Supreme Court to take up NY gun rights case

[philip964]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN1PG1QQ

Right to transport a weapon loaded.

First time in 9 years to review a gun case.

MAGA

[K.Mooneyham]

As a conservative firearms owning Texan, I find most, if not all, gun control laws to be worthless and often draconian. If those folks from NYC transport their legally-owned firearms according to Federal law, to a place they have a right to be and for a lawful purpose, then NYC shouldn't have anything to say about it. That law flies in the face of Federal law, and for that reason, if for no other, SCOTUS should rule against the city. It's the same reason that a state can't make a law that nullifies the NFA, for instance, no matter how much I or anyone else may not like the NFA.

[crazy2medic]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm interpreting this to have little to no effect on the rest of the country, this will be a narrow decision that only impacts New York! Right?

[Scott65]

Could establish a precedent useful to other states...

[crazy2medic]

Could establish a precedent useful to other states...

I was thinking they accepted this particular case because it would have a very narrow impact and not the broad impact of Heller or McDonald!

[philip964]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm interpreting this to have little to no effect on the rest of the country, this will be a narrow decision that only impacts New York! Right?

Yes, more narrow than my OP which is not correct.

If you have a permit to have a gun in your house in N YC. You may only legally transport it to 1 of 7 shooting ranges in New York City. It must be unloaded and in a locked box. You may not transport it to a shooting range outside of New York City, or to your other residence. This is per Sean Hannidy on the radio today.

Shall not be infringed sure has a lot of latitude. I would assume an appeals court has already upheld the law.

[dlh]

My concern is what test the Supreme Court will devise to determine whether a particular statute or code violates the Second Amendment.

Unlike the First Amendment, the Second Amendment has very little case-law on it. Will the court use the rational basis test, the intermediate scrutiny test, or the strict scrutiny test? Recall the court did not commit itself to a particular test in the Heller case--basically saying that law violated all the tests.

Kavanaugh and Thomas prefer the strict scrutiny test. If you are a gun-rights proponent you want that test too. The anti-gunners want the court to adopt the "rational basis" test which is much less restrictive in its scope.

So, though the facts of the NY case might be somewhat restrictive nevertheless the test the court decides to use could be huge for Second Amendment jurisprudence.

I need to read the cert briefs to see what we might be looking at.

[canvasbck]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm interpreting this to have little to no effect on the rest of the country, this will be a narrow decision that only impacts New York! Right?

While the decision could be narrow, it could have a greater reach. Currently the NY/NJ port authority is interpreting federal laws in such a way that it is impossible to fly into/out of the three major airports that fall under the P.A. jurisdiction. Attempting to fly out of one of those airports with a firearm, people have been arrested after declaring firearms in their checked baggage since bringing the baggage into the airport is not "locked in the trunk". Also, you violate P.A. rules as soon as you claim your baggage that contains a firearm.

While this is still narrow, it does impact someone travelling to the NE. I personally have had to pay higher fares to fly to Scranton instead of flying into Newark to shoot IDPA matches in Pennsylvania. I spoke to Port Authority police before making the trip and was basically told there is no legal way to bring a handgun into Newark airport nor was there a legal way to move a handgun from baggage claim to the trunk of a rental car.

[Soccerdad1995]

I'm confused on how NYC enforces this law. On the face of it, it appears that a NYC resident only violates the law if they leave the city with their gun. But as soon as they leave the city limits, they are no longer under the jurisdiction of NYC city ordinances, including this one.

Maybe the law is written to say something like "it is unlawful to transport a handgun unless the registered owner is transiting directly from their home to a licensed gun range that is within the city limits of NYC...."? Even then, the law would only be violated once the gun owner drove past the gun range in question. Maybe someone should open a range that sits right at the city limits and bypass this whole issue.

Regardless, this seems like a great test case since it is an easy win for our side. There also is the opportunity for the SCOTUS to establish precedent on the constitutionality of restrictions on the carrying of arms in general.

[KLB]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm interpreting this to have little to no effect on the rest of the country, this will be a narrow decision that only impacts New York! Right?

Not a lot of immediate effect if the law is struck down. But if the law is upheld, Lord have mercy on all of us.

[KLB]

Here's another discussion of the case.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 705601002/

[Beiruty]

The case should affirm,
1) The 2ndA a personal right for self-defense and not limited to the gun owner's house
2) Will strike down all would not issue, or may-issue laws for concealed/open carry. it would oblige shall issue
3) Will oblige the states to recognize other states License to carry or oblige to provide out of state temp residents licenses
4) All restrictions laws on loaded or unloaded firearms, number of rounds in a firearms are null and void
5) All regulations of firearms has to pass the utmost test of necessity.

[KLB]

The case should affirm,
1) The 2ndA a personal right for self-defense and not limited to the gun owner's house
2) Will strike down all would not issue, or may-issue laws for concealed/open carry. it would oblige shall issue
3) Will oblige the states to recognize other states License to carry or oblige to provide out of state temp residents licenses
4) All restrictions laws on loaded or unloaded firearms, number of rounds in a firearms are null and void
5) All regulations of firearms has to pass the utmost test of necessity.

A great wish list, but I'm not holding my breath.

[tomneal]

Beiruty wrote:
The case should affirm,
1) The 2ndA a personal right for self-defense and not limited to the gun owner's house
2) Will strike down all would not issue, or may-issue laws for concealed/open carry. it would oblige shall issue
3) Will oblige the states to recognize other states License to carry or oblige to provide out of state temp residents licenses
4) All restrictions laws on loaded or unloaded firearms, number of rounds in a firearms are null and void
5) All regulations of firearms has to pass the utmost test of necessity.

I only wish Trump nominates you (or someone with similar opinions) when he replaces RBG.

[anygunanywhere]

Beiruty wrote:
The case should affirm,
1) The 2ndA a personal right for self-defense and not limited to the gun owner's house
2) Will strike down all would not issue, or may-issue laws for concealed/open carry. it would oblige shall issue
3) Will oblige the states to recognize other states License to carry or oblige to provide out of state temp residents licenses
4) All restrictions laws on loaded or unloaded firearms, number of rounds in a firearms are null and void
5) All regulations of firearms has to pass the utmost test of necessity.

I only wish Trump nominates you (or someone with similar opinions) when he replaces RBG.

Beiruty for SCOTUS has a nice ring to it!