Spats McGee
Administrator
There's nothing in the ruling that disturbs NYS's requirement of a permit.
Proper Cause Unconstitutional!
- Thread starter Tennessee Gentleman
- Start date
You are more of an expert. But I should think it will be like DC where attempts to load on a bunch of nonsense failed since we had gone from no issue to may to shall, and had an existing may issue form. They did not change anything on the application between the may to the shall regimes, except we just all wrote
"the US Constitution" in the good cause box.
NJ, Maryland, Del, NY already have a form and criteria for the application.
So DC's CCPL revised application just deleted cause, and used all the same criteria as may issue.
Now to be sure the may issue states may add legitimation on number of rounds carried (in DC it is 20, less for a revolver) , no ccw on premises signage, force of law, prohibition on public transport, prohibitions on public parks (not prohibited in DC), requirement to get permission to enter someone else's residence when carrying (DC and Oklahoma require this) and other controls while carrying. But I don't see them getting away with adding much for the application itself.
FYI I have DC res as well as as Pa and Va non res.
For DC under may issue and continued under shall were the following:
1) Two year validity period.
2) $75 fee for appl and renewal
3) a) two day safety and gun and self defense law course and b) range course (says several hours, but 95% of instructors consider it qualification and will pass you if you put two mags in a target at 20'. Cost for both $225-$350
4) Mental health record release. I don't think they do to much with this.
5) they run you criminal and domestic order/civil order record deeper than NICS. This is usually instant, but if you have hits-- including hits that are criminal arrests with zero convictions -- you can be denied.
6) Non-resident allowed.
7)gun(s) you will be carrying have to already be DC registered, if not you have to register them
As I noted they did add legislation on where you can carry, storage in car if you are going into prohibited place, etc, but they did not change actual permit application criteria as they went from may to shall except they now ignore good cause.
Should be interesting to see if NY, NJ, Md, Del etc actually add to application requirements, and if they do, if they get away with it, since they already do have existing applications they were using for may issue
You should see twitter etc, even the mainstream news is running around saying tomorrow everyone will be carrying a gun everywhere. I get "march for our lives" members and some of the other antis material and they are going bonkers and spouting nonsense. as you noted the ruling specifically allows states to require permits, to require training, to require background checks.
As all the jurisdictions in question already have a regime for their may issue, I should think that they will have a hard time trying that.
In terms of fees, there are currently fees in all the affected states with their may issue applications. it is the may issue that manifestly requires more government employee time since they, until today had investigate and confirm the good cause itself. I should think they would have difficulty raising fees for objectively less processing man hours.
In terms of training, since there are states with serious training requirements (several with two days, plus range, and little if any able to be substituted with prior training) I would think that is max without being dragged into court.
They did, and it was reversed in Ezell v. Chicago.
As for the idea of New York setting arbitrarily high barriers to issuance, footnote 9 says this:
Thanks Tom for finding the specific text in the ruling.
I know in DC, which was lower court forcing may to shall, I know from a staffer on DC council's judiciary committee, that neither judiciary chair Phil Mendelson, no the DC AG wanted to increase issuance requirements for fear of losing even more in the courts. This despite the fact that the rest of the council wanted to throw up all kinds of new issuance barriers. They ended up with the prior may issue rules except eliminated good cause.
Of course on the other side of the coin from issuance, the rules for where and when you can carry, are liable to possibly get more limits in say NYC. In an urban area if you say put rules where any federal, state or local government office has a office in a building, or any health care or child care provider is anywhere in the building, add city parks, mass transit (trains, cabs and buses) and you can make huge swaths where a licensed carrier could end up in jail.
I know in DC, which was lower court forcing may to shall, I know from a staffer on DC council's judiciary committee, that neither judiciary chair Phil Mendelson, no the DC AG wanted to increase issuance requirements for fear of losing even more in the courts. This despite the fact that the rest of the council wanted to throw up all kinds of new issuance barriers. They ended up with the prior may issue rules except eliminated good cause.
Of course on the other side of the coin from issuance, the rules for where and when you can carry, are liable to possibly get more limits in say NYC. In an urban area if you say put rules where any federal, state or local government office has a office in a building, or any health care or child care provider is anywhere in the building, add city parks, mass transit (trains, cabs and buses) and you can make huge swaths where a licensed carrier could end up in jail.
So I read Breyer's dissent so nobody else has to trudge through it. It's really odd.
The majority opinion explicitly rules out means-ends review, but Breyer refuses to acknowledge that. Instead, he leads with numerous pages complaining about mass shootings and rising firearms fatalities. He castigates the majority for not taking these things into account, though he really can't connect this decision with those factors.
Given his impassioned dissents and his public criticisms regarding Heller and McDonald, I can't help but wonder if writing this one was the main reason he's waiting to step down.
The majority opinion explicitly rules out means-ends review, but Breyer refuses to acknowledge that. Instead, he leads with numerous pages complaining about mass shootings and rising firearms fatalities. He castigates the majority for not taking these things into account, though he really can't connect this decision with those factors.
Given his impassioned dissents and his public criticisms regarding Heller and McDonald, I can't help but wonder if writing this one was the main reason he's waiting to step down.
Shortly before I moved out of NY, they instituted a training class requirement. (NO Shooting requirement just the class).
IIRC it was a 4 hour thing. The state paid for NONE OF IT!!!!
It was given by volunteer instructiors (NRA certified) who got NO PAY, and donated their time just as they did for Hunter Safety classes. NRA supplied some materials, the instructors personally supplied the rest. My Dad was one of the instructors, and I actually wrote part of his instruction segment.
Some years later, I heard that the required course time had been increased, in stanges, and ending up at a 24hr requirement. I do not know if this is accurate, or not. Also heard that the permit fee went from $20 up to$100, and the permits, which had been good for life, unless revoked were now a limited time thing, and you had to get a new one every so many years.
I also heard talk that NY was considering upping the training requirement to 40hrs, don't know if it happened, or not.
I think you've got this a bit wrong, probably because you're applying common sense.....
I seriously doubt they EVER spent any time, manpower, or money investigating if the reason claimed for requesting the permit was valid. It would make sense if the FIRST thing checked on would be if the reason for the application was valid (on the approved list), and if not, you deny and don't waste resources investigating further. Saves money... BUT I know with certainty that's NOT what NY did when I lived there,
Application was filled out, fees paid, conditions met (fingerprints, photos, training, etc) THEN the investigation was done on YOU, and that investigation would also reveal if your reason for applying was "questionable" or not.
THEN the entire, completed package went before a judge and THEY decided if they would approve issue, or not, based entirely on their personal judgement. If they didn't LIKE the reason you gave for applying, they could refuse to issue.
If they didn't like YOU, as a person, they could refuse to issue. If the day ended in "Y" they could refuse to issue. One case I knew of was a guy who met every legal requirement, but, because he had a history of speeding tickets, the judge refused his permit, the reason given (and the judges weren't legally required to give their reasons, though the often would) was that he showed a pattern of civil disobedience, disregard for the law, and reckless behavior. (and that just because he hadn't committed a felony level offense YET didn't mean he was someone who should be legally armed...)
SO, if they follow the NY pattern I am familiar with, there will be no saving of anything in the investigative and permit process under the new Supreme Court ruling.
In my opinion, going bonkers and spouting nonsense is what they have always done...
Aguila Blanca
Staff
I'm curious why you put Connecticut in this list, but not Rhode Island or Massachusetts. Some sources consider Connecticut to be "may issue," but it's really not. It's about as close to "shall issue" as you can get.Spats McGee said:
Spats McGee
Administrator
Apparently, I had a brief episode of cranial rectitis, more commonly known as a “brain fart.”
Has anyone read Alito’s concurring opinion?
It or part of it can be found here.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katie...-justices-opinion-on-latest-gun-case-n2609218
It or part of it can be found here.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katie...-justices-opinion-on-latest-gun-case-n2609218
As a New York state handgun license owner since 1992 here is how it currently works in Suffolk County (Long Island). There is at least a 12-18 month wait from initial application filing and approval and issue of a "restricted" license. It's actually called a "Sportsman" license which allows you to carry your handgun to and from the range only. There is a extensive background check, multiple references have to be listed and notarized and you are fingerprinted. After about 3-4 months from application you get called in for an interview and fingerprints at that time. I imagine that wait is going to be even more ridiculous now. Then you wait.
I'm convinced there will be virtually insurmountable hurdles put in the way to actually allow this to happen any time soon and without legal challenges. There will no doubt be some extensive EXPENSIVE training required as well as any and every possible roadblock. Despite 42 states being "shall issue" without issues this is just the apocalypse realized here in NY.
Although I have no way to know the stats, I would be surprised if there was five incidents of a legal licensed handgun owner being involved in a criminal use of their gun in a decade. If anything it would work the opposite, no one wants to lose their license after all the hassle.
I'm convinced there will be virtually insurmountable hurdles put in the way to actually allow this to happen any time soon and without legal challenges. There will no doubt be some extensive EXPENSIVE training required as well as any and every possible roadblock. Despite 42 states being "shall issue" without issues this is just the apocalypse realized here in NY.
Although I have no way to know the stats, I would be surprised if there was five incidents of a legal licensed handgun owner being involved in a criminal use of their gun in a decade. If anything it would work the opposite, no one wants to lose their license after all the hassle.
Spats McGee
Administrator
Yes, quickly. It'll at least be the weekend before I can give this the attention is really deserves.
Interestingly despite having my NY "Sportsman" license which allows me to carry only to and from the range, I have an out of state resident full carry license for right next door Connecticut and have for many years. They trust us New Yorker's I guess, evidently more than our own state does.
Yes, it affects state legislatures.
And, yes, California will keep making new laws that they KNOW are unconstitutional, just like they've always done.
The difference is that when they are challenged in court, the state can no longer use means-end scrutiny to justify keeping the law. They will have to make up a new excuse.
(1) 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. NYRPA v Bruen, page 2
It is my fervent hope that having clearly laid out the rules, SCOTUS will have little patience with lower courts that fail to follow them.
IF history is any sort of a guide (according to the people who push background checks it is, and according to the people who sell stocks, it isn't...
), I fear your hopes will come to naught. The Judges on the High Court might have little patience, but they will DO NOTHING, until/unless a specific case comes before them.
That's what they do. It's what they have always done. It's what the system is set up to do. Not what most people think their rulings do, not what the media tells people their rulings do.
They do not enforce their rulings, do not correct misinterpretations of their rulings, until they rule on a case before them that involves a previous ruling.
Simply put, they don't do that, because its not their job. Never was. The Supreme Court rules on specific cases before them, and on the law(s) in regard to those cases. If they rule some part of a law unconstitutional, it is then invalid as applied to the case they are ruling on.
Once that happens, it is then the responsibility of the rest of the US govt systems to use the ruling as guidance to change existing laws where needed and to use as consideration in crafting future laws. It is not the job of the Supreme Court to direct them, watch them, babysit them, or do anything else if they don't follow the Courts ruling. There are other parts of the govt which have the job of doing that. The legislatures, Executive branch functions and lower courts. Until those fail (and they often do) the Supreme Court does not, and cannot get involved until that failure brings another case in front of them to rule on.
The crap the media tells everyone the rulings mean, is just that, crap....
In my not so humble opinion...
IF history is any sort of a guide (according to the people who push background checks it is, and according to the people who sell stocks, it isn't...
The Judges on the High Court might have little patience, but they will DO NOTHING, until/unless a specific case comes before them.
That's what they do. It's what they have always done. It's what the system is set up to do. Not what most people think their rulings do, not what the media tells people their rulings do.
They do not enforce their rulings, do not correct misinterpretations of their rulings, until they rule on a case before them that involves a previous ruling.
Simply put, they don't do that, because its not their job. Never was. The Supreme Court rules on specific cases before them, and on the law(s) in regard to those cases. If they rule some part of a law unconstitutional, it is then invalid as applied to the case they are ruling on.
Once that happens, it is then the responsibility of the rest of the US govt systems to use the ruling as guidance to change existing laws where needed and to use as consideration in crafting future laws. It is not the job of the Supreme Court to direct them, watch them, babysit them, or do anything else if they don't follow the Courts ruling. There are other parts of the govt which have the job of doing that. The legislatures, Executive branch functions and lower courts. Until those fail (and they often do) the Supreme Court does not, and cannot get involved until that failure brings another case in front of them to rule on.
The crap the media tells everyone the rulings mean, is just that, crap....
In my not so humble opinion...
Believe me, I understand why you feel this way. But there are some rays of hope. In Heller, SCOTUS clearly destroyed the "only 18th century technology" argument:
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. 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. DC v Heller, page 8
This was in 2008. Nevertheless, in 2016 the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that a stun gun was not covered by the Second because stun guns were not available when the Amendment was written.
The case came to SCOTUS and they rejected the finding per curium, meaning that they didn't even hear evidence, they rejected it out of hand. This is the equivalent of saying "this case is so badly reasoned it's not worth our time". I would hope that even the Ninth Circuit would want to avoid that, although I do have to admit they've been pretty shameless so far.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Justice Alito's concurring opinion is excellent, but I think he missed an important point:
Although we have police departments today, the courts have ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect each individual from attack. The effect, then is that we today are in exactly the same situation as were the citizens of the then-new USA: Ifthese people were we are attacked, they were we are on their our own.
Although we have police departments today, the courts have ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect each individual from attack. The effect, then is that we today are in exactly the same situation as were the citizens of the then-new USA: If