I’m curious what legal/SCOTUS experts are speculating as to possible outcomes from the NYSPRA case that the Supreme Court will be hearing next month. Not just which side will “win” but what the implications would be if the court strikes down NY’s permitting scheme.
Presumably, a ruling in favor of NY would simply mean the status quo (hopefully no worse)?
But a ruling in favor of NYSPRA seems pretty wide open to me as far as what it could mean in NY and other states. If they do rule that “may-issue” schemes in general are unconsitutional, I think they’d still have to specify further exactly what states can and can’t do in terms of the process of issuing permits (either with this ruling or in future cases). There are other ways in which states can make the process extremely onerous such as unreasonable training requirements, lengthy processing times, prohibitively high fees, and who knows what else.
Even being optimistic, I’m not sure what to expect because it seems like the justices who are more likely to rule in NYSPRA’s favor also tend to issue narrower rulings and avoid “legislating from the bench.” I’m curious to know what people who have more knowledge and insight about this think.
I’m not a legal expert but suspect there is a high probability that they continue to kick this can down the road by issuing as narrow a ruling as possible. Suspect they will be intimidated by the threat of court packing if they piss off the hoplophobic Dems too much:(
But I’d be happy if they prove me wrong by actually reading the Constitution as it was written:)
I dunno looking at the NY law they have requirements like “Of good moral character”, “special need” and "proper cause"as well as other bits that beg the question or more precisely the definition of those terms. Who determines whether you have good moral character? And by whose standards? What is a “proper cause” and “special need”. Where is that defined as a yes or no answer? I figure that is where they will go. Restricting the states from using perception or opinion in the issuance of a permit. Definable, Measurable and Actionable.
The only thing we know for sure is that the ink will not even be dry before some lawyer group has a work around.
A little good news for Pennsylvania?
I agree that the ruling - if it’s in favor of NYSPRA - will probably be somewhat narrow because that seems to be consistent with the judicial approach of the justices who tend to follow the constitution as written. Still, given that there are about 10 “may-issue” states, I doubt that they’d strike down NY’s without addressing those others. Regardless of how they term their “good reason” requirements, they’re all substantially the same. I would expect the D.C. appeals court ruling from a few years ago would be an applicable precedent.
I guess it’s too much to hope that they cite Obergfell as precedent and declare Constitutional Carry as the law of the land in all 50 states?
“Alito said there already are people illegally carrying guns on subways and streets. “But the ordinary hard-working, law-abiding people … they can’t be armed?” Alito asked.”
““Why isn’t it good enough to say ‘I live in a violent area and I want to defend myself?’” Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked.”
““How many muggings take place in the forest?” Chief Justice John Roberts asked New York Solicitor General”
“Justice Samuel Alito wondered why only “celebrities, state judges and retired police officers” should be able to carry concealed guns, and not ordinary citizens.”
Looks like the Supreme Court might just get this one right.
Things did seem to go well today. I feel good that the decision will be favorable, but still concerned about how narrow it might be. Even if they remove any discretion beyond basic background checks like what is required for firearms purchases, there are still so many other ways that the process could be abused. Roberts has been disappointing over the years but he was in the majority in Heller. I’d rather see 6-3 than 5-4.
Thanks. This video is a little longer but addresses some good points. They do discuss that same scope question about 20 minutes into the video. Bottom line, they don’t seem to think this restricts them to issuing an “as applied” ruling, because 1) the questions from the 6 justices who seemed to favor the plaintiffs indicated they were considering a broader scope (not just “as applied” to the plaintiffs), and 2) the plaintiff’s circumstances are not unique to them, and would apply to millions of other citizens seeking carry permits.
One topic they brought up was that even if the ruling is somewhat narrow regarding the NY law itself or even “may-issue” schemes in general, the Court could clarify the framework that lower courts must apply to 2A cases. Namely, analyzing “text, history and tradition” rather than using a tiered scrutiny framework. This could really have a broad and favorable impact on future cases.