Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

All gravy for new LTC holders but
When do I need to remove restrictions? Whether and when you need to re-issue existing restricted licenses
so that they no longer display a restriction on them are questions that you will need to answer after
reviewing the Advisory as well as the decision in Bruen with your own counsel.
Click to expand...
So this sounds like DCJIS is basically leaving it up to the licensing authority (the town) to decide whether or not to screw over existing restricted license holders, to the effect of "if your town's lawyer is cool with it, we will not force you to remove restrictions on existing licenses"

So basically EOPSS releases a document that says restrictions are no more, then DCJIS releases a document that says restrictions are no more for any new LTC, but existing licenses are still at the PD's discretion until they get sued/the PD's interpretation of the EPOSS advisory.

Do I have that about right?
 
crispnipz said:
All gravy for new LTC holders but

So this sounds like DCJIS is basically leaving it up to the licensing authority (the town) to decide whether or not to screw over existing restricted license holders, to the effect of "if your town's lawyer is cool with it, we will not force you to remove restrictions on existing licenses"

So basically EOPSS releases a document that says restrictions are no more, then DCJIS releases a document that says restrictions are no more for any new LTC, but existing licenses are still at the PD's discretion until they get sued/the PD's interpretation of the EPOSS advisory.

Do I have that about right?
Click to expand...

I'd say this represents yet another state-level authority with a significant hand in promulgating LTC policy saying, "no, there's no such thing as restrictions anymore." The other being the state Attorney General.

More ammo, in case anyone needs it in a potential proceeding against a town licensing authority. And a reinforcement of the conclusion that there's no such thing as restrictions anymore, unless you buy that it's okay to treat new licensees completely differently than existing licensees.

And the 14th Amendment has a lot to say on that subject.
 
Last edited:
Rob Boudrie said:
1. Nothing in the SCOTUS decision establishes states cannot require a 2A license.
2. Noting in the decision changes a person not currently licensed to carry outside the home because they have a license authorizing a different activity (restricted carry)
3. But, the decision does say individuals need not prove need.

So it is clear that future licenses must be unrestricted.

It is not clear that persons with restricted licenses cannot be processed for carry outside of restrictions (fine only)

It seems obvious, but is not yet proven, that licensing officials must upgrade restricted LTCs on request, but that has not yet been stipulated by the state or proven in court
Click to expand...
That is all correct , but the current AG is a student of the former AG.
Martha knew she didn't have to win in court to destroy you , just break you to the point that you couldn't fight any longer.
You may have been one hundred percent in the right , but may find yourself destitute in the proving of it.
It may take a couple of major lawsuits with insane money settlements for civil rights violations to temper that crap.
 
VetteGirlMA said:
If we don't want people to have access to firearms, vote, whatever, then we need to keep them in prison longer until they no longer pose a threat to society. This way we only have to worry about imprisoning the most violent psychopaths. Once out they become free people again. No exceptions. Free is free, there are no "yeah you can be free but....".
Click to expand...
What do you mean by "longer" though ?
Till they are no longer able bodied enough to be a threat ?
I know a guy who committed half a dozen rapes mostly at knife point before he actually did hard time , if you want to call it that.
He did ten years and then less than a month after he got out he raped a young mother at a secluded area of a beach.
He'll be back out again at some point, most likely far too soon.
Would you really want him in your neighborhood , this time with a gun ?
I get your point if it was an ideal world , which it's not.
 
Dadstoys said:
What do you mean by "longer" though ?
Till they are no longer able bodied enough to be a threat ?
I know a guy who committed half a dozen rapes mostly at knife point before he actually did hard time , if you want to call it that.
He did ten years and then less than a month after he got out he raped a young mother at a secluded area of a beach.
He'll be back out again at some point, most likely far too soon.
Would you really want him in your neighborhood , this time with a gun ?
I get your point if it was an ideal world , which it's not.
Click to expand...
If you are too dangerous to own a firearm you are too dangerous to be free in public.
Guy has shown he can not be free - a legitimate justice system would recognize this and keep society safe from his ilk.
 
Mesatchornug said:
Specifically:

FWnXnIuXkAM-Pw3
Click to expand...
I wonder what their response would be if they got a letter from Comm2A along the lines of , "Is it our understanding that you will not be following the Supreme Court ruling ?"
 
pastera said:
If you are too dangerous to own a firearm you are too dangerous to be free in public.
Guy has shown he can not be free - a legitimate justice system would recognize this and keep society safe from his ilk.
Click to expand...
But he will be free again, that's kind of the point.
He already showed that the first time and got let out to do it again, and he will when he's free the next time.
The only thing that will stop him is a dirt nap.

There are hundreds of thousands just like him walking the streets right now.
How many times do you hear or read "Long criminal history " after some awful crime ?
Prison isn't some magical cure for being a shitbag .
 
Dadstoys said:
What do you mean by "longer" though ?
Till they are no longer able bodied enough to be a threat ?
I know a guy who committed half a dozen rapes mostly at knife point before he actually did hard time , if you want to call it that.
He did ten years and then less than a month after he got out he raped a young mother at a secluded area of a beach.
He'll be back out again at some point, most likely far too soon.
Would you really want him in your neighborhood , this time with a gun ?
I get your point if it was an ideal world , which it's not.
Click to expand...

50+ years in prison. That's the way it used to be.
 
Dadstoys said:
I could live with that.
Click to expand...
Me too. Isn't that the way it used to be?

I remember going to Old Newgate Prison in CT years ago and inside the museum they had the ledger for the prisoners inside along with their sentence. Rape was the death penalty back then and armed robbery was life imprisonment chained to a rock underground with barely enough room to lay down and no place to sit or stand. I don't mind doing away with the cruel and unusual aspect but as far as the sentences, we'd have far less crime if the violent did their fair share of time. A life for a life is what I say. The prison ledger also had the expected execution date for prisoners and it wasn't 20 years out from the sentence, it was more like 90 days from coming into the prison.
 
crispnipz said:
All gravy for new LTC holders but

So this sounds like DCJIS is basically leaving it up to the licensing authority (the town) to decide whether or not to screw over existing restricted license holders, to the effect of "if your town's lawyer is cool with it, we will not force you to remove restrictions on existing licenses"

So basically EOPSS releases a document that says restrictions are no more, then DCJIS releases a document that says restrictions are no more for any new LTC, but existing licenses are still at the PD's discretion until they get sued/the PD's interpretation of the EPOSS advisory.

Do I have that about right?
Click to expand...
DCJIS/FRB is Dept of Criminal Justice Information Systems/Firearms Records Bureau! They merely process documents given to them by individuals/dealers (eFA-10s) and PDs (exception being issuance of NR LTCs). They don't have the legal authority to dictate to the 351 cities/towns what they must do, therefore their memo is really the most that they can do. It's good that they are willing to re-issue if the PD requests it. Now it is up to the PD to do their job!
Dadstoys said:
I wonder what their response would be if they got a letter from Comm2A along the lines of , "Is it our understanding that you will not be following the Supreme Court ruling ?"
Click to expand...
This is what it will take for many of them. Some won't do anything until a court that they agree with (USSC is NOT one of those) orders them to change.
 
Dadstoys said:
But he will be free again, that's kind of the point.
He already showed that the first time and got let out to do it again, and he will when he's free the next time.
The only thing that will stop him is a dirt nap.

There are hundreds of thousands just like him walking the streets right now.
How many times do you hear or read "Long criminal history " after some awful crime ?
Prison isn't some magical cure for being a shitbag .
Click to expand...
Dirt nap is fine but me
If more victims can, and do, carry there will be less victims and criminals.
 
Dadstoys said:
What do you mean by "longer" though ?
Till they are no longer able bodied enough to be a threat ?
I know a guy who committed half a dozen rapes mostly at knife point before he actually did hard time , if you want to call it that.
He did ten years and then less than a month after he got out he raped a young mother at a secluded area of a beach.
He'll be back out again at some point, most likely far too soon.
Would you really want him in your neighborhood , this time with a gun ?
I get your point if it was an ideal world , which it's not.
Click to expand...
So…..his choice of whether to use a gun to commit his crime is dependent on whether he can get an LTC? He will chose not use a firearm (while committing another rape) out of respect to the gun law prohibiting him from doing so?
 
Picton said:
I'm fine with her edicts as long as they're in line with the Constitution, and this one sure is.

As for QI? I don't think she has anything to do with it...
Click to expand...
So if her pronouncements of Settled Law don't count as legal notice to cops
to stop infringing this-or-that civil right,
then are her definitions of "Assault Weapon" worth a fart in a windstorm?

42! said:
... bring the law back to the legislature for clarification, given that the courts are openly ignoring the law. The legislatures believe they make the law, throw it in their face that what they created is being ignored and you may find some support for updating the language. They are arrogant people, they don't like being ignored.
Click to expand...
Meh. I don't want clarification - I want abolition

42! said:
Remember, the AG doesn't make law via press release.
Click to expand...
535t8v.png

Picton said:
I'm sure we'd all chip in for the billable hour (or so) that it would take to draft such a letter, provided it's generic enough to be sendable to many PDs.

IN.
Click to expand...
Does @nstassel have NOLO Press tattooed on his forehead or something?
quote-a-lawyer-s-time-and-advice-are-his-her-stock-in-trade-abraham-lincoln-82-47-85.jpg

PappyM3 said:
She is the chief legal representative for the state. She absolutely can advise agents of the state and LEAs of incorporated towns/cities in this state about parts of MGL which are affected by federal court rulings, and how to navigate such invalid laws.
Click to expand...
"Agents of the state".
I wonder how much the SJC loves her antics.
 
GOA bringing suit against ATF rules re: frames and receivers in ND:


View: https://youtu.be/8f_uRIIBvcM



View: https://youtu.be/HD-NCGeprOg


www.gunowners.org

GOA Pledges to Challenge Biden’s Gun Control Restrictions | GOA

Headlines from around the country following passage of the most expansive gun control in several decades. Epoch Times, June 25, 2022 Gun Owners of America, another gun lobby, said in a statement on Twitter that it “will challenge these unconstitutional laws in court to defend the rights of all...
www.gunowners.org www.gunowners.org
 
I wonder how much of this was already drafted and ready to go if the ruling was favorable?

vicorjh said:
GOA bringing suit against ATF rules re: frames and receivers in ND:


View: https://youtu.be/8f_uRIIBvcM



View: https://youtu.be/HD-NCGeprOg


www.gunowners.org

GOA Pledges to Challenge Biden’s Gun Control Restrictions | GOA

Headlines from around the country following passage of the most expansive gun control in several decades. Epoch Times, June 25, 2022 Gun Owners of America, another gun lobby, said in a statement on Twitter that it “will challenge these unconstitutional laws in court to defend the rights of all...
www.gunowners.org www.gunowners.org
Click to expand...
 
Garys said:
I wonder how much of this was already drafted and ready to go if the ruling was favorable?
Click to expand...

I would surmise that they have a number of suits queued and warming up in the bullpen for the right moment. Glad to see some definitive action underway.
 
clancy dogg said:
I hope this isn’t a dupe, and if someone can post it in a better format, feel free…
Click to expand...

At least #4 anyhow. Oh well. It's going to take 12-24 months for this to settle out with yet more SC challenges to the mentally challenged laws passed in NY and CA (and likely MA when all is said and done - because the little-dicks on Bacon Hill can't do without futzing things up just to get some national news coverage.)
 
clancy dogg said:
I hope this isn’t a dupe, and if someone can post it in a better format, feel free…
Click to expand...

Question for @Comm2A and @Knuckle Dragger .... If I am not mistaken there was a case before SCOTUS a few years ago (Gould vs Lipson) that was denied cert but had to do with the restrictions on Massachusetts licensing and the absurdity of it all? Did we effectively kill many birds with one stone in the Bruen decision? It's like the case was denied cert in 2020 I believe but we still finally prevailed? I feel like the case may have lost before but a stronger case gave us the prevailing win we have today.
 
VetteGirlMA said:
Question for @Comm2A and @Knuckle Dragger .... If I am not mistaken there was a case before SCOTUS a few years ago (Gould vs Lipson) that was denied cert but had to do with the restrictions on Massachusetts licensing and the absurdity of it all? Did we effectively kill many birds with one stone in the Bruen decision? It's like the case was denied cert in 2020 I believe but we still finally prevailed? I feel like the case may have lost before but a stronger case gave us the prevailing win we have today.
Click to expand...

After Heller and McDonald, all the courts used intermediate scrutiny to uphold the gun control law, NYSRPA said that is not the standard of review and flatly rejected its use. All the issues in those cases are now I open for litigation again.
 

Similar threads

Garland v. VanDerStok
Replies
0
Views
115
lutstribe
L
Supreme Court decision on rifle bans
Replies
9
Views
739
Tartakovsky
Tartakovsky
Circuit Court Judge Strikes Down Illinois FOID Card Requirement for Guns in the Home
Replies
1
Views
127
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
457
Mark from ?
M
Back
Top Bottom