Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

Mass-diver said:
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?
Click to expand...
That's right , he can.
Why would you demand he be able to get one legit ?
Ask yourself if you would knowingly let a convicted pedophile that served his sentence babysit for you and you will have the answer to life's great mystery.
If you are true to your beliefs then the answer is yes. Sitting in a jail cell for a few years will change human nature.
If you answer no then you really don't believe what you are espousing .
Keep in mind I'm not talking about some guy who got busted for bouncing a check here.
 
pastera said:
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.
Click to expand...
Maybe it is soon time to disarm them.

Dadstoys said:
That's an entirely different discussion .
These are the people I carry a gun to protect myself and my family from.
Click to expand...
Who? The ruling class?
 
Drix said:
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.
Click to expand...

NYSRPA dealt with subjective licensing. The need to show a good cause, or such. They suggested a definitive process, you need to take a safety class, you don’t have any disqualifies like felony convictions etc. NYSRPA was pretty clear, the issuance of licenses can’t be left to the choice of a govt agency.
 
Dadstoys said:
That's right , he can.
Why would you demand he be able to get one legit ?
Ask yourself if you would knowingly let a convicted pedophile that served his sentence babysit for you and you will have the answer to life's great mystery.
If you are true to your beliefs then the answer is yes. Sitting in a jail cell for a few years will change human nature.
If you answer no then you really don't believe what you are espousing .
Keep in mind I'm not talking about some guy who got busted for bouncing a check here.
Click to expand...
You keep pushing for restrictions on guns as a solution to the problem of politicians knowingly releasing evil into the public and then telling those they put in harms way that they must endure it disarmed.
Answer this - is it right to release a predator among its prey knowing they will will commit horrible acts upon the innocent?
Do the politicians share in the guilt?
When a vicious dog bites it may be put down but the owner is held responsible.
Why are those that put evil on the street not held responsible?
 
Dadstoys said:
That's right , he can.
Why would you demand he be able to get one legit ?
Ask yourself if you would knowingly let a convicted pedophile that served his sentence babysit for you and you will have the answer to life's great mystery.
If you are true to your beliefs then the answer is yes. Sitting in a jail cell for a few years will change human nature.
If you answer no then you really don't believe what you are espousing .
Keep in mind I'm not talking about some guy who got busted for bouncing a check here.
Click to expand...
The answer is he shouldn't get out if he is still a danger to society. Gun control is useless for criminals. They will get one if they want it. Gun control only stops the law abiding from getting a gun.
 
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...
Yes, NYSRPA v. Bruen is effectively the positive answer to Comm2A's challenge in Gould v. Lipson. Gould doesn't need to be revived because the Commonwealth has conceded.

Speaking for myself, the only open question is 'what happens to LTC holders who are currently restricted?' The Commonwealth (and Medford PD) seem to be avoiding this question. But I really don't think that's going to be a problem. It's a question of do PD re-issue LTCs or do they not enforce restrictions. The answer to both is 'yes'.
 
DungeBerry63 said:
All that has come out and yet Medford doesn’t want to budge it’s just insane at this point
Click to expand...
I read Medford's position as 'pretty please, don't carry a gun if you have a restricted LTC'. Also, they may not want to go through the hassle of reissuing all their restricted LTCs. The Commonwealth's guidance isn't helping as they're failed to tell PDs what to do with restricted LTC holders. The Commonwealth isn't printing anymore restricted LTCs, but they're throwing it back to the towns to deal with current licenses.

Going forward, dealing with NYSRPA v. Bruen in MA will be a lot less about the Commonwealth resistance and more about individual PDs trying to maintain their control and manage their costs.
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
Yes, NYSRPA v. Bruen is effectively the positive answer to Comm2A's challenge in Gould v. Lipson. Gould doesn't need to be revived because the Commonwealth has conceded.

Speaking for myself, the only open question is 'what happens to LTC holders who are currently restricted?' The Commonwealth (and Medford PD) seem to be avoiding this question. But I really don't think that's going to be a problem. It's a question of do PD re-issue LTCs or do they not enforce restrictions. The answer to both is 'yes'.
Click to expand...

It looks like all states have conceded except CA and NY. The CA Ag is claiming their good moral character” discretion still is in effect. The MD website crashed last night or this morning there was so much activity.

www.firearmspolicy.org

FPC to California AG: Revoke Your “Good Moral Character” Legal Alert and Comply with Bruen Before We Sue

Last night, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) sent a letter to California Attorney General Rob Bonta informing him that if local concealed-carry issuing agencies use the state’s so-called “good moral character” requirement in the way he recently called for in response to NYSRPA v. Bruen, it will...
www.firearmspolicy.org www.firearmspolicy.org
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
Yes, NYSRPA v. Bruen is effectively the positive answer to Comm2A's challenge in Gould v. Lipson. Gould doesn't need to be revived because the Commonwealth has conceded.

Speaking for myself, the only open question is 'what happens to LTC holders who are currently restricted?' The Commonwealth (and Medford PD) seem to be avoiding this question. But I really don't think that's going to be a problem. It's a question of do PD re-issue LTCs or do they not enforce restrictions. The answer to both is 'yes'.
Click to expand...
Should be yes, I'm not assuming anything about what some of those municipal PDs might do. Would be better if they weren't dancing around providing an answer.
 
"Conditioning a carry license on a discretionary evaluation of an applicant’s ‘good moral character’ is patently inconsistent with Bruen’s repeated statements that the carry right may not be denied by non-objective criteria applied by a local government official,”
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
I read Medford's position as 'pretty please, don't carry a gun if you have a restricted LTC'. Also, they may not want to go through the hassle of reissuing all their restricted LTCs. The Commonwealth's guidance isn't helping as they're failed to tell PDs what to do with restricted LTC holders. The Commonwealth isn't printing anymore restricted LTCs, but they're throwing it back to the towns to deal with current licenses.

Going forward, dealing with NYSRPA v. Bruen in MA will be a lot less about the Commonwealth resistance and more about individual PDs trying to maintain their control and manage their costs.
Click to expand...
Trust me I’ve been trying my heart out not to carry at all knowing how medford is
 
Aren't there at least 3 people on here from Medford, all in the same boat? Didn't someone bounce a number of $1000 to get started with a lawsuit? That's $333 each, less if you get a few more onboard. Even less if other donations come in. I have a feeling they are going to just come around anyhow. What other cities or towns are putting up a fight? Brookline? How are Lexington & Concord? Everett? Salem? Stoughton/Taunton?
 
Last edited:
Coyote33 said:
Aren't there at least 3 people on here from Medford, all in the same boat? Didn't someone bounce a number of $1000 to get started with a lawsuit? That's $333 each, less if you get a few more onboard. Even less if other donations come in. I have a feeling they are going to just come around anyhow. What other cities or towns are putting up a fight? Brookline? How are Lexington & Concord? Everett? Salem? Beverly? Stoughton/Taunton?
Click to expand...
The stronghold is MEDFORD then BROOKLINE ! havent heard anything from anyone from Brookline but i know if I don’t hear nothing by at least Monday I’m going in personally with everything printed out and if they say no to me personally I’m down for anything
 
Coyote33 said:
Aren't there at least 3 people on here from Medford, all in the same boat? Didn't someone bounce a number of $1000 to get started with a lawsuit? That's $333 each, less if you get a few more onboard. Even less if other donations come in. I have a feeling they are going to just come around anyhow. What other cities or towns are putting up a fight? Brookline? How are Lexington & Concord? Everett? Salem? Beverly? Stoughton/Taunton?
Click to expand...
Why Beverly? It’s a green town. Not that it matters anymore
 
Coyote33 said:
Aren't there at least 3 people on here from Medford, all in the same boat? Didn't someone bounce a number of $1000 to get started with a lawsuit? That's $333 each, less if you get a few more onboard. Even less if other donations come in. I have a feeling they are going to just come around anyhow. What other cities or towns are putting up a fight? Brookline? How are Lexington & Concord? Everett? Salem? Stoughton/Taunton?
Click to expand...
Not from Medford, but I'd throw a hundred in.
 
pastera said:
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.
Click to expand...
Just think - if everyone in jail for a non-violent crime was set free…

Wait - didn’t many non-violent criminals get sprung from jails during COVID? I know they’re blaming the increase in legal gun sales and new gun owners for the major increase in crime these past few years rather than freeing non-violent criminals and not arrresting or prosecuting people for non-violent crimes.

Do you really think it’s the guns and not the criminals? I’m pretty sure you don’t, so help me understand your point.
 
Last edited:
El_Guapo77 said:

NY Sheriffs Association » Blog Archive » Statement Concerning New York’s New Firearms Licensing Laws

nysheriffs.org nysheriffs.org

Interesting response I would of preferred we will not enforce but at least we now now that even the sheriff's are like wtf
Click to expand...
"...law enforcement agencies and the courts, which bear most of the responsibility for implementing the new licensing laws, were deprived of any opportunity to point out to Legislators the burdensome, costly, and unworkable nature of many of the new laws’ provisions. And, of course, our citizens, whose rights are once again being circumscribed, probably again in unconstitutional ways, had no opportunity to communicate their concerns to their legislative representatives.

We want to be clear: The Sheriffs of New York do strongly support reasonable licensing laws that aim to assure that firearms do not get into the wrong hands. We do not support punitive licensing requirements that aim only to restrain and punish law-abiding citizens who wish to exercise their Second Amendment rights."

The real measure would be, if Sheriffs were given a major increase in budget, staff and authority to implement the onerous new law, would they refuse to take the money, staff and power?

About 15% of Republicans can be easily bought by Democrat largess with dole-outs, according to surveys. At the bottom end of subsistence, freedom from want buys grudging compliance. Greed for power and material gain can buy jack-booted thugs.
 
Hoover said:
It looks like all states have conceded except CA and NY. The CA Ag is claiming their good moral character” discretion still is in effect. The MD website crashed last night or this morning there was so much activity.

www.firearmspolicy.org

FPC to California AG: Revoke Your “Good Moral Character” Legal Alert and Comply with Bruen Before We Sue

Last night, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) sent a letter to California Attorney General Rob Bonta informing him that if local concealed-carry issuing agencies use the state’s so-called “good moral character” requirement in the way he recently called for in response to NYSRPA v. Bruen, it will...
www.firearmspolicy.org www.firearmspolicy.org
Click to expand...
I might have missed FPC - are they new? What’s their history on lawsuits, legislative action and amicus briefs?

[EDIT - found that FPCLaw.org: Some FPC / FPCAF Legal Action efforts ; relatively new but very active]
 

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
126
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
455
Mark from ?
M
Back
Top Bottom