Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

Coyote33 said:
I thought I read on here somewhere the SC does not have the ability to "smack down" or do much else here; ie: enforcement is someone else's business. No?
Click to expand...

Rule of Law still applies.

Again, go back to Civil Rights era. 1958 or so - SC ruling. 1974, Boston STILL not compliant. And no troops sent in from 59-74. WTF????

You gotta fight. And some dolts are gonna fight back. F that. Take a longer look than your rights in the next 8 minutes. Look at this as a battle for the future - FU-TURE - of this country. I'm never thinking about me. Honestly, having access to A or B is not a make-or-break to me. Sure it would be nice to have X gun or Y magazine, but I don't NEED them. What I need is sufficient. I suspect most here are in the same boat.

So we are fighting for the iron-clad future of our country. For our children and grandchildren. When you look at it that way, the kvetching in MA,CA,NY is a hiccup in the battle. It's a last gasp. That gasp might last 10 years in some cases. Let it. They are doomed and everyone knows it. Except those moronic yentas on daView.
 
pastera said:
The issue is that the decision will be a California district court opinion which has effectively zero influence.
California will be smart to let the AWB go down and not appeal the loss.
However, if they do appeal then game on...
Click to expand...
There is zero chance they don't appeal a loss. These people are idiots. It's all virtue signalling bullshit, commie Kabuki theater with the sole purpose of keeping the facade of authority ever present. They will fight to the bitter end and even in the face of the inevitable excorciating loss, they will claim victory.
 
Last edited:
firearmslaw.duke.edu

History in Practice: How Have Lower Courts Applied Bruen So Far?

firearmslaw.duke.edu firearmslaw.duke.edu

Some wins to date. As expected CA plays games, denying a former Marine Sergeant, thereafter a Corrections Officer, to become a Deputy Sherriff due to a metal heath treatment detention when 13 years of age. This a poster-child case, if I ever saw one.

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00089/pdf/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00089-2.pdf

"In 2001, plaintiff was in eighth grade at Mt. Vernon Middle School in Los Angeles, California. (Id.) He was thirteen years old at the time. (Id.) Because plaintiff’s mother had passed away and he never knew his father, plaintiff then lived with his grandmother. (Id. at ¶ 14.) His grandmother’s husband––plaintiff’s step-grandfather––was physically and mentally abusive toward both plaintiff and his grandmother. (Id.) One day in June of 2001, while at an afterschool program, plaintiff made comments about “what he would like to do toward his stepgrandfather in order to protect himself and his grandmother.” (Id. at ¶ 15.) Plaintiff never directly threatened anyone nor took any action to harm his step-grandfather. (Id. at ¶ 16.) Nevertheless, the school called a Psychiatric Emergency Team (“PET”), which consisted of licensed mental health clinicians approved by the County of Los Angeles Department of Mental Health to provide Welfare and Institutions Code §§ 5150 and 5585 evaluations. (Id. at ¶ 18.) Upon evaluation by the PET, plaintiff was hospitalized for mental health treatment at Gateways Hospital and Mental Health Center in Los Angeles, California for 15 days––from June 12 through June 27, 2001. (Id. at ¶ 19.) Although plaintiff was initially hospitalized for only 72 hours pursuant to § 5150, his hospitalization was extended by 14 days for intensive treatment pursuant to § 5250. (Id. at ¶¶ 18, 19, 35.) Upon his release from the hospital, plaintiff was not prescribed any continuing medication, nor was he required to receive any further psychiatric treatment, including therapy or counselling. (Id. at ¶ 21.) Plaintiff alleges that he was never notified of his right to seek judicial review of an involuntary hold and that he was never informed of any long-term repercussions as a result of his psychiatric hold. (Id. at ¶ 20.) Nevertheless, plaintiff lost his private capacity to own a firearm as a result of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), which prohibits an individual who has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution from owning, possessing, using, or purchasing a firearm or ammunition. (Id. at ¶ 22.) Notably, 18 U.S.C. § 925(a)(1) provides an exception to this firearms ban under federal law for state actors acting in their official capacity. Plaintiff went on to graduate from high school and enlist in the United States Marine Corps in 2005. (Id. at ¶ 27.) Under § 925(a)(1), plaintiff was permitted to handle a firearm during his time with the marines. (Id.) Plaintiff completed three combat deployments before leaving active duty in 2013 and received an Honorable Discharge as a Sergeant. (Id.) Subsequently, plaintiff was hired by the Federal Bureau of Prisons as a corrections officer in 2015. (Id. at ¶ 28.) He remained in that position until April 2019, when he resigned in good standing. (Id.) Plaintiff is informed and believes that both his service in the marines and his employment as a federal correctional officer required a complete background investigation that would have revealed his past hospitalization. (Id.) employment as a federal correctional officer required a complete background investigation that would have revealed his past hospitalization. (Id.) On April 8, 2019, the Fresno County Sheriff’s Office hired plaintiff as a correctional officer at the Fresno County Jail. (Id.) Prior to being hired in this role, plaintiff underwent and passed a full psychological evaluation that confirmed he is mentally fit to possess and use a firearm. (Id. at ¶ 31.) Then, in 2020, plaintiff applied for a “Deputy Sheriff I” position in the Fresno County Sheriff’s Office. (Id. at ¶ 32.) This time, when Fresno County ran a background check, the California Department of Justice statewide telecommunications system reported plaintiff’s prior hospitalization implicating his lifetime firearms ban under federal law. (Id.) As a result of plaintiff’s federal firearms restriction, the Fresno County Sheriff’s Office declined to sponsor plaintiff’s entry into the “Basic Academy under the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training” (i.e., “POST Academy”) and represented that it will not consider plaintiff for a sworn deputy sheriff position. (Id. at ¶ 33.) Thus, although 18 U.S.C. § 925(a) provides an exception to the firearms ban under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) for state or federal actors operating in their official capacity, Fresno County has declined to seek to apply that exception to plaintiff."
 
Bladerunner said:
There is zero chance they don't appeal a loss. These people are idiots. It's all virtue signalling bullshit, commie Kabuki theater with the sole purpose of keeping the facade of authority ever present. They willf fight to the bitter end and even in the face of an excorciating loss, they will claim victory.
Click to expand...
If they appeal it's better for everyone
Their law cannot rise above a history, text and tradition bar so the higher they push this the more ban states are impacted.
 
pastera said:
It's better for us that they push harder.
If they push it back to SCOTUS then all AWBs get struck down and the bar for infringement gets moved up another notch.
Click to expand...
It's kinda funny the level of dumb chess moves they keep making, but i hope they keep going full retard, because every time they do we end up reaping the benefit.

Some antis were smarter than this (like the ones that were telling NJ and NY to punt on unlawful possession cases to avoid the sympathetic plaintiff getting teed up for a supreme court case) but it would appear that the rest of the antis that actually are the shot callers are not listening to them at all. [rofl]
 
drgrant said:
It's kinda funny the level of dumb chess moves they keep making, but i hope they keep going full retard, because every time they do we end up reaping the benefit.

Some antis were smarter than this (like the ones that were telling NJ and NY to punt on unlawful possession cases to avoid the sympathetic plaintiff getting teed up for a supreme court case) but it would appear that the rest of the antis that actually are the shot callers are not listening to them at all. [rofl]
Click to expand...
The way they keep making these plays, it feels like they're going to be all "Miller shows NFA meets 'History and Tradition,' so nyaah" to which SCOTUS will say "we took your argument under advisement; Miller was based on factual misunderstanding; the NFA is unconstitutional - Merry Christmas."
iu
 
pastera said:
One would think that NY learned its lesson when it mooted the carry between homes/ranges to get out of a unfavorable opinion but they jumped the shark with Bruen.
Now California is telling everyone to hold their beer
Click to expand...
NYSRPA v. NYC was pretty blatant and should have been destroyed even with a liberal court. NY mooted it to keep their peepees from being slapped. The Sullivan Act is kind of a different animal, not so easy for them to weasel out of by rewriting the law.

This is why they're throwing such a temper tantrum about it now.
 
Goliathan said:
NYSRPA v. NYC was pretty blatant and should have been destroyed even with a liberal court. NY mooted it to keep their peepees from being slapped. The Sullivan Act is kind of a different animal, not so easy for them to weasel out of by rewriting the law.

This is why they're throwing such a temper tantrum about it now.
Click to expand...
Concur
However, had they treated it similar to the Massachusetts restrictions scheme it would have been much harder to bring down.
They were blatant with handing out licenses to the connected few but nothing at all for the unwashed masses.
A slightly less heavy handed approach likely would not have ended up with such a strong decision being handed down.
 
pastera said:
Concur
However, had they treated it similar to the Massachusetts restrictions scheme it would have been much harder to bring down.
They were blatant with handing out licenses to the connected few but nothing at all for the unwashed masses.
A slightly less heavy handed approach likely would not have ended up with such a strong decision being handed down.
Click to expand...
You are correct but they are such arrogant Leftists it's not in their nature to obey the Constitution or the Bill of Rights because they don't believe WE should have rights.
 
drgrant said:
It's kinda funny the level of dumb chess moves they keep making, but i hope they keep going full retard, because every time they do we end up reaping the benefit.
Click to expand...
Local news in the big cities seems to be crime scenes with police tape and cartridge markers, interviews with grieving family, etc. Very little coverage of local/state/federal legislative debate, other than the “how long will we tolerate the killing” newsbites. The hand-wringing anti-gunners sobbing on camera at local/state legislative meetings is poorly televised. Strong emotional appeals work on some but turn off others. I think the media figured that out.

Until the new gun laws pass, those that might think they lost something they shouldn’t have lost, appear clueless. After they pass, the limited turn-in/registration response to AW and mag bans is probably as much lack of knowledge or interest as it is a “come and take ‘em” attitude. Who knows they are a prohibited person on the NICS list and tries to buy a gun? Very few, I’ll bet.

When I worked in Target’s electronics department in the 70s as a HS kid, I’d occasionally have to mind the Intmate Apparel department next to electronics. I’d occasionally have to help find bra sizes for old ladies of no interest to a young lad, but never did a guy ask for assistance. People know that people know who they are - guys don’t buy bras at Target and criminals don’t buy guns at FFLs.

But when whole classes of people are told what they can/can’t have, because they can’t be trusted, that gets people riled up. Like masks and vaccinations.
 
Dennis in MA said:
Where the FRICK was a Target in the 70's??????

If you had said Zayres or Bradlees or Woolies, I could relate. LOL
Click to expand...
per Target Corporation - Wikipedia - The first Target discount store opened in Roseville, Minnesota, a suburb of Minneapolis–Saint Paul, on May 1, 1962.

So I'm going to go with "the Midwest"
 
Coyote33 said:
I CAN'T STAND watching this guy! His head moves around like a bobble-head doll. He is always squirming like he has ants in his pants. I just feel uncomfortable, even if he has something worthwhile to say, I can't stand it.
Click to expand...
Agreed, he’s a little bit too much of a geek for me. But maybe he’s the geek we need. FPC has done more for the second amendment than the NRA ever has.
 
Spartan65 said:
Agreed, he’s a little bit too much of a geek for me. But maybe he’s the geek we need. FPC has done more for the second amendment than the NRA ever has.
Click to expand...
I agree that FPC is the cat's meow for gun rights. I just wish they would get someone more watchable. If they ever change, please don't make it like this, a comedian, or a tough guy wanna be like the Black Rifle Coffee guys. Just a normal dude who speaks clearly.
 
Mesatchornug said:
per Target Corporation - Wikipedia - The first Target discount store opened in Roseville, Minnesota, a suburb of Minneapolis–Saint Paul, on May 1, 1962.

So I'm going to go with "the Midwest"
Click to expand...
Bettendorf, Iowa. If you picture the “nose” on Iowa, Bettendorf was the nostril. I moved there from Pittsburgh when I was just a little booger. The Mississippi flows East-to-West there. So, not a backwards place - just a perpendicular place.

Target was the bottom-end of big-box stores back then. I also worked the Notions department - stationary, candy, magazines, etc. I always managed to find a ripped Playboy or Hustler with a ripped cover when they came out for the boys and a torn bag of the hot girls’ favorite candy that had to be written off. Sure, I bought popularity - better used than abused.
 
Last edited:

Restoring the Right to Bear Arms: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen​

David B. Kopel, "Restoring the Right to Bear Arms: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen," 2021-22 Cato Supreme Court Review (Forthcoming Sept. 16, 2022)
20 Pages Posted: 6 Aug 2022

David B. Kopel​

Independence Institute; Denver University - Sturm College of Law; Cato Institute
Date Written: August 2, 2022

Abstract​

This article explains the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Under Bruen, a person applying for a concealed handgun carry permit need not prove some unique need, distinct from the general risk of crime.

Part I briefly summarizes the Supreme Court's treatment of the Second Amendment from the Miller case in 1939 to Heller in 2008 and McDonald in 2010.

Part II describes the Supreme Court's torpor in taking Second Amendment cases in 2011-21.

Part III explicates Bruen's legal standards of review for the Second Amendment, based on text, history, and tradition. Bruen's subrules show how the government may meet its burden of proof, the "how" and "why" of potential historical analogies, the relative importance of different historical periods, and permissible controls on bearing arms. Part III also discusses the three concurring opinions in Bruen, and the dissent.

Part IV looks at the post-Bruen legal landscape. First, how the six states directly affected by the case are responding. Second, at three cert. petitions that were granted, vacated, and remanded after Bruen--involving bans on magazines or on common firearms. Finally, the current gun control laws that are most likely and least likely to be successfully changed under Bruen's standards.

papers.ssrn.com

Restoring the Right to Bear Arms: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen

This article explains the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Under Bruen, a person applying for a conceale
papers.ssrn.com

A good thrashing of NY’s new gun laws towards the end.
 

Similar threads

Garland v. VanDerStok
Replies
0
Views
114
lutstribe
L
Supreme Court decision on rifle bans
Replies
9
Views
738
Tartakovsky
Tartakovsky
Circuit Court Judge Strikes Down Illinois FOID Card Requirement for Guns in the Home
Replies
1
Views
87
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