Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

[MaverickNH]

But back to Bruen…

Bruen’s Concurrences: The Questionable Durability of the Bruen Majority, and Ruminations on Originalism and the Limits of Historical Inquiry

firearmslaw.duke.edu

Only 7 states with proper-cause May-Issue CCW but these states hold 24% of the US population. The largest - CA & NY - intend to hold out as long as possible.

“The fact that three Justices who signed onto the Court’s opinion in Bruen wrote separately to stress their agreement with Heller and McDonald’s carve-out of certain specified gun regulations may indicate cracks within the six-justice Bruen majority going forward. On one hand, the concurrences could be empty rhetoric and (when the rubber hits the road) these Justices may ultimately endorse looking to historical tradition across the board. On the other hand, it’s possible to read these concurrences as indicating a consensus on the Court behind only a narrow version of Bruen: historical tradition is the appropriate way to evaluate restrictions such as New York’s permitting regime which prohibit public carry by most law-abiding citizens (or the right to possess a handgun in the home, as in Heller and McDonald).”

 

[DungeBerry63]

so glad Boston out of all town is starting to change all of the ltcs to unrestricted and all by email more then likely from the volume of calls they were getting ! Now hopefully the chief of Medford gets off his high horse and starts to do something because and let’s not forget Brookline

 

[rep308]

Massachusetts gun rights group demands Maura Healey retract firearms guidance

A Bay State gun rights advocate is calling out Attorney General Maura Healey’s firearm licensing guidance in the wake of a recent Supreme Court decision on guns. Jim Wallace, writing on behal…

www.bostonherald.com

 

[Spartan65]

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]

They have been around for five or so years. They are no compromise no bullshit second amendment absolutists. Their top policy director Matt Larosiere has had several cases at the Supreme Court and was council on the Bruen case. He has had many successful gun rights cases.

He is also involved in almost every major case awaiting decision by lower courts that was vacated with the Bruen decision

He’s also on Twitter below, and on YouTube as “fudd busters”

https://mobile.twitter.com/mattlaatlaw?lang=en

 

[Chevy 2 65]

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?

Taunton, no issues. Why would you mention Taunton, they aren't known for being a**h***s. Not with me.

 

[Sparky123]

Without some way of the supreme court enforcing this ruling, what do we really expect to change? If the court ruled that we do not need a proper cause to apply for a LTC then why is it that in Massachusetts they are still going to be allowed to ask us what the reason is for applying for the LTC? I'm sure that over time the laws that govern suitability will expand, this of course will make it more difficult to get a LTC.

 

[Broc Tuah]

Without some way of the supreme court enforcing this ruling, what do we really expect to change? If the court ruled that we do not need a proper cause to apply for a LTC then why is it that in Massachusetts they are still going to be allowed to ask us what the reason is for applying for the LTC? I'm sure that over time the laws that govern suitability will expand, this of course will make it more difficult to get a LTC.

"All lawful purposes" ...

They can still ask you why you want one. They can't deny you based on if they feel that is a good enough reason.

 

[Mesatchornug]

"All lawful purposes" ...

They can still ask you why you want one. They can't deny NOR RESTRICT you based on if they feel that is a good enough reason.

Or simply "Because I can" (in NRA classes it's phrased "practice of a [...] right")

Also, FIFY

 

[pastera]

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.

Not certain what position you think I was taking.
I don't believe in restrictions for any free adult with the exception of those with mental disabilities necessitating guardianship.

The reason we are seeing increases in crime is the justice system is advertising that they will not prosecute, so making crime legal in effect.
And I don't believe for a minute that only non-violent offenders we're released during covid.

 

[MaverickNH]

Not certain what position you think I was taking.
I don't believe in restrictions for any free adult with the exception of those with mental disabilities necessitating guardianship.

The reason we are seeing increases in crime is the justice system is advertising that they will not prosecute, so making crime legal in effect.
And I don't believe for a minute that only non-violent offenders we're released during covid.

Then I’m totally in sync with you - sorry.

Probably no Death Row inmates sprung, but since 1/3rd or more of those sprung have been re-arrested in some jurisdictions, they let bad guys out. A “Second Chance” shouldn’t mean a 2nd chance to commit crimes and not get caught…

 

[Chevy 2 65]

Without some way of the supreme court enforcing this ruling, what do we really expect to change? If the court ruled that we do not need a proper cause to apply for a LTC then why is it that in Massachusetts they are still going to be allowed to ask us what the reason is for applying for the LTC? I'm sure that over time the laws that govern suitability will expand, this of course will make it more difficult to get a LTC.

Staple this to the app with the words seriously as the reason. Or ALP or leave it blank and challenge the a**h***s

 

[Hoover]

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]

Fairly new but very active. Their success has been helped by the shift in the make up of the courts after trump. If the refs are against you, the best arguments still won’t go anywhere.

FPC has good lawyers, not necessarily the Wall Street brooks brothers type look but they know what they’re doing in court.
View: https://youtu.be/y8HCHccE3Rw

 

[bigbravehog]

They have been around for five or so years. They are no compromise no bullshit second amendment absolutists. Their top policy director Matt Larosiere has had several cases at the Supreme Court and was council on the Bruen case. He has had many successful gun rights cases.

He is also involved in almost every major case awaiting decision by lower courts that was vacated with the Bruen decision

He’s also on Twitter below, and on YouTube as “fudd busters”

https://mobile.twitter.com/mattlaatlaw?lang=en

I replaced NRA with FPC and am very pleased with them.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

Fairly new but very active. Their success has been helped by the shift in the make up of the courts after trump. If the refs are against you, the best arguments still won’t go anywhere.

Any truth to this ?

 

[Bladerunner]

"All lawful purposes" ...

They can still ask you why you want one. They can't deny you based on if they feel that is a good enough reason.

Yes but they can use your answer as the basis for denying on non-objective suitability grounds.

Why do you want an LTC.

None of your business.

Hmm, this guy is belligerent and uncooperative, he's not quite right in the head. Seems he has something to hide, evasive.

Unsuitable.

 

[Broc Tuah]

Yes but they can use your answer as the basis for denying on non-objective suitability grounds.

Why do you want an LTC.

None of your business.

Hmm, this guy is belligerent and uncooperative, he's not quite right in the head. Seems he has sonething to hide, evasive.

Unsuitable.

I typed "all lawful purposes" not "none of your business".

If you want to be aggressive about it to the police, go ahead, but people should already know that nothing good can come out of it, no matter how wrong you think they are by asking that question.

 

[paul73]

I typed "all lawful purposes" not "none of your business".

i recall when i did my application back in 2007, i think i added to that something about protection from wildlife on hiking. it was suggested to be a neutral enough addition to the 'all lawful'.
but i did not even try to get it done in somerville, waited until we got out of that zone.

 

[Dennis in MA]

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.

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

Yeah. Except for the new NY and NJ (and likely MA and CA) laws that will be written to stop people from having guns even though they're forced to allow them to have guns.

So that's 4 states right there. Throw in Hawaii and you're up to 5 out of 7. Maybe you'll get away with Dale-Aware and Mary-Land not futzing it up. Maybe.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

Yes but they can use your answer as the basis for denying on non-objective suitability grounds.

Why do you want an LTC.

None of your business.

Hmm, this guy is belligerent and uncooperative, he's not quite right in the head. Seems he has something to hide, evasive.

Unsuitable.

NOPE !!!!! They must provide proof you are a danger to the public etc.. Not just " No I don't like the answer or feel this person is a danger.

Edit to add:

The licensing authority may deny the application or renewal of a license to carry, or suspend or revoke a license issued under this section if, in a reasonable exercise of discretion, the licensing authority determines that the applicant or licensee is unsuitable to be issued or to continue to hold a license to carry. A determination of unsuitability shall be based on: (i) reliable and credible information that the applicant or licensee has exhibited or engaged in behavior that suggests that, if issued a license, the applicant or licensee may create a risk to public safety; or (ii) existing factors that suggest that, if issued a license, the applicant or licensee may create a risk to public safety. Upon denial of an application or renewal of a license based on a determination of unsuitability, the licensing authority shall notify the applicant in writing setting forth the specific reasons for the determination in accordance with paragraph (e). Upon revoking or suspending a license based on a determination of unsuitability, the licensing authority shall notify the holder of a license in writing setting forth the specific reasons for the determination in accordance with paragraph (f). The determination of unsuitability shall be subject to judicial review under said paragraph (f).

 

[Hoover]

Any truth to this ?

View attachment 634893

This explains it well, he’s part of FPC.
View: https://youtu.be/iJyzuTS-XQ8


Just because you lose and appeal, you don’t automatically get a stay of the lower court ruling granted. Part of getting a stay issued is the likelihood of success in the appeal. The CA AGs office cited a number of cases using the intermediate scrutiny standard (the district court judge who struck down the AWB used text and history). The CA AG said the wrong standard was used and if intermediate scrutiny was used they’d win and then9th circuit has said intermediate scrutiny is the correct standard. With SCOTUS saying intermediate scrutiny is not the standard, it’s text and history, the AG has nothing in their court filings citing text and history to refute the district court judge.

I’d be surprised if they lifted the stay. They’ll probably ask the AGs office to resubmit it with history and text to show the likelihood of success. Can they find anything in the text or history to support an AWB? I’ve never heard anything.

 

[Hoover]

Yes but they can use your answer as the basis for denying on non-objective suitability grounds.

Why do you want an LTC.

None of your business.

Hmm, this guy is belligerent and uncooperative, he's not quite right in the head. Seems he has something to hide, evasive.

Unsuitable.

That’s a discretionary standard. The judgement of “belligerent and uncooperative “ is subjective and would vary from one licensing cop to another. SCOTUS said that’s not allowed. What will be allowed is you must do xyz to get a license. You must take a safety course, you must have not felony convictions, you must be 18, you must submit finger prints, etc.

What is required must not be subject to the judgement of the licensing officer. It’s basically a check the box process. You did too the safety class, check, you submitted finger prints, check.

 

[Hoover]

NOPE !!!!! They must provide proof you are a danger to the public etc.. Not just " No I don't like the answer or feel this person is a danger.

Edit to add:

The licensing authority may deny the application or renewal of a license to carry, or suspend or revoke a license issued under this section if, in a reasonable exercise of discretion, the licensing authority determines that the applicant or licensee is unsuitable to be issued or to continue to hold a license to carry. A determination of unsuitability shall be based on: (i) reliable and credible information that the applicant or licensee has exhibited or engaged in behavior that suggests that, if issued a license, the applicant or licensee may create a risk to public safety; or (ii) existing factors that suggest that, if issued a license, the applicant or licensee may create a risk to public safety. Upon denial of an application or renewal of a license based on a determination of unsuitability, the licensing authority shall notify the applicant in writing setting forth the specific reasons for the determination in accordance with paragraph (e). Upon revoking or suspending a license based on a determination of unsuitability, the licensing authority shall notify the holder of a license in writing setting forth the specific reasons for the determination in accordance with paragraph (f). The determination of unsuitability shall be subject to judicial review under said paragraph (f).

It has to be a set criteria too, it can’t be judgement based like the Sullivan law SCOTUS just struck down.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

This explains it well, he’s part of FPC.
View: https://youtu.be/iJyzuTS-XQ8


Just because you lose and appeal, you don’t automatically get a stay of the lower court ruling granted. Part of getting a stay issued is the likelihood of success in the appeal. The CA AGs office cited a number of cases using the intermediate scrutiny standard (the district court judge who struck down the AWB used text and history). The CA AG said the wrong standard was used and if intermediate scrutiny was used they’d win and then9th circuit has said intermediate scrutiny is the correct standard. With SCOTUS saying intermediate scrutiny is not the standard, it’s text and history, the AG has nothing in their court filings citing text and history to refute the district court judge.

I’d be surprised if they lifted the stay. They’ll probably ask the AGs office to resubmit it with history and text to show the likelihood of success. Can they find anything in the text or history to support an AWB? I’ve never heard anything.

If they fall, any impact in Mass? Will it be easier to sue to remove the AWB ?

 

[Gillham]

I wonder if this has any impact on getting a Green Card? I don't have a C&R FFL, but I know there are others who have gotten it without a C&R. Licensed for 11? years now. Licensing town is Billerica, due for a renewal in Nov... might give it a go.

 

[whatluck]

Greed for power and material gain can buy jack-booted thugs.

This will always be human nature. This is why all empires fall, and why free men should keep arms and pass on to their children how to fight.

 

[Noreaster]

I wonder if this has any impact on getting a Green Card? I don't have a C&R FFL, but I know there are others who have gotten it without a C&R. Licensed for 11? years now. Licensing town is Billerica, due for a renewal in Nov... might give it a go.

I used to know someone in framingham. he got the green card no problem or fight or concerns. Went to purchase a machine gun and the LEO refused to endorse the NFA forms. Obviously this was when the LEO signoff was required instead of the process now of just informing. So you always need to watch out for all the angles.

 

[Hoover]

If they fall, any impact in Mass? Will it be easier to sue to remove the AWB ?

CA is the 9th circuit, MD has a suit too but they’re the 4th circuit, MA is the 1st circuit. Circuit decisions only impact the states in that circuit. Circuits pay attention to cases in other circuits though and lawyers will cite opinions in other circuits. Winning anywhere is helpful.

If their are circuit splits, one circuit says something is unconstitutional and another says it isn’t, it’s more likely SCOTUS will hear a case to resolve the circuit splits. It’s not a guarantee though, just more likely they’ll take a case.

A lot of 2A case decisions fall on judicial philosophy. If you see a panel with 2 trump appointed judges and one Obama and it’s an abortion case, 2A, etc, you’ll usually see a 2-1 decision. Judges are picked because they have judicial philosophies, so that carries through to their opinions often. The CA AWB case has 2 trump judges, one Obama. I like the odds there. Will the CA AG ask for an en banc hearing? Probably. The odds there depend on the drawing of 10 judges plus the 9ths chief judge.

The 1st circuit is a small circuit, it has Clinton, Obama and Biden judges, no GOP nominated. If they follow SCOTUS dictates, the AWB, mag limits etc would fall. But I’m not holding my breath they’ll be honest judges. Souter often sits on the 1st circuit cases, he’s a clown and will not follow SCOTUS. He was there for the heller decision, he knows exactly what Scalia intended yet Souter still used intermediate scrutiny in cases.

United States courts of appeals - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Most conservative circuit is the 5th. The 6, 7, 8 are loaded with GOP judges, 2, 3, 11 have GOP majority but not huge. 1, 4 and 9 are the liberal joke circuits. 9th does have a lot of conservatives they’re just slightly outnumbered.

 

[bfm]

i recall when i did my application back in 2007, i think i added to that something about protection from wildlife on hiking. it was suggested to be a neutral enough addition to the 'all lawful'.
but i did not even try to get it done in somerville, waited until we got out of that zone.

Interesting. I know a few dozen people with ALP or now Restrcitions:None on their first try in Somerville. There were a couple years that had a Chief that made it tougher, luckily that was between renewals for me and the replacement was fine. About the only restricted I know of, other than the couple years with that one Chief, were people who had just moved in from out of state, just turned 21-22, and were renting.

 

[Garys]

Stoughton has been green the 40 years I've lived here. There was one temporary chief who issued "starter LTCs" but would change them to ALP on the first renewal. I don't think he lasted long enough to do that and the permanent chief issued ALP only. My last renewal in 2017 says "NONE" for restrictions.

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?

 

[Garys]

President Trump changed the flavor of both the 2nd and 9th Circuits. If Bruen was decided by them today, it's likely that that may issue would have fallen at that level. So, it worked out that Bruen made it to SCOTUS and Justice Thomas blessed us with a brilliant opinion.

I expect that the 1st will not be the Clown Circuit as Pres. Trump was not able to appoint any judges.

Yet another reason to move.

Most conservative circuit is the 5th. The 6, 7, 8 are loaded with GOP judges, 2, 3, 11 have GOP majority but not huge. 1, 4 and 9 are the liberal joke circuits. 9th does have a lot of conservatives they’re just slightly outnumbered.