Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Does Heller Nullify Discretionary Handgun Permits?

I'm speaking of those states (like New York, for example) which require you to apply for a discretionary (as distinct from "Shall Issue") handgun permit merely to possess a handgun, even if it's only kept in the home and never carried outside the home. I think Heller will nullify these laws too, or at least require that they convert to "Shall Issue."

IMO, it does. It says nothing about outside the home but it specifically says a permit system must be SHALL issue to qualified applicants (not criminal or insane)- to keep in the home.

most states, yours included, already go far beyond the decision in terms of individual rights.

How about not-issueing permits to non residents? States like NY and Mass. don't have any reciprocity and do not issue non-resident permits.

all those issues will be slugged out in the lower courts in the coming years.....making it particularly important who is sitting in those district and ciruit courts over the next decade. Lest anyone need a reminder.

I think Heller makes discretionary permits untenable....which is going to drive the people in my second home state crazy. I can't bring my handguns to MY freaking house in Mass. because I'm not a resident.....just have a house there.

exactly my case.. I have a summer home in the bershires and can't carry there.

can not be arbitrary or capricious and under the level of scrutiny the cases will be judged on the burden will be on gvt entities to prove they are not, not on the individual bring suit.

The decision could possibly set the groundwork to force "full faith and credit". That would shove it up Sheldon Silver's bunghole!!!!

Anyone want to make bets on what happens to DC murder rates with the ban lifted? They really need concealed carry to make a real dent though

Better yet, Vermont and Alaska rules...No stinkin "permit" needed for CC....

I'm curious however- Are Alaska and Vermont rules "recipricol" with other state's CC's?

Didn't know that about AK, but that place is sounding better all the time..................grin

IMO all this has done is open the game. We got a man on 1st and its the top of the 1st inning. Questions like the "shall issue" system are going to be the next battle ground. All these guys running around thinking we've won the war are sadly mistaken. Now is the time to get organized and on board with the fight. Scalia gave us some tools, it's up to us to see that they're used properly.

It's a game that's been closed for 40 years. You're right, we have a guy on first, maybe with a long lead toward second, now it's a case of a strong offense and good defense to take it through nine innings to complete victory.

There, enough baseball analogies for a Friday am?

That's a very good read Bret. Most read decisions like that and think they have sweeping effects. In fact usually they do not. There was one sweeping effect concept here, and that was the declaration that the 2nd Amendment guarentees an individual right. However, reading the opinion, it also leaves lots of room for "reasonable regulation". DC's complete handgun ban and mandatory storage of guns in an inoperable condition clearly was not.

This flurry of lawsuits being filed, I'm hoping were well thought out while Heller was pending. People don't understand that in legal battle such as this, you have to be selective in the issues you choose to fight because you can cause bad law to be made just as easily. That's why it's taken this long to get a good case to run all the way up on the 2A. Heller took on the most restrictive gun law in the land, and it's genesis was in the right individual to assert this right. Taking on a complete ban was much easier than some of the convoluted laws in other places that can be fashioned in to "reasonable regulations" so long as they ultimately permit ownership.

The majority opinion's strongest language, IMO, is the following (after breaking down the normal meaning of each word):



This is the language (in part) that should be cited over and over in briefs in lawsuits where carry (not owndership) is forbidden. The fight then will be to have reasonable regulation that doesn't completely prohibit carry.

I think the NRA and lawyers such as Gura not only have well thought out their strategy and lawsuits, they just demonstarted that preperation and perserverance before the highest court in the land.

These lawsuits being filed in the next few days have probably been thought out, strategized and prepared many, many months ago.

I assume they were as well. Whether 5-4 or 9-0, the base issue has been decided, and it will be another court in another time that overturns it IMO.

The issue now is to chip away at those "regulations" around the land that are so prohibitive as to prevent reasonable exercise of that right. Do you agree?

I sure hope you are correct isaac. After all the boys didn't have anything else to do all those months waiting for a decision but to war game on a favorable one.

If it came down unfavorable it was check and mate.

BCR

Yes, we're agreed.

We have to do the incorporation gig(via 14th Amendment) as a start.

It will be interesting to see if the city lawsuits begin with TRO or some quick type of declaratory judgement action.

We have a good ways to go but instead of our drivers we can start going to our bag for the short game clubs.

I like that.

This language seems to strongly suggest that carrying arms is as fundamental a right as keeping them. It could be interpreted as allowing a ban on concealed carry, or a ban on open carry, but not both. Any regulations on such might have to pass 14A equal protection/due process tests. [Please note the extravagant use of weasel words.]

If the courts interpreted the 2nd as expansively as they do the 6A Right to Counsel, the fed.gov would be required to issue citizens M16s from its armories. I ain't holding my breath, though.

Michael Kinsley, former cohost of Crossfire with Pat Buchanan, made the very same observation years ago.