Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

[DungeBerry63]

Welp still left in confusion Medford pd isn’t responding back to my voicemails or even calls

 

[Hoover]

Welp still left in confusion Medford pd isn’t responding back to my voicemails or even calls

Print this and stop by in person.

Post in thread 'Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread'
Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

 

[Picton]

Welp still left in confusion Medford pd isn’t responding back to my voicemails or even calls

There’s a reason they aren’t talking to you. It’s because they don’t want to tell you what they have to tell you.

 

[DungeBerry63]

There’s a reason they aren’t talking to you. It’s because they don’t want to tell you what they have to tell you.

Literally I’ve left voicemails just called again now and nope there going to make me just walk in

 

[DungeBerry63]

Print this and stop by in person.

Post in thread 'Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread'
Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

Printing it out and stopping by after work

 

[DungeBerry63]

All that has come out and yet Medford doesn’t want to budge it’s just insane at this point

 

[VetteGirlMA]

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.

My point though is that the Gould case if I'm not mistaken was about license restrictions in Massachusetts, specifically how I could live in town X and get an unrestricted LTC and you lived in town Y and they don't issue unrestricted LTCs. We folks on here lost that case when scotus denied cert even though I felt it was a winning case.

What's interesting is that in the wake of Bruen, we essentially won the Gould case even though scotus didn't take it up. It's a win-win in my book.

 

[DungeBerry63]

There’s a reason they aren’t talking to you. It’s because they don’t want to tell you what they have to tell you.

and its crazy they tweet out they are still encoring restrictions now this came out so lets see what they say now no way they still keep restrictions

 

[Bladerunner]

Just follow this advice when you roll up in there:

 

[pastera]

So.... based on the memo if someone has an existing LTC with restrictions, could they not say they lost their card and have a new one printed without restrictions?

In order to get it printed they will kick it back to the issuing PD to drop the restrictions so catch 22.
But that this is being done leads a reasonable person to believe that all licenses are to be unrestricted and licensing officer is knowingly infringing on a civil right.

 

[Cap'n Mike]

A ”Legal Update” (From a paid law firm, not a State issued document) was sent out this weekend to some Massachusetts Police Officers Suumarizing the Bruen decision and cautioning against taking Criminal action against any LTC holder violating A “Good Reason” type restriction, such as “Target Practice Only” and recommending Licensing Officers refrain from issuing such restrictions.

 

[42!]

I might of missed it but here is a response from goal:

GOAL - GOAL Responds

www.goal.org

Not a well written paragraph. Last sentence makes me say WTF.

First It is very clear by reading the guidance that the Commonwealth believes that “suitability,” IE Chief’s Discretion, is Constitutional. This method in Massachusetts has been widely abused by licensing authorities to restrict or deny all manner of people based on arbitrary personal opinions. Doing away with this type of discriminatory prejudice is absolutely at the core of the Court’s decision. Following a clear and logical reading of Bruen, that could not be further from the truth.

 

[Hoover]

My point though is that the Gould case if I'm not mistaken was about license restrictions in Massachusetts, specifically how I could live in town X and get an unrestricted LTC and you lived in town Y and they don't issue unrestricted LTCs. We folks on here lost that case when scotus denied cert even though I felt it was a winning case.

What's interesting is that in the wake of Bruen, we essentially won the Gould case even though scotus didn't take it up. It's a win-win in my book.

I read some of the Gould case, I believe what you said is correct. There may be some minor differences but substances of the cases are the same. There were other cases very similar to NYSRPA over the years too. There was one challenging NJs carry restrictions in 2014, Drake.

 

[Bladerunner]

Not a well written paragraph. Last sentence makes me say WTF.

Written as if the preceding sentence was characterizing the AG's position on the undisputed legality of suitability.

Definitely no room for these kind of editing screw ups. Communications need to be tight!

 

[DungeBerry63]

Left Medford PD another voicemail let’s see

 

[Drix]

Not a well written paragraph. Last sentence makes me say WTF.

"First It is very clear by reading the guidance that the Commonwealth believes that “suitability,” IE Chief’s Discretion, is Constitutional. This method in Massachusetts has been widely abused by licensing authorities to restrict or deny all manner of people based on arbitrary personal opinions. Doing away with this type of discriminatory prejudice is absolutely at the core of the Court’s decision. Following a clear and logical reading of Bruen, that could not be further from the truth."

Written as if the preceding sentence was characterizing the AG's position on the undisputed legality of suitability.

Definitely no room for these kind of editing screw ups. Communications need to be tight!

Bruen delt with restrictions on issued licenses, not who gets licenses.

From Bruen:

"Our holding decides nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun. Nor does it decide anything about the kinds of weapons that people may possess. Nor have we disturbed anything that we said in Heller or McDonald v. Chicago (2010), about restrictions that may be imposed on the possession or carrying of guns."

This is further held up later in their ruling:

Bruen stressed that “because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.” New York’s just-passed “shall-issue” permitting scheme sidles toward abusive ends, although it remains too early to judge if the state crossed the constitutional line suggested in Bruen—that regulations that “deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry” run afoul of the Second Amendment.

Consider it a all or nothing approach- either you can own a gun and do all lawful things with it or you cannot, you cannot be given the right to own a gun but not use it for a lawful purpose.

A correlation might be your freedom of speech, you're not granted a freedom of speech without the ability to protest the government or say swear words. And before someone says any bullshit about yelling fire in a theatre- yes, you can do that, the supreme court decision on that was overturned more than 40 years ago, so get with the program.

But to that end- SCOTUS explicitly has stated that their ruling does not change any licensing schemes, nor rules on them, but strongly implies (like mandatory locks) that it may be unconstitutional and may need further review.

 

[pastera]

Not a well written paragraph. Last sentence makes me say WTF.

Last sentence references the first and should be the second sentence.

Looks like a failed edit

 

[SFC13557]

Maura has caved and if Medford continues to f*** LTC holders they will be liable, hope their City Attorneys are reading Maura's "guidance."

 

[DungeBerry63]

Maura has caved and if Medford continues to f*** LTC holders they will be liable, hope their City Attorneys are reading Maura's "guidance."

if this voicemail falls in deaf ears im going in personally im 10 mins down the road !

 

[LTCRN]

There is a difference between a first time, new, applicant and an existing license, and I specifically called out a new/renew as opposed to existing, as does the AG. The AG is talking about not issuing, but says nothing about an existing license which has limits specifically stated on it.

They can justify it because the existing license was issued with restrictions, and those are still a matter of law. Remember, the AG doesn't make law via press release. The proper course would be for a restricted license holder to have the license reissued without restrictions.

Great advice, call the local PD immediately and demand the restrictions be lifted. Or go in person during regular business hours.

A call to the FRB / DCJIS (617) 660-4722 on the question of applicability of listed restrictions might be insightful.

The number only gets you someone who can verify the status of your application. Otherwise, they do their best version of Sgt. Shultz, and should never be trusted to give sound legal advice.

They won't give you a binding answer, if any answer at all. Not their job to answer questions.

Correct

I think we can all agree that asking Medford to reissue a license without restrictions would be the safest approach. Maybe not most successful, but at least that is heading in the right direction. If they refuse, can that then be brought forward as a case here?

I would think a call to GOAL or Comm2A would be the right approach. A carefully drafted letter from either organization threatening a lawsuit with a six figured number attached to it might solve the problem once and for all! This is probably why the state kicked the decision back to each individual town to decide their own fate. The state probably knows it's not worth it!

if this voicemail falls in deaf ears im going in personally im 10 mins down the road !

Just Do It and don't leave until you get an answer. Make sure you go during normal business hours, not during lunch, or the beginning of the shift, are in the lobby when discussing this, and videotape the entire conversation.

 

[DungeBerry63]

Great advice, call the local PD immediately and demand the restrictions be lifted. Or go in person during regular business hours.

The number only gets you someone who can verify the status of your application. Otherwise, they do their best version of Sgt. Shultz, and should never be trusted to give sound legal advice.

Correct

I would think a call to GOAL or Comm2A would be the right approach. A carefully drafted letter from either organization threatening a lawsuit with a six figured number attached to it might solve the problem once and for all! This is probably why the state kicked the decision back to each individual town to decide their own fate. The state probably knows it's not worth it!

Just Do It and don't leave until you get an answer. Make sure you go during normal business hours, not during lunch, or the beginning of the shift, are in the lobby when discussing this, and videotape the entire conversation.

im going to wait with this voicemail because about 7-8 days ago they told me no they are keeping my restrictions now with the recent news no way they can say no and i wont take no for a answer ! nor will i take well in 5 months well take them off because its been a year!

 

[PappyM3]

Bruen delt with restrictions on issued licenses, not who gets licenses.

…
But to that end- SCOTUS explicitly has stated that their ruling does not change any licensing schemes, nor rules on them, but strongly implies (like mandatory locks) that it may be unconstitutional and may need further review.

I think you severely misunderstand the NYSRPA ruling. It absolutely deals with who gets licenses. And it absolutely changes licensing schemes.

 

[Dadstoys]

Dirt nap is fine but me
If more victims can, and do, carry there will be less victims and criminals.

That would be the perfect world.

 

[Dadstoys]

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?

Who knows what goes on in the mind of these people .
A bullet would be fine with me.
If you want the guy to have a gun , meet him at the gate next time he gets out and hand him one.
Then let him know where your family lives.
Hey , he served his time, right ?

I really don't know where this fantasy of doing time suddenly makes you a model citizen at the end of your term.
I've met people face to face that would think nothing of gut shooting you and making you watch them rape and kill your wife and daughter right in front of you and laugh about it. And there are more of them walking the streets than you would ever want to imagine if you wanted to sleep at night.
They did time and are only walking around till they get caught the next time , and then the next.

 

[Drix]

I think you severely misunderstand the NYSRPA ruling. It absolutely deals with who gets licenses. And it absolutely changes licensing schemes.

Hard to argue with the quote that says it doesnt.


Maybe you can elaborate for me the meaning of the following:

Our holding decides nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun. Nor does it decide anything about the kinds of weapons that people may possess. Nor have we disturbed anything that we said in Heller or McDonald v. Chicago (2010), about restrictions that may be imposed on the possession or carrying of guns.

 

[pastera]

Who knows what goes on in the mind of these people .
A bullet would be fine with me.
If you want the guy to have a gun , meet him at the gate next time he gets out and hand him one.
Then let him know where your family lives.
Hey , he served his time, right ?

I really don't know where this fantasy of doing time suddenly makes you a model citizen at the end of your term.
I've met people face to face that would think nothing of gut shooting you and making you watch them rape and kill your wife and daughter right in front of you and laugh about it. And there are more of them walking the streets than you would ever want to imagine if you wanted to sleep at night.
They did time and are only walking around till they get caught the next time , and then the next.

That they are walking the street is not evidence that others should have their rights restricted.
It is evidence that the ruling class has convinced some that they must be unarmed because the ruling class prefers to keep them in fear of the evil in their midst. It is time for the fearful to understand that the choice to place evil among the good is specifically done to keep the good's mind away from what the ruling class is directly doing to them.

We need to start asking why so many people are in jail for non violent acts not if people can own a gun after going to jail.

 

[PappyM3]

Hard to argue with the quote that says it doesnt.


Maybe you can elaborate for me the meaning of the following:

Our holding decides nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun. Nor does it decide anything about the kinds of weapons that people may possess. Nor have we disturbed anything that we said in Heller or McDonald v. Chicago (2010), about restrictions that may be imposed on the possession or carrying of guns.

That line is saying they are not touching what makes a person a prohibited person. That sentence does not say anything about issuance of licenses.

The whole point of the case was to dispute the “proper cause” requirement before NY would issue a license to carry. It’s whole point was to change NY’s licensing scheme. And the opinion supports a complete change to their licensing scheme. It effectively tells may issue states that they need to become shall issue.

 

[Dadstoys]

That they are walking the street is not evidence that others should have their rights restricted.
It is evidence that the ruling class has convinced some that they must be unarmed because the ruling class prefers to keep them in fear of the evil in their midst. It is time for the fearful to understand that the choice to place evil among the good is specifically done to keep the good's mind away from what the ruling class is directly doing to them.

We need to start asking why so many people are in jail for non violent acts not if people can own a gun after going to jail.

That's an entirely different discussion .
These are the people I carry a gun to protect myself and my family from.

 

[Mass-diver]

Who knows what goes on in the mind of these people .
A bullet would be fine with me.
If you want the guy to have a gun , meet him at the gate next time he gets out and hand him one.
Then let him know where your family lives.
Hey , he served his time, right ?

I really don't know where this fantasy of doing time suddenly makes you a model citizen at the end of your term.
I've met people face to face that would think nothing of gut shooting you and making you watch them rape and kill your wife and daughter right in front of you and laugh about it. And there are more of them walking the streets than you would ever want to imagine if you wanted to sleep at night.
They did time and are only walking around till they get caught the next time , and then the next.

Im sorry, I still don’t see how gun control solves this problem. If he’s an evil predator he can just get an illegal gun correct?

 

[El_Guapo77]

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/MAguns/comments/vt1fq1/this_was_the_email_i_just_received_from_the/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

Very interesting