Supreme Court to rule on concealed carry

[Concerned American]

a concealed weapon license,

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. a license is an infringement.

 

[martybegan]

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to restrictions on carrying firearms outside the home, teeing up a potentially landmark dispute over the scope of the Second Amendment.

In an unsigned order, the justices took up a bid by two gun owners and a New York affiliate of the National Rifle Association to challenge the state’s denial of their applications for concealed carry licenses for self-defense.

It will be heard next term, which begins in October.

The court has declined to insert itself in similar cases in recent years and has not issued a major Second Amendment decision in over a decade when it ruled in a pair of cases in 2008 and 2010 that individuals have a right to keep guns in their homes.

With the addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett last year significantly shifting the court's ideological balance to the right, court watchers have been waiting to see if the new majority would seek to revisit states' gun restrictions.

In the brief order issued Monday, the justices said they would hear the case and focus on whether "the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment."

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Robert Nash and Brandon Koch, who were denied concealed carry permits for self-defense because New York officials had determined that they had failed to show a "special need" to carry weapons as required under state law.

Their lawsuit argues that such restrictions on concealed carry permits violate the Second Amendment. If they prevail in front of the Supreme Court, it could upend concealed carry laws across the country.

According to the gun control activist group the Giffords Law Center, 31 states currently require residents to obtain a permit in order to carry a concealed weapon, with varying degrees of restrictions on those permits.

Supreme Court takes up major Second Amendment case

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to restrictions on carrying firearms outside the home, teeing up a potentially landmark dispute over the scope of the Second Amendment.

thehill.com

As a rule, I generally like the idea of each state legislating their own laws regarding gun control and concealed or open carry. Except were necessary, I do not like an intrusive federal gov't that tells everybody everywhere in this country what they can and can't do and anything. If New York wants to restrictions than Texas, so be it. The voters can and should vote out the people who make laws they don't like. Or move to another state, which apparently is happening a lot in NY.

its not a state issue and is the responsibility of the feds to protect us from any and all infringements,,

Exactly, just like abortion rights for women, and equal protections for gay members of society, from zealots that pass state laws, infringing their rights.

Abortion and SSM are not mentioned in the Constitution, the RKBA is.

The first two your side makes up stuff and calls it constitutional, the last one your side makes stuff up to effect infringement.

actually gay marriage is in a non direct way,, the first A says freedom to assemble,, doesnt say with who or why,,

That's a stretch. To me it's something to be left to the States for issuing or not.

HOWEVER, If State A issues one, and State B does not, State B still have to recognize the State A marriage as a valid marriage under the full faith and credit clause.

Does that create an imperfect solution? Yes, but it follows the Constitution as I see it.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is a direct statement and I see nowhere that the states have a say,,

could you point it out to me??

as for marriage could you also point out where any government has a say in two peoples private lives??

I was talking about same sex marriage licenses, not 2nd amendment issues in my statement.

It issues marriage licenses in general, that has a say in people's lives, at least when it comes to them interacting with the government.

 

[progressive hunter]

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to restrictions on carrying firearms outside the home, teeing up a potentially landmark dispute over the scope of the Second Amendment.

In an unsigned order, the justices took up a bid by two gun owners and a New York affiliate of the National Rifle Association to challenge the state’s denial of their applications for concealed carry licenses for self-defense.

It will be heard next term, which begins in October.

The court has declined to insert itself in similar cases in recent years and has not issued a major Second Amendment decision in over a decade when it ruled in a pair of cases in 2008 and 2010 that individuals have a right to keep guns in their homes.

With the addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett last year significantly shifting the court's ideological balance to the right, court watchers have been waiting to see if the new majority would seek to revisit states' gun restrictions.

In the brief order issued Monday, the justices said they would hear the case and focus on whether "the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment."

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Robert Nash and Brandon Koch, who were denied concealed carry permits for self-defense because New York officials had determined that they had failed to show a "special need" to carry weapons as required under state law.

Their lawsuit argues that such restrictions on concealed carry permits violate the Second Amendment. If they prevail in front of the Supreme Court, it could upend concealed carry laws across the country.

According to the gun control activist group the Giffords Law Center, 31 states currently require residents to obtain a permit in order to carry a concealed weapon, with varying degrees of restrictions on those permits.

Supreme Court takes up major Second Amendment case

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to restrictions on carrying firearms outside the home, teeing up a potentially landmark dispute over the scope of the Second Amendment.

thehill.com

As a rule, I generally like the idea of each state legislating their own laws regarding gun control and concealed or open carry. Except were necessary, I do not like an intrusive federal gov't that tells everybody everywhere in this country what they can and can't do and anything. If New York wants to restrictions than Texas, so be it. The voters can and should vote out the people who make laws they don't like. Or move to another state, which apparently is happening a lot in NY.

its not a state issue and is the responsibility of the feds to protect us from any and all infringements,,

Exactly, just like abortion rights for women, and equal protections for gay members of society, from zealots that pass state laws, infringing their rights.

Abortion and SSM are not mentioned in the Constitution, the RKBA is.

The first two your side makes up stuff and calls it constitutional, the last one your side makes stuff up to effect infringement.

actually gay marriage is in a non direct way,, the first A says freedom to assemble,, doesnt say with who or why,,

That's a stretch. To me it's something to be left to the States for issuing or not.

HOWEVER, If State A issues one, and State B does not, State B still have to recognize the State A marriage as a valid marriage under the full faith and credit clause.

Does that create an imperfect solution? Yes, but it follows the Constitution as I see it.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is a direct statement and I see nowhere that the states have a say,,

could you point it out to me??

as for marriage could you also point out where any government has a say in two peoples private lives??

I was talking about same sex marriage licenses, not 2nd amendment issues in my statement.

It issues marriage licenses in general, that has a say in people's lives, at least when it comes to them interacting with the government.

marriage has nothing to do with the government,, its between two people,,

 

[martybegan]

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to restrictions on carrying firearms outside the home, teeing up a potentially landmark dispute over the scope of the Second Amendment.

In an unsigned order, the justices took up a bid by two gun owners and a New York affiliate of the National Rifle Association to challenge the state’s denial of their applications for concealed carry licenses for self-defense.

It will be heard next term, which begins in October.

The court has declined to insert itself in similar cases in recent years and has not issued a major Second Amendment decision in over a decade when it ruled in a pair of cases in 2008 and 2010 that individuals have a right to keep guns in their homes.

With the addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett last year significantly shifting the court's ideological balance to the right, court watchers have been waiting to see if the new majority would seek to revisit states' gun restrictions.

In the brief order issued Monday, the justices said they would hear the case and focus on whether "the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment."

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Robert Nash and Brandon Koch, who were denied concealed carry permits for self-defense because New York officials had determined that they had failed to show a "special need" to carry weapons as required under state law.

Their lawsuit argues that such restrictions on concealed carry permits violate the Second Amendment. If they prevail in front of the Supreme Court, it could upend concealed carry laws across the country.

According to the gun control activist group the Giffords Law Center, 31 states currently require residents to obtain a permit in order to carry a concealed weapon, with varying degrees of restrictions on those permits.

Supreme Court takes up major Second Amendment case

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to restrictions on carrying firearms outside the home, teeing up a potentially landmark dispute over the scope of the Second Amendment.

thehill.com

As a rule, I generally like the idea of each state legislating their own laws regarding gun control and concealed or open carry. Except were necessary, I do not like an intrusive federal gov't that tells everybody everywhere in this country what they can and can't do and anything. If New York wants to restrictions than Texas, so be it. The voters can and should vote out the people who make laws they don't like. Or move to another state, which apparently is happening a lot in NY.

its not a state issue and is the responsibility of the feds to protect us from any and all infringements,,

Exactly, just like abortion rights for women, and equal protections for gay members of society, from zealots that pass state laws, infringing their rights.

Abortion and SSM are not mentioned in the Constitution, the RKBA is.

The first two your side makes up stuff and calls it constitutional, the last one your side makes stuff up to effect infringement.

actually gay marriage is in a non direct way,, the first A says freedom to assemble,, doesnt say with who or why,,

That's a stretch. To me it's something to be left to the States for issuing or not.

HOWEVER, If State A issues one, and State B does not, State B still have to recognize the State A marriage as a valid marriage under the full faith and credit clause.

Does that create an imperfect solution? Yes, but it follows the Constitution as I see it.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is a direct statement and I see nowhere that the states have a say,,

could you point it out to me??

as for marriage could you also point out where any government has a say in two peoples private lives??

I was talking about same sex marriage licenses, not 2nd amendment issues in my statement.

It issues marriage licenses in general, that has a say in people's lives, at least when it comes to them interacting with the government.

marriage has nothing to do with the government,, its between two people,,

Then why did SSM advocates use the courts to force a bunch of States to issue them?

You can marry someone religiously or secularly without going to the government, it's just the government won't recognize you as married for GOVERNMENT purposes unless you fill out the form.

 

[progressive hunter]

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to restrictions on carrying firearms outside the home, teeing up a potentially landmark dispute over the scope of the Second Amendment.

In an unsigned order, the justices took up a bid by two gun owners and a New York affiliate of the National Rifle Association to challenge the state’s denial of their applications for concealed carry licenses for self-defense.

It will be heard next term, which begins in October.

The court has declined to insert itself in similar cases in recent years and has not issued a major Second Amendment decision in over a decade when it ruled in a pair of cases in 2008 and 2010 that individuals have a right to keep guns in their homes.

With the addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett last year significantly shifting the court's ideological balance to the right, court watchers have been waiting to see if the new majority would seek to revisit states' gun restrictions.

In the brief order issued Monday, the justices said they would hear the case and focus on whether "the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment."

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Robert Nash and Brandon Koch, who were denied concealed carry permits for self-defense because New York officials had determined that they had failed to show a "special need" to carry weapons as required under state law.

Their lawsuit argues that such restrictions on concealed carry permits violate the Second Amendment. If they prevail in front of the Supreme Court, it could upend concealed carry laws across the country.

According to the gun control activist group the Giffords Law Center, 31 states currently require residents to obtain a permit in order to carry a concealed weapon, with varying degrees of restrictions on those permits.

Supreme Court takes up major Second Amendment case

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to restrictions on carrying firearms outside the home, teeing up a potentially landmark dispute over the scope of the Second Amendment.

thehill.com

As a rule, I generally like the idea of each state legislating their own laws regarding gun control and concealed or open carry. Except were necessary, I do not like an intrusive federal gov't that tells everybody everywhere in this country what they can and can't do and anything. If New York wants to restrictions than Texas, so be it. The voters can and should vote out the people who make laws they don't like. Or move to another state, which apparently is happening a lot in NY.

its not a state issue and is the responsibility of the feds to protect us from any and all infringements,,

Exactly, just like abortion rights for women, and equal protections for gay members of society, from zealots that pass state laws, infringing their rights.

Abortion and SSM are not mentioned in the Constitution, the RKBA is.

The first two your side makes up stuff and calls it constitutional, the last one your side makes stuff up to effect infringement.

actually gay marriage is in a non direct way,, the first A says freedom to assemble,, doesnt say with who or why,,

That's a stretch. To me it's something to be left to the States for issuing or not.

HOWEVER, If State A issues one, and State B does not, State B still have to recognize the State A marriage as a valid marriage under the full faith and credit clause.

Does that create an imperfect solution? Yes, but it follows the Constitution as I see it.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is a direct statement and I see nowhere that the states have a say,,

could you point it out to me??

as for marriage could you also point out where any government has a say in two peoples private lives??

I was talking about same sex marriage licenses, not 2nd amendment issues in my statement.

It issues marriage licenses in general, that has a say in people's lives, at least when it comes to them interacting with the government.

marriage has nothing to do with the government,, its between two people,,

Then why did SSM advocates use the courts to force a bunch of States to issue them?

You can marry someone religiously or secularly without going to the government, it's just the government won't recognize you as married for GOVERNMENT purposes unless you fill out the form.

OK,, not sure what that has to do with the issue,,

the issue is the government forbidding it from happening not that they wont recognize it if you dont tell them,,

 

[danielpalos]

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to restrictions on carrying firearms outside the home, teeing up a potentially landmark dispute over the scope of the Second Amendment.

In an unsigned order, the justices took up a bid by two gun owners and a New York affiliate of the National Rifle Association to challenge the state’s denial of their applications for concealed carry licenses for self-defense.

It will be heard next term, which begins in October.

The court has declined to insert itself in similar cases in recent years and has not issued a major Second Amendment decision in over a decade when it ruled in a pair of cases in 2008 and 2010 that individuals have a right to keep guns in their homes.

With the addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett last year significantly shifting the court's ideological balance to the right, court watchers have been waiting to see if the new majority would seek to revisit states' gun restrictions.

In the brief order issued Monday, the justices said they would hear the case and focus on whether "the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment."

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Robert Nash and Brandon Koch, who were denied concealed carry permits for self-defense because New York officials had determined that they had failed to show a "special need" to carry weapons as required under state law.

Their lawsuit argues that such restrictions on concealed carry permits violate the Second Amendment. If they prevail in front of the Supreme Court, it could upend concealed carry laws across the country.

According to the gun control activist group the Giffords Law Center, 31 states currently require residents to obtain a permit in order to carry a concealed weapon, with varying degrees of restrictions on those permits.

Supreme Court takes up major Second Amendment case

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to restrictions on carrying firearms outside the home, teeing up a potentially landmark dispute over the scope of the Second Amendment.

thehill.com

As a rule, I generally like the idea of each state legislating their own laws regarding gun control and concealed or open carry. Except where necessary, I do not like an intrusive federal gov't that tells everybody everywhere in this country what they can and can't do about anything. If New York wants more restrictions than Texas, so be it. The voters can and should vote out the people who make laws they don't like. Or move to another state, which apparently is happening a lot in NY.

This is a State's sovereign Right:

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

 

[badbob85037]

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to restrictions on carrying firearms outside the home, teeing up a potentially landmark dispute over the scope of the Second Amendment.

In an unsigned order, the justices took up a bid by two gun owners and a New York affiliate of the National Rifle Association to challenge the state’s denial of their applications for concealed carry licenses for self-defense.

It will be heard next term, which begins in October.

The court has declined to insert itself in similar cases in recent years and has not issued a major Second Amendment decision in over a decade when it ruled in a pair of cases in 2008 and 2010 that individuals have a right to keep guns in their homes.

With the addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett last year significantly shifting the court's ideological balance to the right, court watchers have been waiting to see if the new majority would seek to revisit states' gun restrictions.

In the brief order issued Monday, the justices said they would hear the case and focus on whether "the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment."

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Robert Nash and Brandon Koch, who were denied concealed carry permits for self-defense because New York officials had determined that they had failed to show a "special need" to carry weapons as required under state law.

Their lawsuit argues that such restrictions on concealed carry permits violate the Second Amendment. If they prevail in front of the Supreme Court, it could upend concealed carry laws across the country.

According to the gun control activist group the Giffords Law Center, 31 states currently require residents to obtain a permit in order to carry a concealed weapon, with varying degrees of restrictions on those permits.

Supreme Court takes up major Second Amendment case

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to restrictions on carrying firearms outside the home, teeing up a potentially landmark dispute over the scope of the Second Amendment.

thehill.com

As a rule, I generally like the idea of each state legislating their own laws regarding gun control and concealed or open carry. Except where necessary, I do not like an intrusive federal gov't that tells everybody everywhere in this country what they can and can't do about anything. If New York wants more restrictions than Texas, so be it. The voters can and should vote out the people who make laws they don't like. Or move to another state, which apparently is happening a lot in NY.

WOW THIS COULD BE THE SECOND SHOT HEARD AROUND THE WORLD. because everyone puts on their pants one leg at a time. In Arizona if you are not a prohibited user you are allowed to carry concealed which means when in Arizona not to piss off a little guy or a woman. You just might have your ass handed to you with the blessing of local law enforcement. Open carry anyone can come up behind you, pull a gun and take your weapon. I have yet to hear one truth out of old joes mouth on the gun control issue SO IT CAN ONLY BE ONE THING. He is a tyrant making laws where he nor anyone else has the authority to do so. Just another reason of many to pull, push or drag his ass from office, set up a citizen court and try him, then hang him with everything nice and legal. He must think his shit don't stink. That is just because he is so use to rolling in it every morning before he gets out of bed . Constitution says joe has got to go. You hear that joe? And sense congress and the court has failed to use their checks and balances it's up to our military. So what are you going to do generals? It won't be a big deal. You already have him behind razor wire, plenty of walls to stand him up against, and he has already committed the crime. So what's the hold up? Kill em!

 

[AZrailwhale]

In an unsigned order, the justices took up a bid by two gun owners and a New York affiliate of the National Rifle Association to challenge the state’s denial of their applications for concealed carry licenses for self-defense.

New York State is the worst: they won't issue you a carry permit unless you can show your life practically in danger. And they expect you to keep everything you have locked up so much you can't even get to it hardly yourself. People living there call it Cuomostan.

L.A. County is worse. A few years a go, LAPD’s Chief couldn't get a CCW from the Sheriff’s office.

 

[danielpalos]

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to restrictions on carrying firearms outside the home, teeing up a potentially landmark dispute over the scope of the Second Amendment.

In an unsigned order, the justices took up a bid by two gun owners and a New York affiliate of the National Rifle Association to challenge the state’s denial of their applications for concealed carry licenses for self-defense.

It will be heard next term, which begins in October.

The court has declined to insert itself in similar cases in recent years and has not issued a major Second Amendment decision in over a decade when it ruled in a pair of cases in 2008 and 2010 that individuals have a right to keep guns in their homes.

With the addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett last year significantly shifting the court's ideological balance to the right, court watchers have been waiting to see if the new majority would seek to revisit states' gun restrictions.

In the brief order issued Monday, the justices said they would hear the case and focus on whether "the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment."

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Robert Nash and Brandon Koch, who were denied concealed carry permits for self-defense because New York officials had determined that they had failed to show a "special need" to carry weapons as required under state law.

Their lawsuit argues that such restrictions on concealed carry permits violate the Second Amendment. If they prevail in front of the Supreme Court, it could upend concealed carry laws across the country.

According to the gun control activist group the Giffords Law Center, 31 states currently require residents to obtain a permit in order to carry a concealed weapon, with varying degrees of restrictions on those permits.

Supreme Court takes up major Second Amendment case

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to restrictions on carrying firearms outside the home, teeing up a potentially landmark dispute over the scope of the Second Amendment.

thehill.com

As a rule, I generally like the idea of each state legislating their own laws regarding gun control and concealed or open carry. Except where necessary, I do not like an intrusive federal gov't that tells everybody everywhere in this country what they can and can't do about anything. If New York wants more restrictions than Texas, so be it. The voters can and should vote out the people who make laws they don't like. Or move to another state, which apparently is happening a lot in NY.

WOW THIS COULD BE THE SECOND SHOT HEARD AROUND THE WORLD. because everyone puts on their pants one leg at a time. In Arizona if you are not a prohibited user you are allowed to carry concealed which means when in Arizona not to piss off a little guy or a woman. You just might have your ass handed to you with the blessing of local law enforcement. Open carry anyone can come up behind you, pull a gun and take your weapon. I have yet to hear one truth out of old joes mouth on the gun control issue SO IT CAN ONLY BE ONE THING. He is a tyrant making laws where he nor anyone else has the authority to do so. Just another reason of many to pull, push or drag his ass from office, set up a citizen court and try him, then hang him with everything nice and legal. He must think his shit don't stink. That is just because he is so use to rolling in it every morning before he gets out of bed . Constitution says joe has got to go. You hear that joe? And sense congress and the court has failed to use their checks and balances it's up to our military. So what are you going to do generals? It won't be a big deal. You already have him behind razor wire, plenty of walls to stand him up against, and he has already committed the crime. So what's the hold up? Kill em!

Our legislators should be doing their job.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[martybegan]

a concealed weapon license,

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. a license is an infringement.

A license as simple to get as a Driver's license isn't infringement, it becomes infringement when the process is made difficult for the sole purpose of discouraging people from going through with it.

 

[Concerned American]

a concealed weapon license,

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. a license is an infringement.

A license as simple to get as a Driver's license isn't infringement, it becomes infringement when the process is made difficult for the sole purpose of discouraging people from going through with it.

A license is required for a "privilege" as in you have a privilege to drive a car. Rights do not require licenses as in the "right" to keep and bear arms

 

[martybegan]

a concealed weapon license,

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. a license is an infringement.

A license as simple to get as a Driver's license isn't infringement, it becomes infringement when the process is made difficult for the sole purpose of discouraging people from going through with it.

A license is required for a "privilege" as in you have a privilege to drive a car. Rights do not require licenses as in the "right" to keep and bear arms

If we can require ID to vote, we can require ID to have a gun. My "licensing" would as simple as showing ID and getting a gun ID.

 

[Concerned American]

a concealed weapon license,

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. a license is an infringement.

A license as simple to get as a Driver's license isn't infringement, it becomes infringement when the process is made difficult for the sole purpose of discouraging people from going through with it.

A license is required for a "privilege" as in you have a privilege to drive a car. Rights do not require licenses as in the "right" to keep and bear arms

If we can require ID to vote, we can require ID to have a gun. My "licensing" would as simple as showing ID and getting a gun ID.

Can't license a RIGHT. I have no problem with ID, I have a problem with a gun license or a license to vote. Identification in this country is the law--You cannot function on any level in this country without a government issued ID.

 

[martybegan]

a concealed weapon license,

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. a license is an infringement.

A license as simple to get as a Driver's license isn't infringement, it becomes infringement when the process is made difficult for the sole purpose of discouraging people from going through with it.

A license is required for a "privilege" as in you have a privilege to drive a car. Rights do not require licenses as in the "right" to keep and bear arms

If we can require ID to vote, we can require ID to have a gun. My "licensing" would as simple as showing ID and getting a gun ID.

Can't license a RIGHT. I have no problem with ID, I have a problem with a gun license or a license to vote. Identification in this country is the law--You cannot function on any level in this country without a government issued ID.

My view on this is moot because governments that want to ban firearm ownership would never make a permit as simple as possible. The permitting isn't the goal, making the process of getting it impossible is the goal.

 

[Jarlaxle]

In an unsigned order, the justices took up a bid by two gun owners and a New York affiliate of the National Rifle Association to challenge the state’s denial of their applications for concealed carry licenses for self-defense.

New York State is the worst: they won't issue you a carry permit unless you can show your life practically in danger. And they expect you to keep everything you have locked up so much you can't even get to it hardly yourself. People living there call it Cuomostan.

The well-connected, of course, never have any difficulty getting carry permits...

 

[toobfreak]

In an unsigned order, the justices took up a bid by two gun owners and a New York affiliate of the National Rifle Association to challenge the state’s denial of their applications for concealed carry licenses for self-defense.

New York State is the worst: they won't issue you a carry permit unless you can show your life practically in danger. And they expect you to keep everything you have locked up so much you can't even get to it hardly yourself. People living there call it Cuomostan.

The well-connected, of course, never have any difficulty getting carry permits...

That must be an elite few indeed because a buddy of mine who was district manager and exec for a big glass company in upstate New York who is squeaky clean (not only does he have a carry permit for half the states in the country so he can carry most anywhere, but he's the kind of guy that lets get skipped to the front of the line bypassing the normal security line most people go through at airports (the guy flies by airline constantly every few days) that I think they just waved him right through airport security whern going somewhere on business), he's told me that he has to jump through hoops constantly to stay legal and to get and keep a CCW active for him in his own state!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

concealed or open carry

That’s not what the case concerns.

The Court will determine whether the may-issue license policy violates the Second Amendment.

Under a may-issue policy, even if a state resident meets all the technical, statutory requirements for a concealed weapon license, if the resident can’t demonstrate a compelling reason why he should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon, the license will be denied.

The "may issue" is in clear violation of the Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[AZrailwhale]

In an unsigned order, the justices took up a bid by two gun owners and a New York affiliate of the National Rifle Association to challenge the state’s denial of their applications for concealed carry licenses for self-defense.

New York State is the worst: they won't issue you a carry permit unless you can show your life practically in danger. And they expect you to keep everything you have locked up so much you can't even get to it hardly yourself. People living there call it Cuomostan.

Lon Angeles county is so bad that William Bratton couldn’t get a concealed carry permit when he was chief of LAPD.

 

[Concerned American]

In an unsigned order, the justices took up a bid by two gun owners and a New York affiliate of the National Rifle Association to challenge the state’s denial of their applications for concealed carry licenses for self-defense.

New York State is the worst: they won't issue you a carry permit unless you can show your life practically in danger. And they expect you to keep everything you have locked up so much you can't even get to it hardly yourself. People living there call it Cuomostan.

Lon Angeles county is so bad that William Bratton couldn’t get a concealed carry permit when he was chief of LAPD.

That is common in CA. I lived there for 45 years, never had so much as a traffic ticket and the county that I lived in wouldn't issue except in extreme circumstances and open carry was outlawed in the town we lived in. I got out of CA.