Duke Law Podcast | Duke Center for Firearms Law on SCOTUS and NYSRPA v. Bruen

[@markpilcher4524]

Hooray for Clarence Thomas and the Supreme Court!

[@Menaceblue3]

Happy birthday based black judge dude!

[@queensapphire7717]

Suffolk County NY is attempting to state that all past and new licenses issued were not carry, but premise pistol licenses. They changed the “Sportsman” classification from a restricted carry, for which associated fees and extensive background checks were performed, to a premise classification. Their entire application process is rife with medical privacy and civil rights violations, and needs to be dealt with swiftly, from a legal sense. The state and county are trying to circumvent the recent SCOTUS decision, and BREAK the law. This “Win” for NY is taking a different turn for NY Pistol license holders, as some, specifically Suffolk County, are reclassifying our current restricted CARRY licenses to premise licenses, which would not make them qualify for CCW, and require “re application”, that is currently taking 2 years, when by law supposed to be completed in 6 months.

[@rockindoodcm]

Regardless how well it was actually developed during the case it is true that within NYC it is as restrictive as Alito described. Unless you know someone in city government, are a cop, a prosecutor, a judge, a celebrity, or are someone who has absolte written proof that you are carrying tens of thousands of dollars on a regular basis, you aren't getting a NYPL for conceal carry. Any investigation they do would support this, and even the lawyer for NYS admitted it to some extent.

[@1999glock]

Regretabbly, too many courts and judges view the 2nd Amendment not as a constitutional right but as a public safety issue. If you listen to Breyer, he says noting about the constitutional concerns only about possible public safety issues.

[@gollenda7852]

The Main Point raised was the total discretion given to licencing officials to deny people their Constitutional Rights. Thou Shall Not Be Infringed.

[@D.F.K.]

By “Guns Rights Activists” I think you mean people that don’t believe placing unreasonable restrictions on a protected right. I would consider a “gun rights activist” as someone that doesn’t believe in any (or nearly any) restrictions on citizens owning firearms. If you are too dangerous to own a firearm, you have probably committed crimes (of violence) that you should be incarcerated for. After you serve your sentence (for a crime of violence), at a minimum, there should be a hearing where the State has the burden of proof to strip you of your rights to own and carry a firearm.

[@Archangel4Truth]

The Right to bare arms is fundamental but it is not simply a 2nd Amendment Right. The right also encompasses the 9th & 10th & 14th Amendments. It is because of the Judiciary repeatedly misinterpretation of the other Amendments that every other right even Constitutional Rights are considered revocable or regulated to such a degree that such regulations act as an infringement. I will elaborate, the 10th Amendment says The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The courts when making reference to the 10th complete fail to interpret the part of the 10th that says OR TO THE PEOPLE. Because to do so would recognize certain rights that the Framers clearly said where self evident Truths that the element of consent is necessary towards the just powers of the Government or States. It is also a recognition that the People are Sovereign. The 9th Amendment as it pertains to Unenumerated Rights. The courts have progressed the idea of fundamental rights while the majority of its rulings completely fail to consider the implications of 9th Amendment Unenumerated Rights against these rulings. By the Judiciary failing to make as part of its decisions an analysis of 9th Amendment implications of their rulings they have denied and disparaged Unenumerated Rights in almost every decision or opinion they make. The 14th Amendment The People have the same equal protection rights as is granted to members of Law Enforcement or Judges or Celebrities. Such Rights extend far beyond the home and should not be denied by a States Regulations Sceams that infringe the Right only to ones home. These are part of a person's right to bare arms. Any decision made by Scotus will either affirm these rights or they will deny them. But if the court fails to correctly rule the Framers gave us a good recommendation what to do when the Government is no longer protecting these Rights. I predict Scotus will give way to political pressure or ultimately rule in a manner that will limit the Right in some capacity as it has in so many other ways...

[@rkba4923]

Great discussion. Here are some of my thoughts as I listened: The permit requirement will need to be challenged directly. Didn't the court state in Heller I something to the effect: All weapons that constitute bearable arms are covered by the 2A (we haven't discussed "keepable arms" yet!)? Where's the part of the 2A that says anything about, "except in areas where prohibited by the government" or "except by people prohibited by the government"? Doesn't the inclusion of the 2A in the Constitution/Bill of RIGHTS necessarily take it off the legislative table and outside the lawful Subject Matter Jurisdiction of the government (e.g. discretion)? Who determines if someone is of "good moral character" and to what due process are they entitled? The primary "proper cause" reason for carrying a gun in public is SELF DEFENSE; and, if you're going to DEPRIVE ME MY RIGHT UNDER COLOR OF LAW, you need to take responsibility for my life while I'm in your "sensitive place", e.g. metal detectors and armed guards on hand. From what I understand James Madison carried a gun with him most everywhere he went (much like what the Supreme Court stated in Dred Scott v. Sandford as to why they couldn't find slaves to be citizens: "It would give to [them] ... the right to ... AND TO KEEP AND CARRY ARMS WHEREVER THEY WENT.") [EMPHASIS MINE]. So, when there are large concentrations of people, nobody gets mugged, assaulted, raped, robbed, kidnapped, carjacked, etc.? Seems to me like, IF there's going to be gun control via Color of Law, it should be STANDARDIZED across the Republic since it's a RIGHT guaranteed by the federal Constitution (e.g. "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities as Citizens in the several States," and "No State shall make or enforce any Law which shall ABRIDGE (lessen in any way) the privileges or immunities of Citizens of the United States."). Excuse me, but in how many jurisdictions have we seen LE STAND DOWN during the BLM/Antifa chaos the last few years. Yet some of you (who are, apparently, afraid of inanimate objects) want some of us to disarm, therefore, risking our lives to rely on LE! R u nuts?!!! What about FACT that it takes LE much longer to arrive than the life saving seconds required in potentially fatal encounters? You know, "when seconds count, LE is only minutes away"! Also, please remember, CRIMINALS don't obey gun control laws anymore than they do other laws. I think that's why they're criminals. Furthermore, and this is a serious question I've been seeking an answer to for years, where in our Organic/Supreme Law is the judiciary enumerated any lawful power to "make law"? Which, of course, posits the question, "Why do we refer to judicial opinions as "law""? Uh, ANY weapon is an "assault weapon" when used to assault someone or something. Just sayin'.

[@georgemesser5655]

I believe it’s generally called “case law,” “judicial precedent,” and stemming there from “judicial review.” The function of courts is to decide legal questions. Am I right, or is he right? Is this law constitutional? Was a crime committed? Etc.

[@rkba4923]

@@georgemesser5655 I understand that their power is to settle controversies; and, that an opinion must be made in order to do that. But, I can't find in Art. III of the COTUS any mention to the "making of law" or their opinions being considered law. They're restricted by, "such exceptions, and under such regulations, as the Congress shall make," and the laws and treaties of the U.S. that are made "under their authority" (meaning pursuant to the Constitution to me). And, Art. VI stipulates, "and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby" (referring to the COTUS). So, I understand they can settle controversies, issue opinions in settlement thereof and that those opinions are supposed to comply with the COTUS, and any lawful exceptions and regulations made by Congress, etc. But, I still can't find in the Constitution where it says anything about their opinions being "law" or binding on anyone not a party to the specific controversy.

[@georgemesser5655]

@@rkba4923 could you provide an example or two?

[@jwnmiles1]

These guys certainly like to go on and on and on about themselves.

[@rkba4923]

@@jwnmiles1 If you're referring to my comment, John, what exactly about my comment is about me? Or, maybe you didn't even read the comment; or, maybe you've got comprehension issues?

[@fire_tower]

27:50 I disagree with the sentiment. If we could see what percentage of people got turned away at the polls in 1840 and it was about 5%. We can't take that to mean most people weren't being discriminated against. Because women simply wouldn't go to the polls because they knew they'd be denied.

[@markpilcher4524]

This video has aged like milk.

[@markpilcher4524]

I sure hope that someday we have strict interpretation of the Second Amendment nationwide, just as we currently have in half of the 50 states. None of you would even consider the debate of whether freedom of religion would be allowed in a "sensitive place." How about we err to the side of freedom for a change? In your next podcast, perhaps you could explain to us why the Constitution shouldn't apply in certain geographical "sensitive" areas. Local restrictions are a bad idea prima facia. You end up with a patchwork of laws where you are legal until you cross an imaginary line you may be totally unaware of, and you suddenly become a criminal.

[@rockindoodcm]

It's also expensive, long and tedious process to apply for a NYPL. You need to pay a fee, get fingerprinted, have written references, have an extensive background where they interview your neighbors and other people in your life, etc. People who live in NYC know the process and aren't going to bother if they are just going to be denied. The same applies to counties that aren't as strict as NYC counties, but still are pretty strict. I wouldn't be surprised if 99% people would be denied for permits in NYC if eveyone who wanted one actually applied. Keep in mind that the plaintiffs in this place are from an area where it is easier to get an unrestricted carry permit than it is in areas where the majority of people in the state live, and they still were denied. It's not like this is some outlier case where most people are getting approved and they found the two people in the whole state who were denied.

[@ruchpat1]

Thank Duke Law for posting this video.