Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

Broccoli Iglesias said:
Yeah, that was BS. SCOTUS should have still ruled for future reference.

In fact, to slap them, the court should have said something along the line of "law XYZ is unconstitutional. By changing it, the Stste of NY recognized this" ... a f*ck you to every other State thinking of pulling that sh*t.
Click to expand...

If a case is moot, it should be dismissed because there’s not left to decide but I don’t like the idea of a state or city waiting until the last minute before changing the law.
 
Hoover said:
If a case is moot, it should be dismissed because there’s not left to decide but I don’t like the idea of a state or city waiting until the last minute before changing the law.
Click to expand...
They dismiss it. So, now someone else can do that again... wait a few years for SCOTUS to maybe take the case then say "yeah, we will step back" ... in the meantime the people got f*cked, and someone spent a bunch of money l, time and resources to get to court.

That is bullsh*t and the way it should be punished is by default the SCOTUS saying it is unconstitutional. DONE. To stop others from doing the same.
 
Bladerunner said:
If the lower courts follow the clear rules in Bruen, it won't reach SCOTUS, but it will be a state by state battle.

Read the complaint I posted above, it is ironclad. How the states will be able put forth a cogent argument against the common use doctrine is beyond me. It doesn't appear possible.
Click to expand...

The AWB cases won’t even really be state by state since so few have AWB or mag limits. You’ll have the 1st circuit, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 9th. In the 1st you only have MA, the 2nd CTand NY (Vermont has mag limits), 3rd NJ and now DE, 4th only MD, 9th HI and CA. A few cities like Chicago and boulder CO have some.

Outside the northeast you really only have CA and HI. I think they’ll have a very difficult time in court.
 
Hoover said:
The AWB cases won’t even really be state by state since so few have AWB or mag limits. You’ll have the 1st circuit, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 9th. In the 1st you only have MA, the 2nd CTand NY (Vermont has mag limits), 3rd NJ and now DE, 4th only MD, 9th HI and CA. A few cities like Chicago and boulder CO have some.

Outside the northeast you really only have CA and HI. I think they’ll have a very difficult time in court.
Click to expand...
Didn't RI just pass mag limits?
 
I think the 10 rnd limit in Washington state just went live. CO did I think a 15 rnd limit a few years ago with Magpul moving manufacturing out of state because of it.
 
Thomas uses the word "objective" in his opening, with the clear implication being that unconstitutional good cause laws are analogous to any other form of non-objective licensing scheme. He didn't come out and say this explicitly, but he should have. His judicial deference, if you want to call it that, has given just enough wiggle room for states' DA's to continue to flaunt the core construct of the decision. It's the main flaw of his opinion, despite it being otherwise excellent.

"The parties nevertheless dispute whether New York’s licensing regime respects the constitutional right to carry handguns publicly for self-defense. In 43 States, the government issues licenses to carry based on objective criteria. But in six States, including New York, the government further conditions issuance of a license to carry on a citizen’s showing of some additional special need."

All this good moral character/suitability idiocy was also addressed by Kavanaugh in his concurring opinion. He in fact, does explicitly remove all possible ambiguity related to objectivity and its role in the licensing schemes with his precise wording. Perhaps he did so knowing that Thomas glossed over this issue. While his concurrence is non-binding as a matter of law, it can be used to inform lower courts on how to apply Bruen to future cases. Let's hope legal arguments make good use of Kavanaugh's foresight.

"Going forward, therefore, the 43 States that employ objective shall-issue licensing regimes for carrying handguns for self-defense may continue to do so. Likewise, the 6 States including New York potentially affected by today’s decision may continue to require licenses for carrying handguns for self-defense so long as those States employ objective licensing requirements like those used by the 43 shall issue States.
 
Last edited:
bfm said:
I think the 10 rnd limit in Washington state just went live. CO did I think a 15 rnd limit a few years ago with Magpul moving manufacturing out of state because of it.
Click to expand...

The CO is a joke. If I recall correctly, retailers can’t sell normal mags but the law is so poorly constructed it doesn’t exclude parts. So people buy the components of mags and assemble them.
 
Broccoli Iglesias said:
Yeah, that was BS. SCOTUS should have still ruled for future reference.

In fact, to slap them, the court should have said something along the line of "law XYZ is unconstitutional. By changing it, the Stste of NY recognized this" ... a f*ck you to every other State thinking of pulling that sh*t.
Click to expand...
I agree but the rules make so that the court needs an active controversy to act so once mooted, its hands were tied until another case was ripe.
Sucks to be on the "play by the rules" side.
 
JRT said:
I’m not in Mass but if I gave money to GOAL I would demand action.
Click to expand...

GOAL does not file law suits.
They are a lobbying group that sits down with elected officials to sponsor bills, for good gun laws, or change current gun laws. They encourage bad gun law bills to be voted against.
They also run classes for gun owners, host workshops and events. They raise money to use pens to fight for gun rights in the state house.

COMM2A is a group that does have lawyers that accept plantiffs and go to town with lawsuits.

2 different groups 2 completely different ways of operating. Both do great work.
 
Hoover said:
The CO is a joke. If I recall correctly, retailers can’t sell normal mags but the law is so poorly constructed it doesn’t exclude parts. So people buy the components of mags and assemble them.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure, but I think they closed that loophole several years ago. The mag limit has been on the books for almost a decade, I believe.
 
Bladerunner said:
Thomas uses the phrase objective in his opening, with the clear implication being that unconstitutional good cause laws are analogous to any other form of non-objective licensing scheme. He didn't come out and say this explicitly, but he should have. His judicial deference, if you want to call it that, has given just enough wiggle room for states' DA's to continue to flaunt the core construct of the decision. It's the main flaw of his opinion, despite it being otherwise excellent.

"The parties nevertheless dispute whether New York’s licensing regime respects the constitutional right to carry handguns publicly for self-defense. In 43 States, the government issues licenses to carry based on objective criteria. But in six States, including New York, the government further conditions issuance of a license to carry on a citizen’s showing of some additional special need."

All this good moral character/suitability idiocy was also addressed by Kavanaugh in his concurring opinion. He in fact, does explicitly remove all possible ambiguity related to objectivity and its role in the licensing schemes with his precise wording. Perhaps he did so knowing that Thomas glossed over this issue. While his concurrence is non-binding as a matter of law, it can be used to inform lower courts on how to apply Bruen to future cases. Let's hope legal arguments make good use of Kavanaugh's foresight.

"Going forward, therefore, the 43 States that employ objective shall-issue licensing regimes for carrying handguns for self-defense may continue to do so. Likewise, the 6 States including New York potentially affected by today’s decision may continue to require licenses for carrying handguns for self-defense so long as those States employ objective licensing requirements like those used by the 43 shall issue States.
Click to expand...
Let's allow Thomas a moment of 5D chess.

Imagine you've been waiting 30 years to write a decision that amounts to "shall not be infringed." Recall that you only get to write decisions that 4+ other judges are ready to sign onto. Now you have NY making it clear that they'll do everything they can to infringe until they're forced to stop.

We all know there isn't the stomach for a sweeping decision...yet. So why not show a little restraint? "Shall issue licensing seems OK, provided you don't abuse it" sounds like a great opening. Now, NYC and CA are handed a rope - go ahead, run with it. Pay it out in the spaces you know they head to: objective licensing, sensitive places, etc.

Eventually, they'll demonstrate sufficiently that they can't be trusted. They simply can't help themselves. If the courts are forced to step in too often, the only remaining answer is to take away the keys - give it time, and those few states will ruin the game for themselves.

We didn't get here overnight. Recovering everything slowly builds a stronger foundation to protect the right - a single case is easier to overturn than several interlocking ones.
 
Mesatchornug said:
Let's allow Thomas a moment of 5D chess.

Imagine you've been waiting 30 years to write a decision that amounts to "shall not be infringed." Recall that you only get to write decisions that 4+ other judges are ready to sign onto. Now you have NY making it clear that they'll do everything they can to infringe until they're forced to stop.

We all know there isn't the stomach for a sweeping decision...yet. So why not show a little restraint? "Shall issue licensing seems OK, provided you don't abuse it" sounds like a great opening. Now, NYC and CA are handed a rope - go ahead, run with it. Pay it out in the spaces you know they head to: objective licensing, sensitive places, etc.

Eventually, they'll demonstrate sufficiently that they can't be trusted. They simply can't help themselves. If the courts are forced to step in too often, the only remaining answer is to take away the keys - give it time, and those few states will ruin the game for themselves.

We didn't get here overnight. Recovering everything slowly builds a stronger foundation to protect the right - a single case is easier to overturn than several interlocking ones.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree strenuously with your thoughts here, but why couldn't Thomas had used similar language to Kavanaugh? It's not sweeping, just keeping with the thrust of the opinion. It may not have made a difference given the idiots we are dealing with, but rest assured, had those comments been embedded into the majority opinion, there is no way we would be dealing now with suitability STILL being a part of the licensing regime for the states singled out for practicing tyranny. If Kavanaugh was cool with that language, Thomas should have also been cool with it.

Yet, here we are, having to wait until this issue weaves its way back through the system.

One final note is that we have already been patient ever since Heller and McDonald. Why practice judicial restraint if abuses will need to be rectified anyways. Means-end-scrutiny was never used in those cases and should never have been used in ANY of the decisions post those two, but it was, to the harm of The People. Those cases left a crack in the door that was kicked wide open by the anti-2A politicians. That has now been corrected with Bruen. Again, hopefully these unconstitutional practices will be fixed as soon as possible.
 
Hoover said:
The CO is a joke. If I recall correctly, retailers can’t sell normal mags but the law is so poorly constructed it doesn’t exclude parts. So people buy the components of mags and assemble them.
Click to expand...
Royal shitstorm over a big county run range in CO that has seen many large "fly in and spend money or hotels and rental cars" matches pull out of the state.
 
Bladerunner said:
I don't disagree strenuously with your thoughts here, but why couldn't Thomas had used similar language to Kavanaugh?
Click to expand...

Think about it this way: there’s a reason Kav’s concurrence was just a concurrence, rather than the actual opinion.

Thomas wanted five other votes, and his opinion was written so that the majority could approve it unanimously. For whatever reason (maybe it’s precisely the thing you’re highlighting), Thomas didn‘t seem to think he’d get his 6-3 majority if he’d included the things Kav included.
 
Picton said:
Think about it this way: there’s a reason Kav’s concurrence was just a concurrence, rather than the actual opinion.

Thomas wanted five other votes, and his opinion was written so that the majority could approve it unanimously. For whatever reason (maybe it’s precisely the thing you’re highlighting), Thomas didn‘t seem to think he’d get his 6-3 majority if he’d included the things Kav included.
Click to expand...
Or he did, but didn't get the votes and revised, leaving Kdog for clean up. It doesn't seem like the sort of thing that would get hung up though, especially when the more devestating, enduring and impactful two step process WAS agreed to.
 
Bladerunner said:
Or he did, but didn't get the votes and revised, leaving Kdog for clean up. It doesn't seem like the sort of thing that would get hung up though, especially when the more devestating, enduring and impactful two step process WAS agreed to.
Click to expand...
I mean, who knows? We’re all speculating. The point is that what’s a bug in your eyes might actually be a feature, when you take the whole decision into account.
 
Mesatchornug said:
.....Now you have NY making it clear that they'll do everything they can to infringe until they're forced to stop.
Click to expand...
Legal layman and not too familiar with U.S. law, so pls bear with me if my question is naive:
Can the U.S.S.C. hold these States in contempt of court and lock up the Governors until remedy?
 
Great news ! Looks like Jason Guida is working with COMM2a and they got back to me just got off the phone with me he said he talked to the chief in Medford and he said they aren't denying anyone to remove restrictions i immediately told him that's a lie but he told me he should get me a response on my restrictions being removed in the next 24 -48 hours as he is in close contact with the chief and he said it should be as easy as a phone call with medford for them to remove my restrictions ! MY FAITH HAS RENEWED !

MEDFORD AND BROOKLINE IS GOING DOWN !
 
DungeBerry63 said:
Great news ! Looks like Jason Guida is working with COMM2a and they got back to me just got off the phone with me he said he talked to the chief in Medford and he said they aren't denying anyone to remove restrictions i immediately told him that's a lie but he told me he should get me a response on my restrictions being removed in the next 24 -48 hours as he is in close contact with the chief and he said it should be as easy as a phone call with medford for them to remove my restrictions ! MY FAITH HAS RENEWED !

MEDFORD AND BROOKLINE IS GOING DOWN !
Click to expand...
Background work is not always publicly discussed, however, that does not mean Comm2a is not all over this like a cheap suit. Jason Guida is an excellent attorney and probably the #1 in the state when it comes to "process issues" regarding firearms licensing.

ps: It's "Are going down", not "Is"
 
DungeBerry63 said:
Great news ! Looks like Jason Guida is working with COMM2a and they got back to me just got off the phone with me he said he talked to the chief in Medford and he said they aren't denying anyone to remove restrictions i immediately told him that's a lie but he told me he should get me a response on my restrictions being removed in the next 24 -48 hours as he is in close contact with the chief and he said it should be as easy as a phone call with medford for them to remove my restrictions ! MY FAITH HAS RENEWED !

MEDFORD AND BROOKLINE IS GOING DOWN !
Click to expand...
I hope Boston does too…
 
DungeBerry63 said:
Great news ! Looks like Jason Guida is working with COMM2a and they got back to me just got off the phone with me he said he talked to the chief in Medford and he said they aren't denying anyone to remove restrictions i immediately told him that's a lie but he told me he should get me a response on my restrictions being removed in the next 24 -48 hours as he is in close contact with the chief and he said it should be as easy as a phone call with medford for them to remove my restrictions ! MY FAITH HAS RENEWED !

MEDFORD AND BROOKLINE IS GOING DOWN !
Click to expand...
And your gift to Com2A is being processed as you post, right?
 
Rob Boudrie said:
Background work is not always publicly discussed, however, that does not mean Comm2a is not all over this like a cheap suit. Jason Guida is an excellent attorney and probably the #1 in the state when it comes to "process issues" regarding firearms licensing.

ps: It's "Are going down", not "Is"
Click to expand...
Apologies English is not my first language thanks for the Help ! and Guida told me he is all over it and i will get a call back from him and Medford shortly
 

Similar threads

Garland v. VanDerStok
Replies
0
Views
114
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
117
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