The United States Supreme Court is taking up a challenge to New York Cities strict licensing of carrying a firearm outside ones home in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., vs Kevin P. Bruen,.
A ruling in favor of the plaintiff will be significant to NYC and a handful of states that strictly regulate the carrying of arms in public. Not so significant for the majority of states that have fairly permissive concealed and open carry laws.
Although I don’t trust John Roberts I still believe the court will rule that there is a right to bear arms in public. I think they will rule that New Yorks selective licensing is a violation of the 2nd Amendment. I think that they will temper that ruling by saying the state has a right to mandate some kind of reasonable training requirements and background checks, but will basically render those stringent states as “shall issue” like the rest of the country. They may also rule that restrictions on carrying in certain “sensitive” areas, like jails and court houses, can be prohibited. And that private property and businesses can prohibit weapons on their premises.
I don’t know if they’ll address carrying in public generally or if they’ll differentiate between concealed and open carry.
It will be a win for lawful gun owners, but really only in a handful of areas of the country.
I’m sure they will look at the precedent of Heller, where conservative icon Scalia said that reasonable gun control is fine, and leave NY alone, since stare decisis is such an important concept for conservative justices.
Yep, I agree with you and PKbites the superemes will follow the existing precedent and say reasonable gun control is fine and New York goes way too far and New York will become a shall issue state.
I agree with this and I think there are five strong votes for it with Roberts being a wild card for the sixth. Heller all but demands some form of public carry and I think the states will be free to restrict concealed carry (like Heller said) but then they must allow open carry. Or allow concealed carry and ban open carry.
You might see a functional ban, sort of like D.C. has, where so many places are off limits that you cannot realistically leave your home carrying a gun because you are bound to run into a restricted “no gun” zone.
The background check and safety requirements will likely be upheld, but that sort of thing is wholly inconsistent with the idea of a fundamental right in that you don’t need prior permission from the very government that is forbidden to infringe on the right in the first place.
Then after that ruling, I expect the next wave of lawsuits to attack the off-limits places, with the exception of those mentioned in Heller like schools and government buildings, but then you will get into the debate such as why schools? Well, the idea is that we don’t want a psycho with a gun going in and shooting up a school. Okay, but we don’t want that to happen at a Walmart either, so why allow carry in a Walmart? Heller’s “longstanding exceptions” paragraph is inconsistent with the rest of the opinion.
I agree. Just to be clear, I don’t support mandatory training and background checks. I’m just trying to guess what the Supremes will rule.
I think this may be the most pro-gun court we’re ever going to get. Hopefully in the future we’ll also get rulings on exorbitant ammo taxation, magazine capacity limits, and bans on scary looking rifles.
I also hope they take up the tyrannical manner in which bump stocks were banned by a government agency that ruled for 2 decades that they were perfectly legal.
I believe these issues were not previously taken up because the other justices don’t trust Roberts.