Making Sense Of The Limited Cert Grant In NYS Rifle & Pistol Association Versus Corlett
BY Herschel Smith
3 years, 8 months ago
There are at least five major differences between Clement’s QP and the Court’s QP.
First, the Court’s QP focuses on the state’s decision to deny “concealed-carry licenses” to the petitioners. Clement’s QP challenged the law on its face, and as applied. Is the Court’s decision now limited to an as-applied challenge, rather than a facial challenge? Might the Court leave open the possibility that other may-issue regimes are unconstitutional? Are there some unique aspects of the New York law that would distinguish it from other may issue regimes? Is there the possibility the Court will need to remand for further explication of the regime? Is there some evidence that the state improperly denied licenses to these particular plaintiffs? Might there be some Due Process Clause argument? Then again, the QP references the Second Amendment, so a Due Process issue would not be squarely presented. I see this slippery change as a way for the Court to issue a very, very narrow decision that will leave the issue unsettled.
But of course. Cowards and totalitarians.
There is more at the link. Zelman Partisans makes is simple for us.
By changing it from a question about law-abiding citizens carrying in public, to denial of licenses Period — no mention of “law-abiding” people carrying — the InJustices can now say, Gee, states have to be able to deny some licenses, otherwise prohibited persons could apply and get licenses. No one wants that to happen.
They’ve dodged the entire issue of denial of rights based on an arbitrary you didn’t show good enough need to carry a gun. The point of contention was shall versus may issue, and if the Second Amendment applies outside the home. Now it’s is licensing constitutional?
Prediction: 5/4 denial of licenses does not not violate the Second Amendment; Roberts with the majority. “May issue” remains because the Court refused to look at that.
Although it could go 6/3. Gorsuch is such an insufferable hair-splitter that he may go along with the majority, too. On the other hand, he might object to the reframed question itself. Hard to say.
As I observed, I’d rather that the SCOTUS not have taken the case up at all. Is there anything requiring courage that the SCOTUS is actually willing to do? They take the easy ones, leave aside the hard ones, and when they do take a hard one they limit the scope of the review so they don’t have to actually decide anything of significance.
Of what worth are they? Why do we even have a supreme court? Wouldn’t we be better off without them?
On April 26, 2021 at 11:18 pm, Michael (from Utah) said:
There is no value to the Supreme Court. None.
On April 27, 2021 at 5:21 am, Mike Austin said:
The Supreme Court is worse than useless; it is yet another avenue to tyranny. Why should five elderly judges decide the fates of hundreds of millions of Americans? Let each state Supreme Court be the final arbiter in each state, and its decisions able to be overturned by a mere majority of each state legislature. No decision would have any effect beyond the borders of the state.
On April 27, 2021 at 10:31 am, Sisu said:
I am skeptical. … Narrowing the “question posed” also minimizes the blatant reality that SCOTUS has no power to enforce its rulings and lower courts (appellate, district, state, etc.) can continue with impunity to ignore the Constitution and SCOTUS Opinions, and deny citizens’ their “G-d-given Rights and Freedoms” for arbitrary, self-serving, purely political reasons. … The United States of America is a “failed state”. The only reason there remains some level of “civil order / structure” is because of the pervasiveness of firearm ownership which has politicians and bureaucratic at the local level fearful. … Unfortunately, viscerally I sense too many new “firearm owners” and NICS checks represent “peaceful protesters” (and others sanctioned (i.e., having the “authoritative approval” of), encouraged, financially supported and “protected” by Democrats and their “puppeteers”).
On April 27, 2021 at 11:46 am, MTHead said:
The bigger question is why we give people who can’t or won’t understand plain language the time of day?
People in power that can’t seem to understand the words of the 2A have made themselves into not-with-standing tyrants. I’ll not be asking their permission for……Anything. They’ve told us plain they can’t even read.
On April 27, 2021 at 2:21 pm, Hudson H Luce said:
Licensing is permission to do something that is generally prohibited, so licensing to bear arms is a contravention of that right, and is a violation of the Second Amendment.