Supreme Court agrees to hear Concealed Carry license issue case

[Wobbly]

From TheReload.Com

For the first time ever, the US Supreme Court agreed to hear a case against the State of NY's concealed carry licensing. If the ruling goes badly for NY, other restrictive states like CA might have to issue licences to all who meet the CC requirements, not just a few. This will end up being the biggest ruling since Heller. Gun Control groups are seriously worried.

Read it here...
https://thereload.com/gun-rights-groups-cheer-supreme-court-concealed-carry-case-as-gun-control-advocates-watch-nervously/

[SI VIS PACEM PARRABELLUM]

I certainly hope it goes our way but I'm cautiously optimistic. I just don't see today's supreme court as the conservative firewall the other side would have everyone believe it to be.

[Wobbly]

Your comments are true. Still it's a very interesting case.... basically can states issue licenses to those whom they want, versus what the 2A says, basically every citizen.

[anonymouscuban]

I thought I'd share a little bit about CCW permits here in California. Over the past several years, there has been a movement of liberalizing the issue of CCW permits across the majority of counties in California. Most of the of state issues permits for Self Defense GC. A few will issue for recreational GC while a handful will only issue for work related GC.

There were 2 areas that basically did not issue any... those were the counties up in the SF Bay Area and Los Angeles county. The great news is that over the past several months, our Sheriff here in Los Angeles county has began issuing CCW permits. Started with work related GC and very recent has approved recreational GC. This is huge since it's been over a decade that any regular citizen has been allowed to a CCW permit in our county.

There seems to be movement to liberalize CCW across the country, even in gun hating  places like Los Angeles. I'm hope this is a good sign for the case being heard by SCOTUS.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[anonymouscuban]

Here is the latest CCW GC policy map for California.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[SI VIS PACEM PARRABELLUM]

There seems to be movement to liberalize CCW across the country, even in gun hating  places like Los Angeles. I'm hope this is a good sign for the case being heard by SCOTUS.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

I'm not in sure I agree with the term "liberalize". Our 2A rights have been infringed upon in one form or another in many municipalities across the country for really much more than a century. Perhaps what we are seeing and will continue to see is the "LIBERATION" of a right that has been held hostage.

[dwhite]

I too am cautiously optimistic. On paper, we have the votes in the Court to win. But we've been let down before.

It's certainly positive that the Court agreed to hear the case at all. But there's still a good chance that the opinion they provide will be so narrowly defined that it applies only to this one law and only in this one state (NY). I fear this outcome would come if the conservative voices want to appease the liberal judges in their opinion and "not go too far."

On the other hand, it's possible they'll issue a broader opinion and reaffirm that 2A is an individual right and finally impose "strict scrutiny" to it. That would be an awesome outcome and would eliminate pretty much all gun control measures. (Strict scrutiny is important. If you're interested, here's a to it's definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny ).

Regardless, this will be a real test of where the Court truly stands on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights!

[anonymouscuban]

There seems to be movement to liberalize CCW across the country, even in gun hating  places like Los Angeles. I'm hope this is a good sign for the case being heard by SCOTUS.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

I'm not in sure I agree with the term "liberalize". Our 2A rights have been infringed upon in one form or another in many municipalities across the country for really much more than a century. Perhaps what we are seeing and will continue to see is the "LIBERATION" of a right that has been held hostage.

Good point. I guess liberalize was a bad choice of word to describe that they are simply recognizing our rights. However, it's a shift in the right direction. I applied 3 weeks ago and am waiting for my interview. Unfortunately, it's still a lengthy process. We shall see if my GC is deemed worthy.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Tok36]

Potential movement is better than no movement.

[Atomic Punk]

They are looking at it narrowly. Based on Comey-Barrett's and Kavanaugh's rulings on previous 2A cases, I think we'll win this and all states will become "must issue."

Blue states will just do what DC has done since they started issuing permits. Make it an expensive, painful process to get and renew a permit and restrict legal carry in so many places that the permit becomes nearly useless.

Still, it will be nice to get the Court to finally implement Heller and start to treat the 2A like the other rights in the Bill of Rights. This won't end the fight by any means but it will be a nice precedent.

[The Principal]

My hope is that the SC guarantees conceal carry for self defense in public. That being said, my guess is that restrictions will be allowed, as there are always restrictions.

[Skookum]

It takes four justices to agree to hear any particular case.  The anti-constitutionalist justices have been dodging gun cases because they like the laws the way they are in their progressive enclaves.  The constitutionalist justices have had the four votes for a while, but have been dodging gun cases because they haven't had a fifth justice to enforce the 2nd Amendment.  The fact SCOTUS has taken the case bodes well for those who are liberty minded.


I don't see SCOTUS finding a constitutional right to carry concealed, as no such right has ever existed.  I expect they will follow what the 7th Circuit did to Illinois — rule there is a right to carry, but leave it to the state to determine the manner of carry, and whether to require a permit as long as any permit is not too restrictive.  Progressive enclaves abhor open carry and love permits.

[SI VIS PACEM PARRABELLUM]

I don't see SCOTUS finding a constitutional right to carry concealed, as no such right has ever existed.  I expect they will follow what the 7th Circuit did to Illinois — rule there is a right to carry, but leave it to the state to determine the manner of carry, and whether to require a permit as long as any permit is not too restrictive.  Progressive enclaves abhor open carry and love permits.

I guess it comes down to interpretation and how they decide to interpret the case. I'd argue limiting the ability to carry concealed by permit is a direct infringement on it's face. These are rights not privileges we get if we meet the criteria for a permit. I would hope they rule that way but I agree they probably won't.

[Atomic Punk]

I don't see SCOTUS finding a constitutional right to carry concealed, as no such right has ever existed.  I expect they will follow what the 7th Circuit did to Illinois — rule there is a right to carry, but leave it to the state to determine the manner of carry, and whether to require a permit as long as any permit is not too restrictive.  Progressive enclaves abhor open carry and love permits.

You could very well be correct about the concealed carry right but I think they'll say the 2nd applies outside the home. States will have to allow open carry or issue concealed permits to those that qualify...or maybe even a permit to open carry but I agree the progressives abhor open carry. They banned it in a number of places in my corner of Virginia last year. The sight of guns just freaks some people out. 

As someone who had a permit in Massachusetts, and is currently applying for one in Maryland, I strongly disagree that progressive enclaves love permits. They hate guns in any form and put every roadblock they can to prevent people from even having them, never mind carrying them. Maryland requires training and a permit to even purchase a gun. It cost about $200 just for permission. Boggles my mind how anyone thinks that isn't a clear infringement.     

[radagast]

   While I'm pleased that scotus is hearing a 2A case on "bearing arms", being from NJ keeps me from being very optimistic about the outcome. Infringement seems to be one of those words our politicians feel is quite mercurial in nature !