Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

[Waher]

From 1791 to 2010, the 2A only applied to the Federal government..

Uh... the deliberations behind the writing and passage of the 14th Amendment to incorporate states under the Bill of Rights specifically mentioned "freed men being able to bear arms".

The 2nd has applied to states since the 14th. Courts just haven't readily enforced it.

 

[Mike Stanton]

NICE! Now if Ruthie would only retire( I wouldn't wish any ill health on the woman) we 'd have a slam dunk.

You are a nice person.

I wish her DEAD - and soon.

 

[PeterC]

Another interesting article: Slate: Kavanaugh's "Breathtakingly Expansive View of the Second Amendment" Signals a "Constitutional Revolution" - The Truth About Guns

The comment discussions are particularly good - among others look for LKB and STRYCH9

 

[Boston4567]

I thought Young vs Hawaii was supposed to be that case? Or are the conservative SCOTUS judges going to wait to grant cert to that case after they adopt strict scrutiny with this NY case?

I think it's possible that, like with Heller, the court picked a particularly ridiculous and unusual law so that it could make a foundational ruling about the scope of the Second Amendment without radically and suddenly shifting the legal landscape. They know how important it is to not move too quickly if they want their rulings to stick around and not generate too big of a backlash, especially in the current political environment.

That said, obviously a "bear" case should have been taken up back in 2012 or so, moving with cautious but deliberate speed. Clearly the problem was Kennedy.

The standard of review is a separate issue that is very unlikely to need to be decided in this case, because the law is so stupid it fails any form of heightened scrutiny.

 

[T-Unit]

I think it's possible that, like with Heller, the court picked a particularly ridiculous and unusual law so that it could make a foundational ruling about the scope of the Second Amendment without radically and suddenly shifting the legal landscape. They know how important it is to not move too quickly if they want their rulings to stick around and not generate too big of a backlash, especially in the current political environment.

That said, obviously a "bear" case should have been taken up back in 2012 or so, moving with cautious but deliberate speed. Clearly the problem was Kennedy.

The standard of review is a separate issue that is very unlikely to need to be decided in this case, because the law is so stupid it fails any form of heightened scrutiny.

I agree with the last sentence, but it's the 9th Circuit, they're going to overturn the previous ruling no matter what.

I don't think SCOTUS will have a choice but to take up Young v Hawaii because it will be so soon after they rule on this NYC case.

 

[Deleted member 67409]

Uh... the deliberations behind the writing and passage of the 14th Amendment to incorporate states under the Bill of Rights specifically mentioned "freed men being able to bear arms".

The 2nd has applied to states since the 14th. Courts just haven't readily enforced it.

If courts don't enforce incorporation, then the debate is purely academic and hypothetical re: the states. And it's also important to note that 2A arguments were made before SCOTUS when Reconstruction ended. Those arguments failed and gave us some horrible case law that still had sway until the modern day.

 

[HARRYM]

https://www.nysrpa.org/legal-assistance/

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

I thought Young vs Hawaii was supposed to be that case? Or are the conservative SCOTUS judges going to wait to grant cert to that case after they adopt strict scrutiny with this NY case?

Young is still going through the en banc process in CA9. The justices potentially two other cases ahead of it to pick from - Rogers (NJ), petition field in December, and Gould (MA), petition due 4/1. Young won't be petition ready until at least next term.

With respect to the NYC case, the excitement here is that cert was granted at all. I don't expect that anything too ground breaking will come out of this, (but I could be wrong and frequently am). The NYC law is pretty stupid on its face. In accepting the City's rational for preventing people from leaving the city with their guns, CA2 was directly at odds with CA7 which knocked down't Chicago's requirement that people HAVE to leave the city with their guns in order to maintain proficiency. I think the NYC law is silly enough that there may be more than five votes to overturn.

 

[KBCraig]

More hysteria from the lefties at Slate:
The Supreme Court Is Preparing to Make Every State’s Gun Laws Look Like Texas’

The Supreme Court Is Preparing to Make Every State’s Gun Laws Look Like Texas’

Good lord, I hope not. Texas is among the worst when it comes to handgun carry laws. It's definitely the worst of the "shall-issue" states, and worse than several "may-issue" states.

 

[xtry51]

Good lord, I hope not. Texas is among the worst when it comes to handgun carry laws. It's definitely the worst of the "shall-issue" states, and worse than several "may-issue" states.

I thought the same thing. Only an anti gun retard thinks Texas is the most lax law state

 

[Reptile]

What good could this ruling do?

The plaintiff only wants to take a gun to any range in NY instead of staying local.

The court might allow an unloaded gun be transported in a locked case anywhere in NY.

How could this case help a person CCW with a loaded handgun anywhere else other than going to a range?

Also, any dissent from Ginsberg will be written by her clerks. Her brain has fizzled out.

Only way she stays on the bench for the conclusion of this case is if she gets stuffed by a taxidermist with extra lotion in the bucket and a long hose.

 

[crispnipz]

The court might allow an unloaded gun be transported in a locked case anywhere in NY.

Or it might compel more lax CCW laws. Like others have said in the thread it's about the scope of the ruling. Could be broad or narrow.

 

[oldguy68]

The fed and states could give two sh_ts about the constitution.

What makes anyone think a ruling is going to change "Our" 2A rights?

New York and New Jersey refuse to acknowledge FOPA and somehow the outcome of a case is going to reverse that and many other illegal laws against our rights as American citizens?

A police state is what the elites, state/federal judges, politicians,state/local/federal law enforcement want.
Greed and control of the surfs are what it's all about.
Don't worry they will have the walls around their homes, armed security and the common citizens are looked down on as the scum of society and are left to fend unable to defend themselves..

Someday, god helping the tyrants will be removed from office and the small man will once again have equal rights of self protection!

 

[exo]

So, re: some of the commentary on Miller in this thread...

I thought according to Miller, the only firearms protected by the 2A were those of military utility? So I don’t understand it being used as any justification or rationale for banning machine guns. IIRC Miller was about short barreled shotguns, which his lawyer might have argued did have military utility if only Miller hadn’t died and anyone had bothered to show up to argue his side.

 

[Reptile]

Or it might compel more lax CCW laws. Like others have said in the thread it's about the scope of the ruling. Could be broad or narrow.

Thanks.

I need to reread and study the prior posts.

 

[Deleted member 67409]

So, re: some of the commentary on Miller in this thread...

I thought according to Miller, the only firearms protected by the 2A were those of military utility? So I don’t understand it being used as any justification or rationale for banning machine guns. IIRC Miller was about short barreled shotguns, which his lawyer might have argued did have military utility if only Miller hadn’t died and anyone had bothered to show up to argue his side.

Miller's facts involved a SBS. However SCOTUS held that NFA34 was constitutional. NFA34 regulates machine guns. If NFA34 is constitutional, then regulation of MGs is constitutional (via the $200 tax stamp), and then other restrictions on MGs are legal like the registry and closing the registry. GCA68 modified or incorporated (not sure which) NFA34 and FOPA86 revised much of GCA68. So NFA34 --> GCA68 --> FOPA86.

The U.S. v Miller, revisited

This case is probably something that should be revisited by a 2A group, but I'm not sure how. A bump stock case probably wouldn't cut the mustard because 1) the military doesn't use bump stocks, they use real MGs; and 2) bump stocks are largely toys rather than serious defensive or offensive weapons. Maybe a guy with an AR that malfunctions and double fires and ATF immediately comes and seizes the gun?

Then there's the totally different problem created by the artificial machine gun market. Who's going to be your plaintiff and do people who own machine guns want them democratized? Does the guy who spent $74,750 on an honest to God Izhevsk AK-47 want to open up the registry, or do away with the registry, to see his investment effectively annihilated? Not to mention gun stores with rental ranges, who have more cash to support a law suit?

Rock Island Auction: AK47 NFA Fully Automatic Assault Rifle Ishevsk

 

[VetteGirlMA]

Uh... the deliberations behind the writing and passage of the 14th Amendment to incorporate states under the Bill of Rights specifically mentioned "freed men being able to bear arms".

The 2nd has applied to states since the 14th. Courts just haven't readily enforced it.

The scotus decision US vs Cruikshank (1876) specifically identified the 1st and 2nd amendments as not being part of the 14th, that is until the McDonald decision in 2010 that overturned Cruikshank. I personally spent the time to read the MA supreme court decisions based on gun ownership in 1970s and 80s and Cruikshank is referenced in all of them. Cruikshank is a good example of institutional racism being upheld by the courts and today in modern times liberals hide behind that very decision when discussing gun control even if they are unaware that the decision did once exist and it's only reason for existing was to deny any minority from having a say in theri government or keeping arms for lawful purposes.

ps: The story behind Cruikshank is absolutely fascinating and should be made into a movie, if anything to shame the left.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

What good could this ruling do?

The plaintiff only wants to take a gun to any range in NY instead of staying local.

The court might allow an unloaded gun be transported in a locked case anywhere in NY.

How could this case help a person CCW with a loaded handgun anywhere else other than going to a range?

Also, any dissent from Ginsberg will be written by her clerks. Her brain has fizzled out.

Only way she stays on the bench for the conclusion of this case is if she gets stuffed by a taxidermist with extra lotion in the bucket and a long hose.

Carrying guns outside the home. Several circuits have said that carrying a gun outside the home is not a constitutional right. If scotus says that it is indeed a natural right to be able to carry a weapon for self defense in places other than the home then other laws and decisions like locking and storage, etc could all be on the table.

 

[GlockJock]

What does "cert" mean?

 

[AHM]

Slate: Kavanaugh's "Breathtakingly Expansive View of the Second Amendment" Signals a "Constitutional Revolution" - The Truth About Guns

As icing on the cake, [Slate‘s Jurisprudence columnist Mark Joseph Stern] describes the apocalypse that will befall us if this breathtakingly expansive view of the Second Amendment is honored:​

Once the Second Amendment is extended beyond the home, public-carry bans generally will be the next to fall. Lower courts, now packed with pro-gun Trump nominees, will swiftly tear down restrictions on concealed and open carry. ...​

The comment discussions are particularly good - among others look for LKB and STRYCH9

Meh; a scant few individual posters are good,
but there's nothing else in the Reader Comments
I can't get in higher quality on NES.

It basically means that I "cert"ainly don't give a flying rat's f*ck what any court says, if it goes against the beliefs of the 'good people' here in the Commonwealth...

-- Mass. AG Marsha Healey​

​

Marsha couldn't name two of the good people in the Commonwealth if her life depended upon it.

 

[Coyote33]

So, re: some of the commentary on Miller ...

Can we only use "military purpose" arms, or is it that we are PREVENTED from using "military purpose" arms?

Seems to be some disagreements here.

 

[exo]

Can we only use "military purpose" arms, or is it that we are PREVENTED from using "military purpose" arms?

Seems to be some disagreements here.

The founders intended there to be a well armed populace that could defend themselves from a tyrannical government. They wrote extensively on the subject. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar, ignorant, or both.

 

[Varmint]

The founders intended there to be a well armed populace that could defend themselves from a tyrannical government. They wrote extensively on the subject. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar, ignorant, or both.

A lot of libs just don't give a crap what the founders thought.

 

[rwl1955]

A lot of libs just don't give a crap what the founders thought.

Because they were rich, slave owning white folks. Leftists HATE the Constitution and BOR's.

 

[Palladin]

The Gun Grenade in the Hands of the Supreme Court

they're cringin'

 

[Tallen]

The Gun Grenade in the Hands of the Supreme Court

they're cringin'

For extra lulz, the author works for the NY Civil Liberties Union.

 

[soam]

The Gun Grenade in the Hands of the Supreme Court

they're cringin'

Their conclusion shows just how little regard for the 2nd amendment the author has:

And the prospect the court might justify such an expansion by expressly relying on doctrine from other constitutional rights poses the threat of permanently tethering gun-control jurisprudence to long-cherished rights like the right to free speech in way that either will dilute those other rights or lead to an even greater expansion of gun rights.

You mean the court may treat the 2nd amendment as a...CIVIL RIGHT!?!? The horror!

 

[Varmint]

The Gun Grenade in the Hands of the Supreme Court

they're cringin'

Skip all the blather and just read this, for grins.

The Supreme Court’s choice to review New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. City of New York is alarming on two counts. For those concerned about gun-control measures, that this case involves something as pedestrian as a ban on transporting handguns beyond the borders of New York City suggests the court may be prepared to substantially expand Second Amendment protections beyond the right to possess a handgun in the home. And the prospect the court might justify such an expansion by expressly relying on doctrine from other constitutional rights poses the threat of permanently tethering gun-control jurisprudence to long-cherished rights like the right to free speech in way that either will dilute those other rights or lead to an even greater expansion of gun rights. Given these possibilities, how the court decides New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. may be a pivotal moment for public safety and constitutional jurisprudence.

 

[KBCraig]

The Gun Grenade in the Hands of the Supreme Court

DO read the quotes, for a change. The author is mocked, with correct legal cites.

 

[AHM]

The Gun Grenade in the Hands of the Supreme Court

they're cringin'