Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Don't try this at home ... or in quarry near houses, or anyplace else | Main | A very fine week for the Second Amendment! »

Supreme Court takes a 2A case!

Posted by David Hardy · 26 April 2021 10:37 AM

It's NYSRPA v. Corlett, Here's the docket.

The rule require the petition to have, right at the front, the "Question Presented," and generally when the Court grants cert, it just grants it, and the question presented is worded as the petitioner phrased it. In this case, however, the Court dictated its own version, as "Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment."

This is a bit strange, since I'm told NY doesn't issue "concealed-carry licenses," but rather requires licenses for all handgun carry, outside of a few exceptions. And it poses it as limited to the denial of a permit, rather than the permit requirement itself. But denial of the permit as an issue will let the Court assess what permit systems are allowed and what the criteria might be, and (most importantly) how much discretion is allowed.

Here's Josh Blackman's take, check out the comments.

UPDATE: Young has been decided en banc, petition for cert not yet filed. It'll probably be held until the ruling in this case, and then remanded for reconsideration in light of this ruling.

5 Comments | Leave a comment

Henry | April 26, 2021 12:04 PM | Reply

What’s Young v Hawaii’s status?

BillTheCat | April 26, 2021 2:10 PM | Reply

VC comments section epitomizes the analogy of two pissed off honey bear badgers fornicating in a sack.

A protip I learned for maintaining your sanity/blood pressure: for quality of content, only scan topline comments, ignore replies to comments, except for rare exceptions.

Anon | April 26, 2021 8:15 PM | Reply

So this case will be about cementing permit requirements, as opposed to recognizing ‘Constitutional Carry’?

tom | April 27, 2021 12:27 PM | Reply

"... for quality of content, only scan topline comments ..."

Sound advice.
It's similar to modern court opinions that cite numerous previous cases in order to arrive at a convoluted legal conclusion.
When you go back and read the cited cases, they may have little relationship to the newly arrived at legal conclusion.

Jeff | April 27, 2021 4:19 PM | Reply

It seems logical that the Supremes (or at least the majority of them) foresee making changes in NY's carry permit requirements. Otherwise, there is no reason to take the case.

Leave a comment