• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

NYS requirement for "cause" to qualify for CCW survives 2A challenge

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
http://tinyurl.com/cqwqnw6 - the ruling

http://tinyurl.com/cbpqrxo - an explanation

Nov 27 (Reuters) - The state of New York can continue to require residents who want to carry a concealed handgun in public to obtain a special license, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York rejected a challenge brought by several Westchester residents and the Second Amendment Foundation against the state's handgun licensing scheme.
Like numerous other states, New York imposes restrictions on individuals who wish to carry concealed firearms in public.
Under New York law, people can apply to carry a handgun outside the home for the limited purposes of hunting or target practice. But those who want to carry concealed handguns in public without any restrictions must convince state licensing officers they have a special need for self-protection greater than others in the general community.

This is not going to be helpful to the Wollard case from Maryland currently pending before the 4th Circuit or for any other attempts to overturn, as opposed to legislate away, may-issue.

And how does this apply to OC, you ask? There is no possession or carry without a license, and there is no license except for CC. OC is against the law.

So while you may "keep" a handgun (with permission) you can only "bear" it for severely limited purposes unles you have proved an overwhelming need.

DC v Heller established that there is a right to have a handgun in the home for self defense purposes, and Chicago et al v MacDonald established that the right applies to the states as well as the federal government. Now we need to get that handgun out of the house under the same premise.

stay safe.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Win, lose, or draw ... this will be going to SCOTUS which will likely pick it up ... I don't think anyone on this forum agrees with the commie judges in the 2nd.

Why don't people just plead that the 2nd amendment is to protect us from our own government & we need to carry to effect that.

All these criminals, hunting, etc. arguments just move the focus away from what the 2nd is there for.
 
Last edited:

DocWalker

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,922
Location
Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
Why don't people just plead that the 2nd amendment is to protect us from our own government & we need to carry to effect that.

Because it is the goverment that dosn't want us to have guns so they can RULE over us instead of working for us. They are trying to do this by saying we can't take care of ourselves and that the goverment knows best.

Check out NY Americans are not smart enough to eat and drink for themselves so the goverment will has stepped in to control them. Try and by a fountain drink larger than 16oz and you will see.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Since I have been adding places not to visit on my List of Places Not to Visit, I need to move NY state farther up the list. maybe I'll just reprioritize my list, it seems to need it.
 

Anubis

Newbie
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Messages
451
Location
Arapahoe County CO, ,
The court's ruling is not surprising; seems like all lower courts are at odds with Heller and McDonald. Apparently SCOTUS is currently the only court in the nation that understands 2A, as least for now.
 
Last edited:

cloudcroft

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
1,908
Location
El Paso, TX (formerly Colorado Springs, CO)
I forgot to add: EVERYONE has a valid/compelling reason for being granted a permit -- to protect his/her LIFE! If the applicant is ALIVE, that alone is reason enough, period.

No need to be a doctor carrying drugs, a businessman carrying cash or jewelry, a celebrity, politician, police chief, or anything else. Rich or poor, a somebody or nobody, everyone has a LIFE -- that reason should trump all the others presently required in sorry "may-issue" states. If one's LIFE is not a valid/compelling reason for carrying, then I don't know what is.

Just common sense, which as we all know, just isn't common anymore...even in judges.
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Because it is the goverment that dosn't want us to have guns so they can RULE over us instead of working for us. .

I agree but when people in these cases start going off on tangents about needing to bear a gun for crime prevention it dilutes the focus and meaning of the 2nd amendment being there to protect us from the gov't.

The British had no problems enforcing their laws in the 1700's. And crime was not rampant ... so the 2nd isn't there for crime control.

And that is exactly why you can be issued a permit in NY -- to prevent normal crimes upon yourself; but the 2nd amendment has little to do with crime control so how is crime control relevant? Its just a free bonus.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
The court's ruling is not surprising; seems like all lower courts are at odds with Heller and McDonald. Apparently SCOTUS is currently the only court in the nation that understands 2A, as least for now.

As much as I am not pleased with this ruling, I think it is important to remind folks that Heller only said that absolute bans on firearms, and especially handguns, in the home, violates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Based on "standard" legal reasoning, as well as the standard set down in Heller, these long-standing laws will continue to receive deference until such time as someone brings the right complaint. My thinking is that it will likely take someone who had applied for permission, was denied, and as a proximate if not direct result was seriously injured, and then reapplied and was again denied.

That, or enough pounding on the table to get SCOTUS to realize that the existence of a law that is never applied, or applied only in rare and specious cases (HI and MD CCW permits, for example), are in fact effectively bans that are just as egregious outside the home as they decided bans were inside the home.

All this other circular reasoning will get us nowhere and in the process saddles us with more case law that needs to be overcome.

stay safe.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
As much as I am not pleased with this ruling, I think it is important to remind folks that Heller only said that absolute bans on firearms, and especially handguns, in the home, violates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Based on "standard" legal reasoning, as well as the standard set down in Heller, these long-standing laws will continue to receive deference until such time as someone brings the right complaint. My thinking is that it will likely take someone who had applied for permission, was denied, and as a proximate if not direct result was seriously injured, and then reapplied and was again denied.

That, or enough pounding on the table to get SCOTUS to realize that the existence of a law that is never applied, or applied only in rare and specious cases (HI and MD CCW permits, for example), are in fact effectively bans that are just as egregious outside the home as they decided bans were inside the home.

All this other circular reasoning will get us nowhere and in the process saddles us with more case law that needs to be overcome.

stay safe.

No where in the 2nd amendment did it mention HOMES...but it does mention MILITIA , which would meet outside of homes.

Figure that...
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
No where in the 2nd amendment did it mention HOMES...but it does mention MILITIA , which would meet outside of homes.

Figure that...

Oh, sweet baby Zenu on a pogo stick, here we go again!

After winning the battle to establish that the Second Amendment does NOT apply to the militia, you come along and resurect that argument. Was it really your intention to suggest that only the militia could carry outside the home, even though the militia was never considered to be used to provide individual protection against assault or robbery? Are you now suggesting that if we cannot carry our own weapon(s) that, instead of lugging a policeman on our backs, we now have to pull a wagon-load of militia behind us?

Thanks to the lack of any indication that your comment was in jest, or the result of either a psychotic break or the unwilling manipulation of your mind by voodoo or space aliens, anybody who reads it will consider that you really meant it. And then the rest of us will have to go and explain to them, all over again, that the Second Amendment is not about the militia and why it could not be about the militia even though the militia is mentioned.

stay safe.
 

Anubis

Newbie
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Messages
451
Location
Arapahoe County CO, ,
If they understood it, they would have struck down ALL gun control laws.

I wish! But that's not how SCOTUS works. The decision is limited to the minimum required by the question before the court; they don't like to rule on a large body of law in one fell swoop. Here's my take on the last 2 major decisions (agree, disagree, that's fine with me).

In Heller, the basic question was "Does 2A mean Heller can keep a loaded pistol in his home?" The answer was "yes". Not "yes, only in the home". Not "yes, everywhere". Of course the antis quickly claimed that the opinion limits 2A to the home.

In McDonald, the question was "Is 2A's right to keep and bear arms an individual right?" The answer was "yes". Not "yes, only on your own property". Not "yes, everywhere".

We need a case where the question is "Does 2A's 'shall not be infringed' mean that a citizen qualified to own a firearm can bear firearms in public?"
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Oh, sweet baby Zenu on a pogo stick, here we go again!

After winning the battle to establish that the Second Amendment does NOT apply to the militia, you come along and resurect that argument. Was it really your intention to suggest that only the militia could carry outside the home, even though the militia was never considered to be used to provide individual protection against assault or robbery? Are you now suggesting that if we cannot carry our own weapon(s) that, instead of lugging a policeman on our backs, we now have to pull a wagon-load of militia behind us?

Thanks to the lack of any indication that your comment was in jest, or the result of either a psychotic break or the unwilling manipulation of your mind by voodoo or space aliens, anybody who reads it will consider that you really meant it. And then the rest of us will have to go and explain to them, all over again, that the Second Amendment is not about the militia and why it could not be about the militia even though the militia is mentioned.

stay safe.

Well, the word is in there and you wish to erase it out...well...

The 2nd amendment gives us the individual right to keep and bear arms. It also gives us the right to form militias. They are separate rights. As an individual has a right to practice, so does a militia. And that would require a right to carry outside the gun owner's home and the right to transport the firearms in pursuit of being part of a militia.

Militia training is different than an individual's training.

Hope this clears up my opinion further...my opinion does not dilute an individual's rights at all.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
@ the debate over self-defense vs militia:

For any who haven't been exposed to it, self-defense is the foundation of the militia argument.

To argue militia-only is to say that individuals too worthless to be allowed to protect themselves suddenly become worth defending when considered collectively. Rubbish. Absurd.

To argue self-defense-only is to say that valuable individuals suddenly become worthless when considered collectively.

Self-defense is inextricably tied to militia.

Rather than get wrapped up in debate, just heave in a sentence or two about self-defense and militia being inextricably linked.
 
Last edited:

Anubis

Newbie
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Messages
451
Location
Arapahoe County CO, ,
@ the debate over self-defense vs militia...

The McDonald decision ended the debate. In explaining the decision, the court stated that the "militia" clause was prefatory only, giving an example of the use of the 2A individual right, not limiting the right to militia service.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
....

The 2nd amendment gives us the individual right to keep and bear arms. It also gives us the right to form militias. They are separate rights. As an individual has a right to practice, so does a militia. And that would require a right to carry outside the gun owner's home and the right to transport the firearms in pursuit of being part of a militia.

Militia training is different than an individual's training.

Hope this clears up my opinion further...my opinion does not dilute an individual's rights at all.

Because I am denser than unobtanium, please show me where in the Second Amendment it

- gives any right (Need a chain-yanking smiley)
- protects a right to form a militia
- protects a militia's right to practice

Opinions are nice, but sometimes in order for others to accept them as valid or grounded they need to be backed up with, at least, a showing that you are not the only one holding that opinion. Since I am not expecting case law citations, I will gladly settle for any generally-accepted opinions that support yours -- even those generally acepted by the lunatic fringe.

stay safe.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
....
Self-defense is inextricably tied to militia.

....

Maybe it's being pedantic, but I don't think it is -

Isn't the militia inextricably linked to self defense, as opposed to the order you have put it?

The individual has a natural right to self defense. Individuals may extend that by banding together for mutual defense by forming a militia. Always though that was the progession of the argument.

stay safe.
 
Top