Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

Garys said:
I seem to remember it happening somewhere and that was the exact reaction.
Click to expand...

I'm very critical of the modern "shoot first" cop culture, both on NES and in real life, but I'm pragmatic enough to admit that pointing anything at a cop is likely to get you shot, and rightly so. I don't expect police officers to wait all that long to shoot if they're justifiably in fear for their lives, and I know enough about perception (and cerakote!) to not blame them too much if whatever's being pointed at them is even slightly gun-like. Even if it's bright orange.
 
Picton said:
I'm very critical of the modern "shoot first" cop culture, both on NES and in real life, but I'm pragmatic enough to admit that pointing anything at a cop is likely to get you shot, and rightly so. I don't expect police officers to wait all that long to shoot if they're justifiably in fear for their lives, and I know enough about perception (and cerakote!) to not blame them too much if whatever's being pointed at them is even slightly gun-like. Even if it's bright orange.
Click to expand...
what would of happened to you and I in the Balkans if we shot a kid with an orange painted toy gun?

Because I know where I would of been. That little prison in Germany.
 
Picton said:
I'm very critical of the modern "shoot first" cop culture, both on NES and in real life, but I'm pragmatic enough to admit that pointing anything at a cop is likely to get you shot, and rightly so. I don't expect police officers to wait all that long to shoot if they're justifiably in fear for their lives, and I know enough about perception (and cerakote!) to not blame them too much if whatever's being pointed at them is even slightly gun-like. Even if it's bright orange.
Click to expand...

Yeah...I don't think getting shot for pointing your finger at a cop is anywhere close to being right.

It's one thing when people point realistic looking toy/bb/pellet guns and get shot. But someone with a bright orange plastic water gun that doesn't look anything like a real gun, I'm sorry. You better have some significant reason to believe it's real. People complaining they got wet doesn't exactly support that.
 
Bonesinium said:
Yeah...I don't think getting shot for pointing your finger at a cop is anywhere close to being right.

It's one thing when people point realistic looking toy/bb/pellet guns and get shot. But someone with a bright orange plastic water gun that doesn't look anything like a real gun, I'm sorry. You better have some significant reason to believe it's real. People complaining they got wet doesn't exactly support that.
Click to expand...
kids used to always greet us with fake weapons. And hell, given the amount of insane shit that was left where i was deployed since WWI, I have zero doubt a lot of those toy guns were real guns. Kids also regularly tried to take my weapons from me. From my M9 to my M16A4. Every week some little shit would try to take one as a gag or something.

Somehow we didn't hose any kids.

We had an incident near the capitol where the Swedes were spying on some local mafia types who were throwing a killer party. Swedes were hiding in brush about 400 meters away from the front of the house on a hillside. Some guy comes out in the middle of the party with an AK and dumps a mag. Celebratory gun fire. It just happen to be straight into the hill that the spys were in. The mafia guys had no idea. The swedes took a bunch of fire from that but they had enough of a brain not to take out the guy who just did it. Reason being that would just greatly complicate the delicate balance they had going on between the mafia, NATO forces, the UN and the local authorities. So, using the brains that they had they called it in and the Swedish QRF showed up and ended that party. All without killing anyone or shooting anyone. The US police? Are the enough magazines in the world to dump back into that house? [rofl] Remember what the Mass State Police did to that guys boat with an unarmed person hiding in it? [rofl]
 
Dench said:
kids used to always greet us with fake weapons. And hell, given the amount of insane shit that was left where i was deployed since WWI, I have zero doubt a lot of those toy guns were real guns. Kids also regularly tried to take my weapons from me. From my M9 to my M16A4. Every week some little shit would try to take one as a gag or something.

Somehow we didn't hose any kids.
Click to expand...

Well, sure, but you (and I) had ROE. And leadership. And we were working in a unit, among people who were generally kindly-disposed toward us. When I was over there, there was a whole lot of killing and death, but very little of it was directed at NATO. For all the murders, rapes, lawlessness, and arsons, we only took fire a handful of times; we were not generally the target, and we knew it.

Cops are operating with an entirely different mindset, and (unfortunately) a different set of legal protections. I'm not happy about any of that, and I've been vocal about that here. But in 2022, I think most reasonable people would agree that pointing gunlike objects at cops is an unwise choice to make.

It's certainly no reason to ban these water guns, or whatever they are.
 
Has this been posted yet?



Seems Nadler is AOK telling everyone that his AWB is designed to specifically ignore the last THREE SC rulings on guns. I think that's awesome. Honestly, I think the speed at which we are getting to a truer 2A is shocking. I thought this might take years. The Democrat doubling-down on stupid is going to severely accelerate this process.
 
Dennis in MA said:
Has this been posted yet?



Seems Nadler is AOK telling everyone that his AWB is designed to specifically ignore the last THREE SC rulings on guns. I think that's awesome. Honestly, I think the speed at which we are getting to a truer 2A is shocking. I thought this might take years. The Democrat doubling-down on stupid is going to severely accelerate this process.
Click to expand...

And that is why the. Senate should let it go through on a party line vote.
They are doing everything they can to torpedo it while still passing it so they can say they did something but republicans love guns more than children.
Pass it, have slow Joe sign it and SCOTUS immediately toss it out along with all of the state level bans in one fell swoop
 
Dench said:
that's no guarantee.
Click to expand...
Caetano v. Massachusetts
Read the first line of the Per Curiam

They will strike it down unless they are to reverse course on Heller after not only affirming it in Bruen but strengthening their position that "the second amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" by imposing a stricter than strict scrutiny standard.
 
pastera said:
Caetano v. Massachusetts
Read the first line of the Per Curiam

They will strike it down unless they are to reverse course on Heller after not only affirming it in Bruen but strengthening their position that "the second amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" by imposing a stricter than strict scrutiny standard.
Click to expand...
Heller goes ignored regularly. So what's to say Caetano wont?
 
pastera said:
Look up Ramirez v. Commonwealth
Click to expand...
You're right. You win.

Which is why using Miller I am off to buy a M240. I will tell the clerk that pastera, the stun gun case law guy sent me! [rofl]

Go to 4seasons and tell them you, the stun gun case law guy, is evoking McDonald/Hellers common use clause to buy an AR15. they will no doubt sell you one immediately!


SCOTUS is a joke and the case law is ignored. A lot.
 
Dench said:
You're right. You win.

Which is why using Miller I am off to buy a M240. I will tell the clerk that pastera, the stun gun case law guy sent me! [rofl]

Go to 4seasons and tell them you, the stun gun case law guy, is evoking McDonald/Hellers common use clause to buy an AR15. they will no doubt sell you one immediately!


SCOTUS is a joke and the case law is ignored. A lot.
Click to expand...
So let's go over what has
Heller -> right to self defense in the home but doesn't apply a definite scrutiny. Nor does it properly define what arms are covered.
McDonald -> incorporates 2A as applicable to the states.still fails to define scrutiny or define arms.
Caetano -> emphasizes that ALL bearable arms in common use are covered regardless of time of development.
Bruen -> established 2a exists outside the home and sets a bar that is vey hard to overcome for infringement.

Currently there isn't a lot of room for a court to maneuver around Bruen's scrutiny.

But try embarrassing me instead of refuting my actual arguments.
Yes, if you walk into a gun shop today you're not leaving with an M249 simply because that's not where this shit happens and you know it so stop posting bull shit. If my logic is wrong, refute my position with actual case law
 
pastera said:
So let's go over what has
Heller -> right to self defense in the home but doesn't apply a definite scrutiny. Nor does it properly define what arms are covered.
McDonald -> incorporates 2A as applicable to the states.still fails to define scrutiny or define arms.
Caetano -> emphasizes that ALL bearable arms in common use are covered regardless of time of development.
Bruen -> established 2a exists outside the home and sets a bar that is vey hard to overcome for infringement.

Currently there isn't a lot of room for a court to maneuver around Bruen's scrutiny.

But try embarrassing me instead of refuting my actual arguments.
Yes, if you walk into a gun shop today you're not leaving with an M249 simply because that's not where this shit happens and you know it so stop posting bull shit. If my logic is wrong, refute my position with actual case law
Click to expand...
I am in no way trying to embarass you.

I'm saying SCOTUS is a joke. You know way more about SCOTUS than I do. And after you explained that very well above (and I mean it) I think even less of SCOTUS. What a f***ing complete waste of time these people are.

All 4 of those cases are obvious under the 2A and all 4 should be able to be covered under a single ruling. But since SCOTUS is full of hack frauds they can't seem to flush out what "shall not be infringed" means. My argument is simple: SCOTUS is the (a?) enemy. If you want to defend SCOTUS.... you're a brave man.

I also said I was going to buy a M240, not a M249. [rofl] Why did you leave out Miller, btw? I want my 240.
 
SCOTUS can only answer the very specific question before then so sweeping change is hard and not something they normally do. They aren't a joke, they are, properly, limited in how they operate.

As far as M240 versus M249, it was a typo but I can't afford to feed a 249 never mind a 240 so it works out.
If you get your 240, can I try it out?
 
"I'm saying SCOTUS is a joke. You know way more about SCOTUS than I do. And after you explained that very well above (and I mean it) I think even less of SCOTUS. What a f***ing complete waste of time these people are.

All 4 of those cases are obvious under the 2A and all 4 should be able to be covered under a single ruling. But since SCOTUS is full of hack frauds they can't seem to flush out what "shall not be infringed" means. My argument is simple: SCOTUS is the (a?) enemy. If you want to defend SCOTUS.... you're a brave man.

I also said I was going to buy a M240, not a M249. [rofl] Why did you leave out Miller, btw? I want my 240."

I want a full auto M249, M240B is way too heavy and ammo much more expensive. [rockon] I'm too old to hump a M240B but I could manage a M249 for a few miles. Also you can feed it with 30rd mags.
 
pastera said:
SCOTUS can only answer the very specific question before then so sweeping change is hard and not something they normally do. They aren't a joke, they are, properly, limited in how they operate.

As far as M240 versus M249, it was a typo but I can't afford to feed a 249 never mind a 240 so it works out.
If you get your 240, can I try it out?
Click to expand...

Yes for sure.

But back to legal land, which I believe you know enough to make you worth asking, what exactly went wrong with Miller?

Miller is technically an anti gun case against short barreled shotguns, right? But, it does that by saying SBS's arent covered because the military at the time wasnt using them? So they arent covered by the 2A? is that right? If not, please correct.

Using my above understanding, how is shit like the 86' ban a thing?

I guess having the NFA loom over class III stuff could be legally defendable, but how can an outright stop to new sales be legal? What am I missing?
 
Dench said:
I don't know why you'd think I'd be interested in such an abomination, but I clearly did something wrong along the way.

For that, I'm sorry.
Click to expand...
It's like a bigger heavier Kimber. The MA compliant 10 round capacity box magazine gives you the emasculation experience without the irreversible medical procedure.
 
Waher said:
It's like a bigger heavier Kimber. The MA compliant 10 round capacity box magazine gives you the emasculation experience without the irreversible medical procedure.
Click to expand...
People who put box magazines into a SAW should become federally prohibited from owning a firearm and confined to prison.
 
Short story - Gov knew they had overstepped with the NFA.
A district court found the NFA unconstitutional knowing that miller would never show up nor pay a lawyer to argue the case for him. So the case went to the SC without opposition to the government's side. The SCOTUS should have tossed the case but took it in order to forward a political position.
Every court since knows that the opinion is bullshit but until the current court not a single one had the guts to even come close to the case.
The only part of the NFA that can be upheld under current case law is the revenue generation but given Thomas's footnotes the cost of a tax stamp would likely be limited if they tried to raise it to inflation adjusted amounts instead of the current $200.
And then that would likely create a division on taxing a right since voter ID is shut down as a poll tax. This part will take decades to filter up and is not a slam dunk

The Peculiar Story of United States v. Miller

On April 18, 1938, the Arkansas and Oklahoma state police stopped Jack Miller and Frank Layton, two washed-up Oklahoma bank robbers. Miller and Layton had an unregistered sawed-off shotgun, so the police arrested them for violating the National Firearms Act (“NFA”). Surprisingly, the district...
uknowledge.uky.edu uknowledge.uky.edu
 
Boghog1 said:
I would love to see the Hughes ammendment overturned
Click to expand...
Before the 1934 NFA machine guns were in common use.
There are no historical laws similar to NFA contemporary with the 2nd or 14th therefore it would be unlikely to survive a reasoned unbiased review under Bruen.

What is likely to be upheld is the tax stamps (like the Pittman Robertson act)

But the catch is getting an unbiased review
 
pastera said:
Before the 1934 NFA machine guns were in common use.
There are no historical laws similar to NFA contemporary with the 2nd or 14th therefore it would be unlikely to survive a reasoned unbiased review under Bruen.

What is likely to be upheld is the tax stamps (like the Pittman Robertson act)

But the catch is getting an unbiased review
Click to expand...
Did the recent CCW case address fees? Example a license fee, or a required class (that costs money) etc?


As for SCOTUS and that case (MGs) I can't imagine them having the stones to hear it. It would be political suicide for them and a hill not a single one of them would want to die on.
 

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
103
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
454
Mark from ?
M
Back
Top Bottom