States With Strict Gun-Permitting Laws Consider Next Steps
In wake of the SCOTUS ruling on the NYSRPA case, there was a lot of celebrating from 2A advocates across the country, especially those living in formerly may-issue states.
Since the ruling, we have seen state governments proposing a wide range of new barriers to those looking to responsibly exercise their right to self-defense.
What do you think the permitting process is going to look like going forward in these states?
It should look like “Shall not be infringed”
But it wasn’t before the ruling, and apparently they don’t care now and are planning on more infringements. Who’s going to stop them?
Seems the leftists are promoting a world without rule of law.
Careful what ya’ wish for.
Looks like a bunch of word salad to me. Left leaning states will probably continue to walk all over the 2A, Right leaning states all ready, for the most part, had it right. The Supreme Court ruling was a great step in the right direction but I strongly doubt it will change much in these states.
It will be more difficult if not unattainable until the challenges are filed and wend their way through the appellate process. In a perfect world, the first level of judicial review should cure it, but even if that takes place, the government will ask for the court to stay its opinion and appeal to the next level of review.
Are certain folks going for no rule of law, or, for pure democracy aka mob rule?
The rule of law crumbles more every single day. This is planned and happens with malice and pre-determination. A parallel effort is running to disarm the public. Meanwhile, leftist DAs are letting crime run wild. People get more afraid every day.
So no. The usual states will do what they wish. When things get bad enough, when people are frightened and desperate enough, there will be an effort to “modify” our Constitution. People will generally applaude when their freedom dies.
I do so hope I am wrong. I hope enough Patriots still exist then to stop our march toward Marxist-Leninst rule over a helpless citizenry.
That right there needs to be repeated
That’s it, if we can tell you it’s not illegal or immoral than we can tell the sheeple that it’s OK.
When I was liviing in WA state, I saw a bumper sticker on a young person’s car that read:
Who needs civil right, I wasn’t using them anyways
I thought to myself, my god what an idiot. If this person is ever taken w/o a warrant, searched w/o a warrant, held for longer than 48 hours w/o being charged, wanted a writ of habeas corpus ….they would be the first ones screaming and jumping up and down shouting “I have rights”. It’s sad to think about it.
I suspect that the new “shall issue” laws will be structured to be “may issue” in practice granting discretion to the issuing authority (e.g., sheriff, police department, etc). For example, while my state of Colorado is technically a "shall issue state, sheriffs have discretion to issue permits under CRS 18-12-203(2):
“(2) Regardless of whether an applicant meets the criteria specified in subsection (1) of this section, if the sheriff has a reasonable belief that documented previous behavior by the applicant makes it likely the applicant will present a danger to self or others if the applicant receives a permit to carry a concealed handgun, the sheriff may deny the permit.”
As a practical matter, if an individual is denied under this provision, he/she must then bring (and win) a legal action against the sheriff who can defend his actions with virtually unlimited legal resources funded with taxpayer dollars. I can imagine the NY city police department denying permit applications based on a claim that granting the permit to the applicant will present a danger to the applicant or the public, and say “Don’t like our decision? So, sue us. See ya in court.”
The really big outcome of the Bruen decision, and what is not obvious because the decision is centered around permitting schemes, is that the Supreme Court clearly defined the standard by which any law that impacts on your rights protected by the Second Amendment MUST be evaluated.
This is a clear move in the right direction as local courts, appeals courts, and state’s supreme courts, will not have wiggle room to inject their own spin on how to evaluate cases. They had been doing that for years. Now they must stick to the plain text, history and tradition of the 2A as it was written in 1791. That is absolutely huge for protection of the 2A. There are already many cases that are being reintroduced because of this clarification. We have the potential to see most gun control laws repealed once they start being evaluated by this standard.
Magazine bans, “assault weapons” bans, permitting schemes, taxes on firearms and firearm activities and commerce, and an entire plethora of infringements are suddenly at risk.
This BRUEN decision was brilliant in its simplicity, just as the 2A is brilliant in its wording. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is as simple as it gets. In addition, this decision does not stand on its own it also has other hooks into Miller & Heller, which really put a spear through the heart of unconstitutional gun control (people control).