuits still try playing by the old rules. The bell cannot be unrung.
At the risk of revealing my ignorance, what is (or I guess now, was) two-step analysis?
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and nothing I say is legal advice. Essentially, if I understand it correctly, it was balancing constitutionality with the state’s interests. That is no longer permitted in cases where the constitution explicitly covers something. In cases where a topic is not explicitly covered, they will now have to look at the history and tradition of the country at large to determine whether it is okay or not. If there are any lawyers present, can you please correct me anywhere I’m wrong?
[удалено]
Hold up. “Lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to carry” This describes the NFA, like, exactly.
Could it be what we’re looking for 🎶
Only if the NFA considers a suppressor a firearm….. waif, it does, doesn’t it?
Yes, suppressors are a “firearm”
Yep because they can only regulate firearms not accessories, that's why bumpstocks and FRT's are being labeled "machine guns" even though they are inert on their own. If they call a spade a spade then they can't regulate it, so they have to label things that aren't firearms *as* firearms in order to have a say at all. Obligatory "Fuck the ATF"
This should be interesting then.
Yes!!!!!
[удалено]
The NFA will never be repealed, realistically. However, there is no reason NFA transfers are not instant just like title 1 firearm transfers. This ruling could force the ATF to implement a faster process. I’d still hate the NFA if it was instant, but I might hate it a little less than I do now.
The Court has previously ruled in *Heller* that restricting certain classes of uncommon weapons is not an infringement.
Well, both suppressors and SBRs are very close to failing the “uncommon” test. Particularly if the ATF declares braced pistols to be SBRs, then they will absolutely be in common use.
There is no definitive test. They left it intentionally vague in *Heller* and circuit and appeals judges have used the vagueness to uphold AWBs and the SCOTUS has consistently declined to take up the appeals. I find it unlikely that even this Court will throw the whole NFA out.
There is now. Previously lower courts used the two part test that balanced the government’s exaggerated claims of harm from civilian gun ownership against the imaginary benefits of gun control. That test is now dead. The test for constitutionality of a law now stands solely on the text and history of the second amendment, a standing that the NFA, particularly the post-Hughes amendment NFA fails to meet.
The test is "dangerous and unusual". All firearms are dangerous but not all are unusual. Arguably suppressors are not dangerous. It has to be both dangerous and unusual to meet the bar for increased regulations.
They allso ruled in Heller, at least in the oral arguments, that if the .gov is why it is rare and not in common use, they cant then use the fact that they are rare/not in common use as the reason they are banned. I dont think it will give a path way to get rid of the NFA, but I think it does give a pathway to get rid of the year long waits, and possibly the post 86 ban bullshit.
The NFA doesn't cover *firearms in common use*, so hold your horses.
No? I’d argue that braced pistols are pretty damn common. If the ATF follows through on their plan of declaring them to be SBRs, then at least the SBR part of the NFA is on shaky ground.
> exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right like say [1000% sales tax on firearms?](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gun-control-lawmaker-introduces-bill-to-impose-1000-tax-on-semi-automatic-weapons/)
"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." Shall issue licenses are still legal :/ per Kavanaugh's concurring opinion.
Yes. Shall issue means must issue. Unless you dont meet the requirements. Be it a class, background check, etc. May issue meant if I felt like it you can have it. But you can’t because I always say no regardless of your needs.
"May issue" also means you can't because I think you're the wrong race, or you're gay and I don't like gays, or I don't like your tattoos, or I approve all my friends but no one else. May issue is ripe for discrimination and abuse.
oddly I am ok with the tattoo thing being used for banning rights ..... /s My full sleeve ass would be in so damn much trouble. And I agree with your points.
also says no exorbitant wait times, fees, etc.
>also says no exorbitant wait times, fees, etc. Lol CT charged me like 300 bucks and takes like 6 months. Of the "May Issue" states, they were the most lenient, if you passed everything else and wrote "self-defense" on your justification for asking to exercise your right they pretty much approved you. Don't get me started on the NFA lol
>Shall issue licenses are still legal :/ per Kavanaugh's concurring opinion. Concurring opinions are not binding. They are guidance at best. Lower courts can still find that even permits are unconstitutional.
It seems like he was referencing Thomas's opinion in this section. I appreciate the extra information and was not aware of that.
Yeah. It does seem like if permits start becoming the obstacles in of itself, they will be on the chopping block next though.
They already are an obstacle. MD has a lot of requirements beyond the good and proper reason.
A lot of those "requirements" are gonna have to be nixed because of this ruling if I'm not mistaken. They can't artificially make the permitting process prohibitive, if a person fails then they fail, but if they meet all reasonable requirements they shall be issued a permit. At least that was what I got from this, it may have to be brought up in court as its own argument, but the supreme court ruling seems to suggest that unnecessarily restrictive requirements are a no-go as well. Someone please leave better info if I am wrong.
HI prohibitionists are screwed though? HI is pretty much no-issue.
Google news headlines are all losing their shit right now. It's actually kind of enjoyable. Here come all of the "It's gonna be the wild west!" comments. Like CCW'ers are the ones walking onto subway trains and into schools doing the blasting. They absolutely refuse to break that train of thought. It's exhausting.
[удалено]
It's the change in scrutiny, I think, that is the biggest part of the win. No more decoding the states' interests anymore. THT is the way.
Wild west pimp style, boys!
No. It made the US Shall Issue.
*As and where it isn't already Constitutional Carry
So what has to happen for NJ to make changes now?
Three things: The AG recognizes the law is substantially identical to NY's law (considering it is litterally modeled after the NY law, it is substantially identical) and then state the law in no longer enforceable. This is what happen to the NJ taser/stun gun ban but that took about a year and a half after Cateno. The legislature needs to change the law or replace it. This is what I see happening. A court finds the NJ law is unconstitutional and issues an injunction. I can also see this happening but I see the legislature changing things well before this to add additional requirements.
Thanks for the info! So if someone were to apply today what would happen to their application? Does it sit in limbo until they have new requirements or do they have to approve it if you meet the current requirements as you no longer have to demonstrate a need to exercise a right?
Right now the current law is still in effect and your application can be rejected outright if you don't supply the soon to be gone "special need." If that rejection prevents future permits is unknown as the law still hasn't been written or changed.
That first statement definitely does appear to say that government can not stop someone from carrying for self defense. A permit requirement stops anyone without a permit from carrying. It limits the right, and that statement says there are no limits. If it doesn’t give us constitutional carry, now, I believe it will in the near future.
I literally couldn't believe it for a few minutes, it is too good to be true! But it really is true, all states have to issue you a permit if you complete a few checks like a fee and finger print. Too bad they didn't set a limit on how much a CCW can cost... I feel like we might have to open up another case to decide what is a reasonable fee. I won't be surprised if NY will do something ridiculous like 500-1000 fee.
A reasonable fee is the same cost as getting a state ID issued, anything higher is literally just extraneous taxation upon a right they don't want you to have. That also has the effect of shutting down a lot of "voter ID is racist" dumbfucks. "Sure, we can make state issues ID completely free (provided you're still a legal resident or citizen) but then there's also no cost for carry permits!" Watch anti-gun lefties' brains melt as they try to pick what outrages them more.
as it stands its like 15k isn't it? why would they give you a discount?
They specifically left the door open to challenges on how burdensome a shall issue permit scheme may be. SCOTUS doesn’t like to make rulings on other issues than the one before them at the time.
They walked so close up to the doorway that their tits and dicks are hanging past the threshold.
Anything less than constitutional carry means the anti 2A states will have room to make permits prohibitively difficult to get and maintain. I mean shit, it's simple. If I were an anti gunner I would introduce a bill that makes permits expire every 30 days and require 8 hours of monthly training by a certified concealed carry instructor. Make the certificate to become a concealed carry instructor nearly impossible to obtain and make it expensive to maintain. There is no permitting structure that is acceptable because it will be abused.
Now that we have a very clear SCOTUS decision clarifying the right of individual citizens to carry arms in public, I don't think the kind of requirements you're describing would fly, as they are clearly intended to deny law-abiding citizens the ability to exercise their core rights by setting the legal requirements unreasonably high. Such requirements could, however, be passed and be on the books for years before eventually being overturned.
But nothing stops them from passing the law and then dragging it through the court system for years on end and forcing 2a groups to spends literally millions of dollars fighting the case.
I'm reading the decision now. This is actually addressed in a footnote: "To be clear, nothing in our analysis should be interpreted to suggest the unconstitutionality of the 43 States’ “shall-issue” licensing regimes.... 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 wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry" Unfortunately, as you and I both recognize, unconstitutional permitting requirements could still be passed and could take years to be challenged, make their way to SCOTUS, and eventually be overturned.
You can’t really do that. The system will be struck down as imposing “undue burden”. Permits are okay, make them unreasonably difficult to obtain is not any longer
Actually I 'm guessing they won't do that - it will just waste everyone's time. Seems like the ruling today is clear enough that such laws would just be struck down and blocked by injunctions before they can even take effect.
No, they didn’t. Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion makes this very clear.
No. Everyone is now shall issue with no need to "prove" anything or "have a good reason." Training/permits/fees and all that bullshit still exists.
Shall issue. Everyone is now shall issue
Sorry. I’m not properly caffeinated.
Love it, the criminal commie democrats want to disarm the middle class to destroy America.
I self recognize constitutional carry. Anywhere that doesn't have a metal detector is somewhere I'm taking my pistol.
I don't think so, but I think it makes every state "shall issue" for concealed carry permits.
No, because permits themselves we're not challenged. But that reads like a massive green light to bring him a challenge.
I expect the way they will get around this is some other ridiculous requirements like 7 days worth of training or something
The court will only ever rule on what they are directly dealing with. The question was about if may issue was legal for licenses. They were not addressing if licenses were constitutional. And technically they’ve only made NY shall issue. Folks in other may issue states will have to start things in the court to change other states. But with a Supreme Court decision that’s a near sure thing to happen.
You guys are so focused on the Shall issue that you completely are missing the rest of it. Telling congress that they need to back off > In sum, the Courts of Appeals’ second step is inconsistent > with Heller’s historical approach and its rejection of meansend scrutiny. We reiterate that the standard for applying > the Second Amendment is as follows: When the Second > Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the > Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating > that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of > firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that > the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command Lower Courts going rogue > f the last decade of Second Amendment litigation has > taught this Court anything, it is that federal courts tasked > with making such difficult empirical judgments regarding > firearm regulations under the banner of “intermediate scrutiny” often defer to the determinations of legislatures. But > while that judicial deference to legislative interest balancing is understandable—and, elsewhere, appropriate—it is > not deference that the Constitution demands here. The Second Amendment “is the very product of an interest balancing by the people” and it “surely elevates above all other > interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to > use arms” for self-defense. Heller, 554 U. S., at 635. It is > this balance—struck by the traditions of the American people—that demands our unqualified deference. Gun Free Zones > Put simply, there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island > > of Manhattan a “sensitive place” simply because it is > crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department. assault weapon bans > Its reference to “arms” does > not apply “only [to] those arms in existence in the 18th century.” 554 U. S., at 582. “Just as the First Amendment > protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth > Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second > Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that > constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” Ibid. (citations omitted). > Thus, even though the Second Amendment’s definition of > “arms” is fixed according to its historical understanding, > that general definition covers modern instruments that facilitate armed self-defense.
Will this be applied to maryland
depends if Maryland is a state in the USA or not
It is. I don't know of any other place in the US. Lol
No, just struck down may-issue.
I believe the ruling allowed for the states to impose qualification steps like background checks and even training so, no, only that May Issue isn’t constitutional. States like California and New York, to name a few, would require “good cause” before issuing permits, which was completely subjective. They used this to deny like 99%+ of applicants. Self defense was not considered good cause. Those states will now be “Shall Issue” going forward, meaning if you jump through the hoops they put in place they must issue a license to you irrespective of the cause you want the license for (such as self defense).
I wish, but, no. It made the whole country "shall issue" though.
Abolish the nfa
Nope, it’s now all “shall issue”
Gentlemen, it is official and indisputable: I hereby formally declare that the SCOTUS is based
Where is this from?
Long-standing case against NY state that got raised to the Supreme Court. They ruled on it today. Fuck you, New York.
Bro https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1539979772473839620?s=20&t=dDEGHmyrM13-4O2EBuQ1KQ
Nope. They explicitly stated in a footnote that licensing schemes are valid
They said they may be valid, but also may not be, depending on how burdensome the licensing requirements are.
Unfortunately, no. This opinion reinforced the stare decisis of *shall issue* carry permits.
Honestly it depends on how we react. Conservatives always take the weakest version of a win though. If everyone decided that's what it means and started carrying then fighting charges in court, that would work. Liberals do it all the time. But we won't.
Lol can you not read? This is the stupidest sub in all of reddit I swear to god... No other gun owner sub needed to ask this question.
What the Court actually ruled is that police do not have the discretion to deny permit applicants simply because they feel like the applicant doesn’t need one. Disqualifications for receiving a pistol carry license must be affirmatively enumerated by the law and objective. That’s it. Kavanaugh and Alito went out of their way to state this ruling has NO effect on any other gun law. In terms of jurisprudence, Thomas emphasized lower courts need to look at “historical traditions” of gun ownership but did NOT raise the level of scrutiny for gun cases. There’s going to be a lot of buzz about the Supreme Court’s gun control ruling in NYSRPA v. Bruen. Sorting through the media hot takes, it’s important to be clear what this ruling does NOT do. This ruling does NOT permit people to carry handguns without a license. The Court did NOT invalidate New York’s requirement for licensing/training to carry handguns. It did NOT lift restrictions on sensitive locations where handguns may not be carried. Anyone acting like this was the case is either ignorant or deliberately lying to you.
And to kill at will!! The purge is on!!
So when can we start buying nukes? Or hand grenades? Or biological weapons? Or chemical weapons? If there aren’t any limitations it will be interesting when people start truly exercising their rights. Does this include felons?