Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Melquan Tucker v. New York - US Supreme court petition for a writ of certiorari

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Melquan Tucker v. New York - US Supreme court petition for a writ of certiorari

    Melquan Tucker v. New York - case#KA 18-00147, docket 20-5313, is currently pending review by the US Supreme Court. The case involves possession of a handgun at home without a license in NY state. To summarize the case, guy gets caught with an unregistered gun at home during a search, he did not have a license either. Gets arrested, in court he claims that the 2nd amendment protects his right to posses a handgun at home for home protection, Courts find him guilty. He appeals this case to the US Supreme Court. Now, if the US Supreme Court takes on this case, it can have a significant impact on the licensing laws in the state. There is a possibility that they will find it unconstitutional and that it goes against Heller v. DC. So lets say the Supreme Courts hears the case, and sides with the petitioner, what would that mean to current license holders? Do the permits become invalid, speaking of hunting and target permits?

    #2
    The permits wouldn't become invalid. Depending on the ruling, possession at home may be allowed (meaning purchase without a permit) but you would still need the permit for carry to and from the range or while hunting. Or the ruling could invalidate the entire Sullivan act making NY a constitutional carry state. Which means buy what you want now as there would be a run on anything that fits in the hand.

    Comment


      #3
      I think if SCOTUS, in past decisions, upheld the governments requirement for a permit to hold an Easter parade, they will readily uphold the governments requirement for a permit to hold a pistol.
      I hope they don't take this case.

      Ballistic: "Grif... You are my legal eagle spirit animal...."

      Comment


        #4
        I hope he has a clean record.
        let's make america great again

        Comment


        • Destro
          Destro commented
          Editing a comment
          His name is Melquan.

        #5
        SCOTUS won't hear it. They don't touch 2A cases.

        Comment


          #6
          I haven't heard of this case and it doesn't sound like they would take it, nor rule in our favor if they did.

          Same for the recent case in CA over magazines. We tend to forget that, in addition to individual rights, the constitution defers a lot of authority to the states. Theoretically, more to the states than the federal government. It's unlikely that even the most libertarian justices like Kavanagh and Gorsich (and forget about Roberts) would ever rule that states have NO authority to regulate magazine capacity. The 2A protects the individual ridht to be armred but they don't view all regulations as "infringements".

          Be careful what you wish for. They will never rule that requiring a license for a pistol is an infringement. The fact that it can be denied arbitrarily, without good cause or due process is.
          Last edited by BLAMMO!!; 09-15-2020, 06:16 PM.
          To be human is to be armed.

          Comment


            #7
            If anyone believes that the current SCOTUS will do anything to expand the 2A, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
            Know your rights/Refuse peacefully to consent to a search /Ask if you are free to go or are being detained/Even if you are not doing anything wrong the 4th Amendment protects you against unreasonable searches/Never say anything to law enforcement even if you think it will help you/If questioned you should clearly and unequivocally request that you would like to have an attorney present and defer any questions until then/Never go to prison because you are afraid to go to jail.

            Comment


              #8
              This is NY. Even if the supremes decided you could have a handgun in the home without a license, they’d arrest you for picking it up from the gun store and driving home with it.

              Fat chance this does anything for us in this dump.

              Comment


                #9
                Originally posted by class3 View Post
                If anyone believes that the current SCOTUS will do anything to expand the 2A, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
                I'm thinking there just now may be 5 votes in support of protecting semi auto rifles with removable mags. Anything else we care about (+10 mags, concealed carry, etc.) will take another Trump appointee.
                Ballistic: "Grif... You are my legal eagle spirit animal...."

                Comment


                  #10
                  Originally posted by Mosin1942 View Post
                  SCOTUS won't hear it. They don't touch 2A cases.
                  And we don’t like them taking 2A cases. If this goes the wrong way states, counties, villages, PD’s or any other entity that sees fit to become overlords could do this. Thinks of red states going purple, purple ones going blue and any local jurisdiction not restricted by state preemption laws.
                  When they kick out your front door
                  How you gonna come?
                  With your hands on your head
                  Or on the trigger of your gun?

                  Comment


                    #11
                    Originally posted by Havfun View Post
                    I hope he has a clean record.
                    Many major precedent setting cases are started with just the opposite type of folks. Clean records seem to have nothing to do with winning cases there.

                    When they kick out your front door
                    How you gonna come?
                    With your hands on your head
                    Or on the trigger of your gun?

                    Comment


                      #12
                      He should go after the fact the NY doesn’t let you apply for a premise permit when you apply b/c that is a shall issue with a nics check, instead they force you to apply for a carry which is may issue so the have the chance to deny you then if you get it they restrict it to only to and from range.
                      that’s the case that needs to be brought before a judge.
                      III%

                      Comment


                        #13
                        It can get a little confusing because in NY, we have multiple judicial systems much like California, Chicago and Philadelphia.
                        • Half the population simply gets released with no bail if they're caught with an illegal gun.
                        • If you're an illegal, or you're using the gun to commit an actual crime, they throw in a pair of free Mets tickets.
                        • If you get shot by police on video in the process of committing a crime, you get millions of dollars, a riot in your honor, and your name printed on an NFL helmet. Bonus points if you have a long criminal history and family members that can fake cry on demand in front of a microphone.
                        Then there's the other half that we're in.

                        Comment


                          #14
                          Originally posted by Sherm66 View Post

                          Many major precedent setting cases are started with just the opposite type of folks. Clean records seem to have nothing to do with winning cases there.
                          yes but I believe its a federal crime to be in possession of a firearm if a felon
                          let's make america great again

                          Comment


                            #15
                            Just read the petition. According to his attorney he did not have prior convictions.

                            https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...20Petition.pdf

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X