Proper Cause Unconstitutional!

T

Tennessee Gentleman

New member
The SCOTUS has ruled in York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc.
v. Bruen that New York’s “proper-cause” requirement to obtain a concealed-carry license “violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense,” Majority written by Justice Thomas. I'm looking for the opinion on line.
 
Link to Ruling
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is
broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in
the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on
constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test
such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any
interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny.
Click to expand...

Holy cow did we just get the clarification we've all been wanting ?
 
Last edited:
Awesome. About time! That stupid “Target Shooting and Hunting Only” stamp on my Tompkins county pistol permit is meaningless! Not that I l do anything other than target shooting and hunting.
 
Question for the lawyers

Does this legally effect state legislatures or can states like CA keep making new laws that they NOW KNOW would be unconstitutional ? If so would/is there now a quicker way to appeal such laws or would it still be the same common 5 year process ?
 
I'm reading it now and my first impression is this: This is big. The Heller Two-Step has been scrapped, as has NY's "proper cause" requirement. We all know that the antis have already started trying to find their way around it, but this is a win for us.
 
It's the "Bill of Rights"; Our rights. .....

Holy cow did we just get the clarification we've all been wanting ?
Click to expand...
The "Bill or Rights" should not need any clarification. for now, anyway, it is what it says it is. Iin short, it is absolute. It's like trying to change the Ten-Commandments. Lots of luck with that one. Oh, NY knew they were going to lose this one, as they had a prepared response to this ruling. Evil never sleeps, Now the real fun begins as a number of Liberal states will begin their pointless juggling acts ... ;)

Be free and be safe !!!
 
Last edited:
Huge, although Justices Alito and Kavanaugh wrote that the decision addresses the may issue or good cause and is not a decision on other firearm related issues and that the decision does not strike down ccw licensing laws that are shall issue as in 43 states.

However, it is hard to see how Thomas decision which states that both intermediate and strict scrutiny are off the table and that there can be no means testing or balancing and that the only deciding factor is the amendment itself and its historical context - with Barrett adding that the length that laws have been in effect do not make them automatically part of the historical understanding as that must be derived from the intent of the founders and not just laws that have been in effect in the 18th or 19th century - does not open the door for challenges to many firearm laws.
 
This case was addressing "may issue", but given the absolutist language used by the majority opinion, can this also apply the right to bear arms the same broad recognition of our other constitutional rights and eliminate the state-to-state boundaries that exist as well in future court battles? I.E. Your right to free speech isn't limited to your home state and does not require a permit.

The 2nd Amendment is no longer a second class right! Justice Thomas is my hero!
 
I'm glad they threw out the "special need" requirements and the 2A Two-step. Although, I suspect courts will now dive into cherry-picked histories to justify any and every new restriction. Still a win...
 
I'll let Spats chew through the details, for some odd reason I trust his summaries...:D:rolleyes:

HOWEVER, its not quite dancing in the streets with joy time, yet, I think.

As I currently understand it (and the details might change that) the ruling doesn't require NY to get rid of its permit system. It doesn't even necessarily mean that NY will have to change their forms.

They can still require you to give a reason for requesting the permit. IF I'm understanding this ruling correctly from the headlines, what it does is declare NY arbitrarily deciding what is, and is not a valid reason to be unconstitutional.

I grew up in NY, left there for good in 79. Back then, permit was required to OWN and possess, and only open carry for ordinary folks. Permits required 5 sets of fingerprints, 4 photographs, 3 (non family) character references, and investigatioin by about every LEO that NY had:rolleyes:...or at least two or three...and THEN it was up to the judge to sign it, or not, at his discretion (aka personal whim).

You had to "know" the judge you were dealing with. I don't mean personally(though if you did, it went a long way) but know what they would, or would not approve. At the time I got my permit, the judge in Saratoga county would only approve "Hunting and Sporting" use. Any thing else and he wouldn't issue.

The judge in Albany county would only approve permits for "Self Protection" and nothing else. And that was the LEGAL system then.

The new Supreme Court ruling appears to be a big win for our side, in principle, but might not change things in practice as much as we expect (or as soon). That will depend on what the people running the state of NY do...
 
I'm wondering how long it will be before the requirement to pay a fee to exercise a Constitutional right is challenged.
 
Looks like all 6 justices joined in the Thomas opinion, so my understanding is that opinions stated in the concurring opinions of Kavanaugh, Alito, and Barrett have no legal standing or limitation on the Thomas opinion as such. So the Thomas opinion is the sole legally binding opinion.
 
I've done a quick read, and here are my (initial) takeaway points:
1. NY's proper cause requirement is gone.
2. The 43 states that are shall issue, are untouched.
3. States can still require a permit, but they'll have to go to objective standards* going forward.
4. (And perhaps the biggest point of all) SCOTUS has now recognized a Constitutional right to keep and bear a firearm in public for the purpose of self-defense.

*= Here's one point of wiggle room, right here. I expect that The Usual Suspect States (NY, CT, IL, CA, etc.) will create "objective" standards for issuing licenses, but those standards will be so stringent as to put them out of reach for a lot of people. For example, if NY sets an 80-hour training regimen as part of its standards, there are going to be a lot of poor people (who may work multiple jobs) who have neither the time nor the money necessary to get that training.
 
"*= Here's one point of wiggle room, right here. I expect that The Usual Suspect States (NY, CT, IL, CA, etc.) will create "objective" standards for issuing licenses, but those standards will be so stringent as to put them out of reach for a lot of people. For example, if NY sets an 80-hour training regimen as part of its standards, there are going to be a lot of poor people (who may work multiple jobs) who have neither the time nor the money necessary to get that training."

Given Thomas opinion and even the concurring opinions it looks like that has been addressed and considered such that excessive fees, restrictions, training requirements are per the court in violation of the right. Edit to add, IL has a shall issue law already.
 
Doesn't mean the anti-gunners won't try. If memory serves, when IL was forced to allow concealed carry, it set a training requirement . . . and then Chicago tried to ban all shooting ranges in the city limits.
 
Doesn't mean the anti-gunners won't try.
Click to expand...

Agreed , just look at Hawaii . It would seem they were reading the tea leaves and have already made new requirements before this ruling was out . Like renewals every 6 months , you must use none lethal force first before using a firearm in self defense and I think there's more .

since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many.
Click to expand...

I like this wording because it does not say carry out side the home . It is saying the courts have been getting all 2nd amendment challenges wrong with the two step approach . This ruling seems to me to go far beyond NY or a simple carry outside the home ruling ?
 
Originally posted by Spats McGee
*= Here's one point of wiggle room, right here. I expect that The Usual Suspect States (NY, CT, IL, CA, etc.) will create "objective" standards for issuing licenses, but those standards will be so stringent as to put them out of reach for a lot of people. For example, if NY sets an 80-hour training regimen as part of its standards, there are going to be a lot of poor people (who may work multiple jobs) who have neither the time nor the money necessary to get that training.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you're correct that they will try. I foresee schemes involving arduous training requirements and excessive fees. That being said, can we not take from the rebuke of the "two step" approach as well as the determination that the petitioners' Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by New York law make such onerous restrictions ripe for challenge and likely rebuke from the court? I would think that the court would likely view imposition of excessive fees or arduous training requirements as being inconsistent with the equal protections clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Would not there be some precedent here from Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections? After all, if a $1.50 ($13.53 if you adjust for inflation) poll tax can be viewed as discriminatory could we not have a convincing argument about hundreds or thousands of dollars in licensing and training fees?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top