Supreme Court Denies NY CCW Case

The Supreme Court left in doubt Monday whether gun owners have a 2nd Amendment right to carry a firearm in public.

Without a comment or dissent, the justices turned down a gun-rights challenge to a New York law that strictly limits who can legally carry a weapon when they are on the streets. To obtain a "concealed carry" permit, New Yorkers must convince a county official that they have a "special need for protection" that goes beyond living or working in a high-crime area............

Several gun owners who were denied a "concealed carry" permit sued, arguing they had a 2nd Amendment right to carry a gun for self-defense.

Rather than hear their appeal, the high court let stand a ruling by a federal appeals court that held states have broad authority to regulate guns in public..........


The court's refusal to hear an appeal does not set a legal precedent, and the justices do not explain their reasons for turning away a case.

For now, however, the reach of the 2nd Amendment right "to keep and bear arms" remains uncertain.

In a pair of decisions in 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court struck down ordinances in Washington and Chicago because they prohibited all private possession of handguns, including keeping a gun at home for self-defense. The justices did not address whether this right to self-defense includes a right to be armed in public.

Most states allow law-abiding gun owners to obtain a concealed-carry permit.

However, at least six states besides New York, including California and Illinois, have laws that make it difficult or nearly impossible for gun owners to obtain a permit that allows them to be armed in public.

Those laws are under challenge in the lower courts.

The Illinois law, the nation's strictest, was struck down in December by the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. State lawmakers are considering a new law that would permit at least some gun owners to obtain a license for carrying a weapon.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has also heard several 2nd Amendment challenges to counties in California that routinely deny concealed-carry permits.

The justices may well revisit the issue after rulings by several other lower courts.




http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-guns-20130416,0,4417473.story

I am thinking they are looking for a case that is not limited in application of the decision. Not all SC decisions extend to all states.

This court, and more importantly the 5 conservative judges, knew they would be hearing this case when they passed Heller and then McDonald.

I see this refusal not as a avoidance issue, rather than an issue of the right case with the furthest reach issue.

There are several cases on the issue in line to the SC. McDonald opened the door, but it still didn't fully answer the CCW question universally / nationally. In that, and again, I think the court is looking for a case that will once and done resolve the issue.


It is easy for people to take the standard hyper line of the anti's, all government, and the deck is stacked. Once again, I admonish all to remember, this country is a nation of law - and the rule of law applies right along with the details and application of law and court decisions.

All of us will be better served by one decision on the issue than a repetitive piecemeal approach.

So your calling for what exactly.

Look, I agree with most of your thought process.

In summation, liberalism is like the proverbial easy button. Smashing it results in goodies for everyone at the behest of the rest of ... us.

Wrong forum, wrong topic, but - everyone needs to make sure they contact their rep an senators and insist - push - and DEMAND Pennsylvania go to a proportional electoral college system. Somehow, it also need to be extended to the other federal offices as well.

Reason: look at the last election map state or federal. Basically a sea of red with a few blotches of blue. Those blue areas determine the lay of the land politically, and they are also heavily democratic and or liberal.

Going to a provisional system takes the political weight away from the cities and re-distributes it across the landscape. In effect re-enfrancising the rest of us and making a rural vote count as much as a urban, high population center vote. The urban voting region competes unto itself as each other region would. The winner is the person that attracts the most votes across the entire state, rather than certain population centers.

BTW - the Dem's say this is an attempt to steal the elections. But other states do it - it works and no one cries foul.


Back on topic, I again think the SC Justices are looking for a case with wider wings. With the numerous cases moving through the courts across the country, I am thinking they are waiting for one or two that they can rule on and set a nationwide precedent.

Remember, Heller was a win, but actually only applied to Washington, DC. Thus McDonald happened.