Could SCOTUS Eliminate ALL Firearm Permits ?

[CaseHardened]

Supreme Court Emergency Decision To End All Firearm Permits Nationwide Gets Put Into Motion

In a groundbreaking development, the Supreme Court is set to consider an emergency decision that could potentially end all firearm permits nationwide. This move comes after a significant legal battle challenging New York’s stringent permit requirements for purchasing and possessing rifles and...

unitedliberty.com

Sounds fine .... but .... does this mean ILLEGAL ALIENS can also buy and carry ?

 

[Zerex]

Thomas referred it to a Conference........like the AW ban cases conference held back on May 16th.............

A conference has not happened yet on this issue.......... but Thomas said clearly in Bruen.that no permit is necessary to purchase a handgun..just a nics check.......kavanaugh said training was legal but not mandatory. Many states do not require a permit to carry concealed..........

Hochul will secceed and join Canada.................................all part of our devious, double secret probation, hidden lone wolf, Militia plan.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

Interesting.

 

[VietnamEraVet]

SCOTUS denied the Srour v City of New York appeal to remove the stay in today's Orders issued at 9:30AM. The case will have to drag its' ass through the lower courts for another year or two.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/052024zor_d1o3.pdf

We got fucked again. Also, here is a Four Boxes Diner video explaining what happened in this case, as well as the Bianchi "assault weapon ban" case in MD that SCOTUS also punted on today, and what is likely to happen going forward.

 

[MikeM]

And NY will ignore such a ruling anyway

 

[MothMan]

NYS permitting scheme excludes over 90% of the U.S. citizenry.

 

[alistair]

They will take away permits, but NYS will just make 99% of the state off limits to CCW.

 

[kev74]

#misleading thread title

 

[C3D]

Get used to disappointment. Bruen did nothing for the RKBA in New York.

 

[RedBreast21]

All election year hype. Beside Royal Elites in NY State have no intentions of honoring any ruling they disagree with. Endless new legislation, 2nd circuit court BS and legal case stalling. Apply, lather, Rinse and repeat.

 

[SomeSoldier]

I thought I was on youtube with that clickbait title.

 

[Truebeliever]

SCOTUS will only get rid of permits if states like NY, CA continue to muck about and thumb their nose at SCOTUS. But it’s not going to happen.
Only 2 of the justices might go for it . Maybe 4 more of them would do the “shall issue “.

 

[Jsmegs77]

They will take away permits, but NYS will just make 99% of the state off limits to CCW.

Didn’t the CCIA already pretty much do that?

 

[holdover]

 

[holdover]

 

[CaseHardened]

Oh, I could totally see some ruling allowing Illegals to carry.

 

[Acer-m14]

hey SCOTUS..

All gun laws, rules and policies are unconstitutional and must be eliminated! Regarding the governments ability to impose "Reasonable Restraint" which has now become the mantra of our liberal influenced government. Supporters of the bill of rights claim they have a constitutional or Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Opponents counter even if it were the case, the government was granted the general power to place restraints on the right. Both of these assertions are based on a misconception concerning the intent of the document known as the Bill of Rights.

When the Bill of Rights was submitted to the individual States for ratification, it was prefaced with a preamble. As stated in the preamble, the purpose of the Amendments was to prevent the government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” To accomplish this, “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” were being recommended. The Amendments, when adopted, did not create any so-called constitutional rights or grant the government any power over individual rights; they placed additional restraints and qualifications on the powers of the government concerning the rights enumerated in the Amendments.

By advancing the myth Amendments grant the American people their individual rights, the government has illegally converted enumerated restraints and qualifications on its power into legislative, executive, judicial and administrative power over individual rights. The government claims it was granted the constitutional authority to determine the extent of the individual rights enumerated in the Amendments and/or impose “reasonable restraints” on those rights. This assertion is absurd. The government does not have the constitutional authority to ignore, circumvent, modify, negate or remove constitutional restraints placed on its power by the Amendments or convert them into a power over the individual right enumerated in the particular restraint.

A denial of power or an enumerated restraint on the exercise of power is not subject to interpretation or modification by the entity the restraint is being imposed upon. The restraints imposed by the Amendments, which were adopted 4 years after the Constitution was ratified, override the legislative, executive, judicial or administrative powers of the government. If this were not the case, then the restraints would be meaningless because the government could simply circumvent, modify or remove them. Why would the States have requested and adopted enumerated restraints on government power, subsequent to their ratification of the Constitution, if the government possessed the authority to nullify them?

When the government infringes on one of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights it is not violating anyone’s constitutional rights; it is violating the additional restraint or qualification placed on its power by the particular Amendment where the right is enumerated. The distinction between rights and restraints is critical. [The right is not given by the Government. Our rights are natural born and are inalienable. Therefore, they can't be limited or taken away.]

As stated in the Declaration of Independence, the American people have unalienable rights that come from a higher source than government or a written document. By acknowledging people have natural rights, which are bestowed by a creator, the Founders laid the foundation for the principle the government does not have the lawful authority to take away or infringe on those rights. This principle was incorporated into the preamble and structure of the Amendments to secure individual rights from government encroachment; that is why they were designed and imposed as restraints on the exercise of power.

If the individual rights of the people had been created by the Constitution or an amendment to the document, then they would cease to be unalienable because the right would depend on the existence of a document. If the document or a provision of the document disappeared, so would the right. The belief individual rights were created by a written document has opened the door for the government to claim the power to define the extent of any right enumerated in an Amendment. This has transformed constitutional restraints placed on governmental power into subjective determinations of individual rights by the institutions of government. By failing to understand the difference between amendments that create rights and amendments that impose restraints on government, the American people are watching their individual rights vanish as they are reduced to the status of privileges bestowed by government because the constitutional restraints placed on governmental power are being replaced by government decree.

Opponents of the Amendments always try to diminish the right enumerated in the Amendments by asserting rights are not absolute. This is just another straw man argument because the Amendment is about imposing a restraint of the powers of the government concerning a right: not granting a right or defining the extent of a right. In addition, a review of the Second Amendment shows the restraint imposed by the Amendment does not contain any exceptions.

Legal precedence supporting constitution and bill of rights.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137: “The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.”

Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105: “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262: “If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.”

Owen v. Independence, 100 S.C.T. 1398, 445 US 622: “Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a Constitutional right, from liability. For they are deemed to know the law.”

Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 1974: Expounds upon Owen Byers v. U.S., 273 U.S. 28 Unlawful search and seizure. Your rights must be interpreted in favor of the citizen.


Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616: “The court is to protect against any encroachment of Constitutionally secured liberties.”

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436: “Where rights secured (Affirmed) by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.”

Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425: “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d. 486, 489: “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”

Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748: “Waivers of Constitutional Rights, not only must they be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness.” “If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being a gift of ALMIGHTY GOD, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.” —Samuel Adams, 1772

Cohens v. Virginia, 19 US (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821): “When a judge acts where he or she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason.”

Mattox v. U.S., 156 US 237, 243: “We are bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted.”

S. Carolina v. U.S., 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905): “The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.”

#RepealAllGunLaws
#NoMoreGunControl #NoMoreGovernmentOverReach

 

[Acer-m14]

kavanaugh said training was legal but not mandatory

and he can suck my left nut .. or all the rights have to have training then ..

 

[Bigfoot]

Dang, I got my hopes up there for a non-second.

As a New Yorker, like most of you, I have been around the tyranny block a few times. I learned long ago, around 2013 - 2014 things here in New York will only get worse.

Hochul the Horrible isn't done with her shit yet and after her. New Yorkers are doomed because then it's Jumbo James's turn as Governor and she will stomp our constitutional rights like never seen before. We haven't seen anything yet, just wait until that fat fucking tyrannical bitch gets complete control. We will as always have no meaningful protection from the courts and it is what it is. It's corrupt and it's tyranny.

Jumbo James is going to abuse our 2A rights just as badly as she does her bathroom scales. I've heard through some very reliable sources that Jumbo James bathroom scales has filed an order of protection against that fat fucking fuck.

 

[Grimscale]

Since the SC keeps punting things back to the slow-ass lower courts, we'll all be dead before anything meaningful is decided.
Even something as simple as Srour, which is essentially a rehash of Bruen. SC could have easily granted Cert, lifted the stay, then punted it back down and told the lower court "we already decided this, do it right, and do it quickly!". Nope.. They cop-out because "the lower court hasn't decided yet".

 

[Defilade]

Pistol.........Add to cart!

 

[byron]

The judicial branch decides the constitutionality of federal laws and resolves other disputes about federal laws. However, judges depend on our government's executive branch to enforce court decisions.

The big problem is that the executive branch does not do their job. good luck getting shit pant or knee pad or the cabinet to do anything to benefit anybody but themselves

 

[Zerex]

Bad Lawyers appealed the Maryland case before the lower court had decided.................ARE THEY FROM THE SAME DEFECTIVE LAW SCHOOLS, AS ENGORON, JAMES AND MERCHAN?

The illinois case was appealed to scotus, over Illinois state law...not a federal case at all........MORONS

We have 4th raters ..........defending out rights.

 

[VietnamEraVet]

Bad Lawyers appealed the Maryland case before the lower court had decided.................ARE THEY FROM THE SAME DEFECTIVE LAW SCHOOLS, AS ENGORON, JAMES AND MERCHAN?

The illinois case was appealed to scotus, over Illinois state law...not a federal case at all........MORONS

We have 4th raters ..........defending out rights.

Can't say that I agree with your post.

Bad lawyers? The 4th Circuit is fucking with the Bianchi cases, and delaying the shit out of it. So, the plaintiffs lawyers took a shot at getting SCOTUS to take it now rather than later. And SCOTUS declined. They are no worse off than if they hadn't tried. So, now, they wait for the 4th to delay and continue to screw gun owners over, but it will get to SCOTUS someday.

As for your comment that the Illinois case "not a federal case at all..."These cases do not start off as federal cases. What nonsense are you spewing?

 

[Truebeliever]

hey SCOTUS..

All gun laws, rules and policies are unconstitutional and must be eliminated! Regarding the governments ability to impose "Reasonable Restraint" which has now become the mantra of our liberal influenced government. Supporters of the bill of rights claim they have a constitutional or Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Opponents counter even if it were the case, the government was granted the general power to place restraints on the right. Both of these assertions are based on a misconception concerning the intent of the document known as the Bill of Rights.

When the Bill of Rights was submitted to the individual States for ratification, it was prefaced with a preamble. As stated in the preamble, the purpose of the Amendments was to prevent the government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” To accomplish this, “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” were being recommended. The Amendments, when adopted, did not create any so-called constitutional rights or grant the government any power over individual rights; they placed additional restraints and qualifications on the powers of the government concerning the rights enumerated in the Amendments.

By advancing the myth Amendments grant the American people their individual rights, the government has illegally converted enumerated restraints and qualifications on its power into legislative, executive, judicial and administrative power over individual rights. The government claims it was granted the constitutional authority to determine the extent of the individual rights enumerated in the Amendments and/or impose “reasonable restraints” on those rights. This assertion is absurd. The government does not have the constitutional authority to ignore, circumvent, modify, negate or remove constitutional restraints placed on its power by the Amendments or convert them into a power over the individual right enumerated in the particular restraint.

A denial of power or an enumerated restraint on the exercise of power is not subject to interpretation or modification by the entity the restraint is being imposed upon. The restraints imposed by the Amendments, which were adopted 4 years after the Constitution was ratified, override the legislative, executive, judicial or administrative powers of the government. If this were not the case, then the restraints would be meaningless because the government could simply circumvent, modify or remove them. Why would the States have requested and adopted enumerated restraints on government power, subsequent to their ratification of the Constitution, if the government possessed the authority to nullify them?

When the government infringes on one of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights it is not violating anyone’s constitutional rights; it is violating the additional restraint or qualification placed on its power by the particular Amendment where the right is enumerated. The distinction between rights and restraints is critical. [The right is not given by the Government. Our rights are natural born and are inalienable. Therefore, they can't be limited or taken away.]

As stated in the Declaration of Independence, the American people have unalienable rights that come from a higher source than government or a written document. By acknowledging people have natural rights, which are bestowed by a creator, the Founders laid the foundation for the principle the government does not have the lawful authority to take away or infringe on those rights. This principle was incorporated into the preamble and structure of the Amendments to secure individual rights from government encroachment; that is why they were designed and imposed as restraints on the exercise of power.

If the individual rights of the people had been created by the Constitution or an amendment to the document, then they would cease to be unalienable because the right would depend on the existence of a document. If the document or a provision of the document disappeared, so would the right. The belief individual rights were created by a written document has opened the door for the government to claim the power to define the extent of any right enumerated in an Amendment. This has transformed constitutional restraints placed on governmental power into subjective determinations of individual rights by the institutions of government. By failing to understand the difference between amendments that create rights and amendments that impose restraints on government, the American people are watching their individual rights vanish as they are reduced to the status of privileges bestowed by government because the constitutional restraints placed on governmental power are being replaced by government decree.

Opponents of the Amendments always try to diminish the right enumerated in the Amendments by asserting rights are not absolute. This is just another straw man argument because the Amendment is about imposing a restraint of the powers of the government concerning a right: not granting a right or defining the extent of a right. In addition, a review of the Second Amendment shows the restraint imposed by the Amendment does not contain any exceptions.

Legal precedence supporting constitution and bill of rights.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137: “The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.”

Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105: “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262: “If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.”

Owen v. Independence, 100 S.C.T. 1398, 445 US 622: “Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a Constitutional right, from liability. For they are deemed to know the law.”

Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 1974: Expounds upon Owen Byers v. U.S., 273 U.S. 28 Unlawful search and seizure. Your rights must be interpreted in favor of the citizen.


Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616: “The court is to protect against any encroachment of Constitutionally secured liberties.”

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436: “Where rights secured (Affirmed) by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.”

Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425: “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d. 486, 489: “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”

Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748: “Waivers of Constitutional Rights, not only must they be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness.” “If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being a gift of ALMIGHTY GOD, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.” —Samuel Adams, 1772

Cohens v. Virginia, 19 US (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821): “When a judge acts where he or she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason.”

Mattox v. U.S., 156 US 237, 243: “We are bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted.”

S. Carolina v. U.S., 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905): “The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.”

#RepealAllGunLaws
#NoMoreGunControl #NoMoreGovernmentOverReach

You didn’t take any time on that at all did you ? ( sarcasm)-lol

 

[Saltwater60]

I’m not sure why anyone thinks this will happen. SCOTUS already said permits are fine but they can’t be overly burdensome in time or money. Maybe they will get rid of long gun permits or handgun permits in general but CCW permits will stay. I think handgun permits as a whole will be allowed. I’d like to see them get rid of ammo cards and stuff like that and I think that’s possible.

 

[byron]

I’m not sure why anyone thinks this will happen. SCOTUS already said permits are fine but they can’t be overly burdensome in time or money. Maybe they will get rid of long gun permits or handgun permits in general but CCW permits will stay. I think handgun permits as a whole will be allowed. I’d like to see them get rid of ammo cards and stuff like that and I think that’s possible.

can you point me to the case where this was said ? As far as I know no case has been fought on the legality of permits

 

[Defilade]

I’m not sure why anyone thinks this will happen. SCOTUS already said permits are fine but they can’t be overly burdensome in time or money. Maybe they will get rid of long gun permits or handgun permits in general but CCW permits will stay. I think handgun permits as a whole will be allowed. I’d like to see them get rid of ammo cards and stuff like that and I think that’s possible.

I don't think so! All that shit is illegal and not in the Constitution. A permit from Government is the opposite of a right!

 

[JunkBoxFull]

can you point me to the case where this was said ? As far as I know no case has been fought on the legality of permits

Re-read what Kavanaugh had said previously in the supreme court not long ago. He was ok with permitting.

 

[byron]

He is only one judge and that was not a case and not really what he said. he might be willing to uphold some gun laws, such as those requiring a license to carry a concealed weapon, as long as they are consistent with the history and tradition of regulating guns. He contended that a test that assesses “gun bans and regulations based on text, history, and tradition”
NOTE he said he may go along with concealed, but I take it as not to own

Kavanaugh reasoned that handguns, which are mostly semi-automatic, are protected by the Second Amendment, and he saw no real difference, from a constitutional perspective, between handguns and semi-automatic rifles. Semi-automatic rifles, he observed, “have not traditionally been banned” and “remain in common use today”; indeed, he noted, handguns are more often used in violent crimes than semi-automatic rifles. The registration requirements, he continued, are unconstitutional because gun owners have traditionally not been required to register all guns that they own legally – “as distinct,” Kavanaugh pointed out, “from licensing of gun owners or mandatory recordkeeping by gun sellers.”

Although Kavanaugh indicated that he would have struck down the ban on semi-automatic rifles and the registration requirements, his discussion of the proper test to use to review gun laws suggests that he might be willing to uphold some gun laws, such as those requiring a license to carry a concealed weapon, as long as they are consistent with the history and tradition of regulating guns. He contended that a test that assesses “gun bans and regulations based on text, history, and tradition” will often give governments “more flexibility and power” than a balancing test, because “history and tradition show that a variety of gun regulations have co-existed with the Second Amendment right.”

NOTE he also said. The registration requirements, he continued, are unconstitutional because gun owners have traditionally not been required to register all guns that they own legally
And to have a pistol you need a permit and registered in NY so by his words its unconstitutional