Court Weighing Cert on Carry Case

Looks like we should know soon whether the Second Amendment is heading to round three. I sincerely hope that if we do, the Court will consider providing some guidance on standard of review to lower courts. A smackdown of lower courts for not taking the right seriously would be even better. I would imagine the circuit split on this issue means that the Court is likely to weigh in.

13 thoughts on “Court Weighing Cert on Carry Case”

    1. Almost a given, really. Gura has been executing a solid strategy to get another 2A case before the courts, and to accomplish it quickly. No one else has been doing that.

  1. This, the state AR15 bans, and the state registration schemes are the next three big issues the court will have to weigh on. Hopefully, they remember their role in the balance of powers in our cherished republic…

    1. That would have to happen with Congressional action. I believe the only question at issue in this case is whether New York’s may-issue permit scheme is constitutional.

      1. New York’s permit scheme is one of, if not the most restrictive May Issue scheme in the country. If cert is granted (we’ll know Monday) and the Court strikes down the “good cause” requirement, it would also control the nearly identical fact pattern in Woollard v. Sheridan, which A.G. has stated he will be taking to SCOTUS as well. Further, it would head off at the pass the Illinois legislature’s plan to impose a New York style May Issue permit system in the wake of Madigan v. Moore. So the ramifications will likely go past the state borders.

        That said, as a downstate NYer, I’m on the edge of my seat. This might be the first weekend in years I can honestly say 10am Monday can’t come fast enough.

        1. Can you imagine the surge in CCW permits if may issue is knocked down? Look at Wisconsin and Iowa after they changed their laws.

          Millions of Californians, New Yorkers, etc… will suddenly become gun culture 2.0 supporters. That has big implications in the voting booth.

      2. It may not be a uniform national CCW, but it would make the entire US “shall issue”, which is pretty close to that anyway.

        Also, it would probably remove the one real barrier to a lot of people getting their pistol permits in New York State now: A lot of people don’t bother, myself included, because they are pretty much automatically limited to “Hunting and Target Shooting Only”, meaning it’s not legal to carry unless you get an unrestricted license which is generally only available to the rich and influential.

        I’d go through the trouble to get one if I could carry.

  2. Well, if the SCOTUS were to rule generally on the issue of whether “the right to bear arms” is a protected right, and following McDonald they likewise affirm that bearing (like keeping) is a fundamental right … at some meaningful level doesn’t it just naturally and logically follow that non-prohibited persons (eg. typical, law-abiding citizens) have the right to bear arms nationwide, save for certain and defined “sensitive places?” If bearing arms is a fundamental right, I just don’t know the act can lawfully be subject to myriad and varied local, municipal, and state prohibitions.

  3. If they we’re to strike down “good cause” could that impact new jerseys similar language in justifiable need?

    1. There’s a suit just argued in front of the circuit court from NJ challenging their “may-issue” permitting scheme. The judges sounded like on for, one against, and one undecided.

  4. If they don’t take this one, they’ll have to take up another half-dozen over the next few years because of all the Lawsuits that are/will be filed over the New Anti-Gun Laws that are hitting the streets.

    Hopefully, there’s enough Brains at SCOTUS to get this straightened out soon.

  5. I hope they take it.

    If they don’t, it means we risk losing one of the Heller 5. If Obama gets another SCOUTS pick I put the odds at about 2/3 that the SCOTUS will NOT make any more forward progress on 2A for decades. I put the odds at a coin toss that Heller and McDonald will be repudiated, or watered down so much as to be meaningless. If you read the dissent in McDonald it basically says, “Heller was wrong, it should be thrown out.” I know the SCOTUS like precedent but I can totally see a liberal court saying, “Yes, 2A is a right, but only inside the home, where it is subject to a new standard of review under which everything is justified.”

Comments are closed.