Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

As written, the SCOTUS ruling seems to be against arbitrary, opinion based, or even poorly defined suitability, not the word itself. So I can see MA keeping suitability by claiming its well defined as a risk to public safety, right or wrong. What the ruling will do is lock down the reason and make it easier to appeal. No more "broad discretion", the old standard that the MA courts still apply despite the new language. Of course this may take a court challenge to get to this point.
 
:mad:


View: https://twitter.com/MedfordPolice/status/1543001427601129474/photo/2


Please continue to follow current MA law regarding safe usage, handling, and storage of your firearms. Most importantly, please honor the restrictions, if any, that continue to apply to your gun license. They remain in effect at this time.
Click to expand...

They say they are bringing their practices into compliance with EOPSS and then link the EOPSS document which seems to negate restrictions and then in the same tweet attach an image that says restrictions are still real. Neutering the ability of red towns to restrict seems to be like trying to wrestle a nut from a squirrel.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
The MA courts have ruled that heresay evidence, as well as evidence judicially excluded from trial, arrests not resulting in conviction and even taking the 5th can render one unsuitable. There is also no right to confront and cross examine the witness against you - the issuing authority doesn't even have to tell you who it is.
Click to expand...
I think those are all gone away now. Are you saying under her new "guidance", they are still here?

BigGreen2000 said:
But I thought the “suitability” standard was “dangerousness”?
Click to expand...
Before Bruen, suitability included "dangerousness". It also included other things. After Bruen, it should not exist, except as already described.


Roadglide said:
So a dui lets say???
Click to expand...
Let's make it more complicated. How about a DUI, but it was "continued without finding"? Plus, the guy is a known alcoholic/drinker. Sure is tempting to not issue under "suitability". What to do?
 
Coyote33 said:
I think those are all gone away now. Are you saying under her new "guidance", they are still here?


Before Bruen, suitability included "dangerousness". It also included other things. After Bruen, it should not exist, except as already described.



Let's make it more complicated. How about a DUI, but it was "continued without finding"? Plus, the guy is a known alcoholic/drinker. Sure is tempting to not issue under "suitability". What to do?
Click to expand...
The new guidance did not change the standard of suitability, and we can expect the state to double down.

As to "dangerousness" - This is true, but the courts routinely ignored that standard (that post-dated Moyer) and generally referred to the Moyer standard which was "Did the issuing authority feel (s)he had a reason to deny that was not arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion". Numerous appeals were lost because of denial reasons not including dangerousness. Someone (no idea who) pulled the magic words "de novo" out of the latest updates to MA gun law at the last minute. That would have been a game changer.

As to the OUI/CWOF - basically whatever the issuing authority wants to do.

The stage is ripe for litigation on due process issues now that carry is a right, and the federal court can deny standing because an LTC is allegedly not the "lowest level permit that allows you to exercise your 2A right". It is going to be hard too successfully argue that deprivation of a constitutional right is not punishment requiring due process - but I expect to argue it is still just an administrative matter.
 
crispnipz said:
:mad:


View: https://twitter.com/MedfordPolice/status/1543001427601129474/photo/2




They say they are bringing their practices into compliance with EOPSS and then link the EOPSS document which seems to negate restrictions and then in the same tweet attach an image that says restrictions are still real. Neutering the ability of red towns to restrict seems to be like trying to wrestle a nut from a squirrel.
Click to expand...

Police are allowed to lie to you.
They are taking full advantage of it
 
EJFudd said:
Were they involved? Anyone know for sure?
Click to expand...

All I could find is that they provided grant monies to an individual to file an amicus brief. Maybe more. The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association is an NRA affiliate ... which I don't know what that means in the grand scheme.

via (anti-rag):
www.thetrace.org

The NRA Paid a Gun Rights Activist to File SCOTUS Briefs. He Didn't Disclose it to the Court.

Hacked documents suggest attorney David Kopel, who filed an amicus brief in NYSRPA v. Bruen, has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the NRA Foundation.
www.thetrace.org www.thetrace.org
 
vicorjh said:
All I could find is that they provided grant monies to an individual to file an amicus brief. Maybe more. The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association is an NRA affiliate ... which I don't know what that means in the grand scheme.
Click to expand...

I think it's the kind of thing where if you're a member of NYSRPA, you're therefore "affiliated with" the NRA. Which is the kind of thing that'll help you get a CMP rifle, say.

My club is "affiliated with" the NRA, too. I have no idea what that means.
 
Picton said:
I think it's the kind of thing where if you're a member of NYSRPA, you're therefore "affiliated with" the NRA. Which is the kind of thing that'll help you get a CMP rifle, say.

My club is "affiliated with" the NRA, too. I have no idea what that means.
Click to expand...
It means they can buy liability insurance that pays a commission to the NRA.
 
vicorjh said:
All I could find is that they provided grant monies to an individual to file an amicus brief. Maybe more. The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association is an NRA affiliate ... which I don't know what that means in the grand scheme.

via (anti-rag):
www.thetrace.org

The NRA Paid a Gun Rights Activist to File SCOTUS Briefs. He Didn't Disclose it to the Court.

Hacked documents suggest attorney David Kopel, who filed an amicus brief in NYSRPA v. Bruen, has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the NRA Foundation.
www.thetrace.org www.thetrace.org
Click to expand...
I’m sure an actual lawyer can provide a better answer, the cost to support an amicus brief is very broad. I’m sure one going to SCOTUS is going to be quite detailed. The cost could be from a few thousand to many thousands depending on the research.
 
JRT said:
I like that you troll me we that NRA ad every time I say f*** the NRA.

Also, f*** the NRA. Support FPC and GOA!

🤣😂
Click to expand...
It was not on purpose, purely coincidence if it happened. Anyhow, I see that, and just wanted to let people know the NRA is claiming this as their victory. I don't know whether or not that is true, or to what degree it is or isn't. Just putting the info out there. Sorry if it happened twice.

mousegunfan said:
Isn't now the time for MA GOAL to start filing lawsuits asap?
Click to expand...
42! said:
GOAL is legislation
Comm2A is courts
Click to expand...
Isn't NOW the time for GOAL to start filing LEGISLATION?
 
crispnipz said:
:mad:


View: https://twitter.com/MedfordPolice/status/1543001427601129474/photo/2




They say they are bringing their practices into compliance with EOPSS and then link the EOPSS document which seems to negate restrictions and then in the same tweet attach an image that says restrictions are still real. Neutering the ability of red towns to restrict seems to be like trying to wrestle a nut from a squirrel.
Click to expand...

It would be hilarious if @Comm2A and/or @GOAL were to reply to that post, offering to help them reread the guidance letter they'd just linked... or maybe @nstassel?
 
BigGreen2000 said:
Are we so sure that the First Circuit would actually follow SCOTUS?
Click to expand...
This begs the question of do the Circuit courts who are anti gun want to risk SCOTUS overturning their decision and making the affect national? The 9th Circuit seems like is going to be the first to re-hear a magazine capacity case under the new Bruen standards, given how fast this could move I don't think the 9th wants to pull shit and have every state with a magazine capacity ban thrown out before the year ends.

Same goes for MD with the AWB case.

It may come to a point when the last circuit with a magazine capacity or AWB case is hearing it and all the other circuits have struck those laws down as then at that point there's nothing left to lose as SCOTUS would hear the case and it would be nationwide anyway.

I give it another 12 months and RI and Mass will be free of these magazine bans.
 
All the inevitable future court wins belong to We The People. Watching these cases be decided is gonna be like watching one of those old time vampire movies where in the final act the good guys finally drive a stake through Dracula's heart, one vicious blow after another, the hammer driving the stake deeper and deeper, until evil is annihilated.
 

Similar threads

Garland v. VanDerStok
Replies
0
Views
119
lutstribe
L
Supreme Court decision on rifle bans
Replies
9
Views
741
Tartakovsky
Tartakovsky
Circuit Court Judge Strikes Down Illinois FOID Card Requirement for Guns in the Home
Replies
1
Views
132
sbhaven
S
Supreme Court ending permits
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
Worcester State Court Gun Policy
Replies
12
Views
464
Mark from ?
M
Back
Top Bottom