supreme court to debate/rule on ny law restricting concealed carry outside the home unless you prove exceptional need

Grumpy · Nov 4, 2021

Just finished reading an article on how the justices agreed amongst themselves to hear the New York case. It seems they reframed the legal question to focus on the two individual plaintiffs more particularly. If I interpret correctly it sets up a narrower ruling on the matter that will focus less on the Constitutional rights of all citizens and more on whether these two New Yorkers had theirs violated. Even if they rule in favor of the two plaintiffs, it might not mean as much for other jurisdictions and and other regulations.

Here's a quote: "The court rewrote the question presented, limiting it to ask “whether the State’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.”

The rewritten question focuses the court’s review first to the matter of concealed-carry, rather than open-carry, licenses — a sensible move because that is the type of license for which the petitioners originally applied.

The second change is more important. Rather than asking about the right of all law-abiding citizens to carry guns in public, the court’s rewritten question focuses on just the original two petitioners — individuals who were denied special need licenses by New York. In doing so, the justices have made clear that the specific, factual circumstances surrounding the applications will be crucial to their analysis. (Otherwise, the original question presented would have sufficed.)"

Here's the original article link: https://www.yahoo.com/news/op-ed-did...100058728.html

The court could, in such a hypothetical circumstance, provide a test for what constitutes good and reasonable grounds . . . and that could then be constraining on NY police thereafter.

For example, what if they find that if you live in a zip-code that has an incidence of violent crime above a predefined threshold . . . then you have a good reason to have a concealed carry permit (excluding, of course, other facts such as convictions for crimes, mental illness, too young, whatever)?

"if you live in a zip-code that has an incidence of violent crime above a predefined threshold . . . then you have a good reason to have a concealed carry permit"

Majority of court appears dubious of New York gun-control law, but justices mull narrow ruling - SCOTUSblog

This article was updated on Nov. 3 at 5:15 p.m. When Wednesday’s oral argument in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen drew to a close after roughly two hours of debate, it seemed likely that New York’s 108-year-old handgun-licensing law is in jeopardy. But the justices’ eventua

www.scotusblog.com

you could bet the farm safely,
if that ever happened ,
the libs would manipulate the crime data, or require a proficiency test
making it impossible to reach the goal of legal carry, and that almost no one would be eligible,
I could see them making crimes like home invasion, and rape,
non- crimes and armed robbery a misdemeanor and statistically a non-issue if that prevented legal firearm carry too the masses,
or mandating an annual firearms safety test ,
where you had to prove you could hit a 2" target at 25 yards twice in 5 seconds, with zero misses
with your carry gun
thus potentially eliminating any potential, stray shot hitting innocents and bystanders
and( you can only take the test once every 6 months)

(FOR THE CHILDRENS SAFETY) knowing that's basically an unreachable level of accuracy for JOE PUBLIC)
with a concealed carry style handgun