Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

T-Unit said:
Because unlike simple ownership of a gun in the home, "reasonable restrictions" on carrying a gun outside it opens up a huge can of worms. What's a reasonable reason to deny someone a carry license/permit? That they don't know how to shoot accurately? Great, now EVERYONE has to spend 50 hours of classroom instruction and pass an annual range qualification of hitting a quarter... make that a dime at 50 yards 100 times in a row. Any misses and you fail the qualification and you are denied the permit.

This is how Democrats operate. Unless SCOTUS says that unless a person is otherwise barred from owning a gun under state/federal law, the state cannot deny you a license to carry.

SCOTUS isn't going to make that ruling because it's not narrow enough, they'll say states can't deny you for no reason and the states will take that and make up ridiculous standards that nobody would be able to pass and few would be able to afford to pay for. They will be shall issue states in name only.
Click to expand...
Ok, but same result as reasonable restrictions, i.e. a mechanic by which states can deny your ability to bear arms outside the home. SCOTUS is always narrow, just like in Heller, which is why we have so much BS to this day.
 
My fear echoes something I read elsewhere. Roberts will jump in with the Originalists to write a majority opinion. In such, he'll narrow the ruling to the point of being next to useless. Time to make some offerings to Saint Wick.

Saint Wick.jpg
 
Last edited:
If, as others have said in this thread, SCOTUS decides it's states right in the matter I can see Maura using this to her advantage to ban carry altogether knowing that SCOTUS allows the state to decide like NY.
 
watchman said:
If, as others have said in this thread, SCOTUS decides it's states right in the matter I can see Maura using this to her advantage to ban carry altogether knowing that SCOTUS allows the state to decide like NY.
Click to expand...
Funny that OC (Ordinaries Carrying) has never really been on the radar screen in MA, partially because it's not generally understood outside those who deal with the system and partially because it is subject to personal approval by a licensing official. Plus, there is the issue of what would replace it - the powerful and connected will not tolerate having the carry right/priv/whatever you call it taken away from them, just at NYC has the safety valve of "permits for people with enough juice to change the system".

I hope the SCOTUS briefings go into the manner in which "need" is applied to create class divisions; is inherently racist; and that the danger one faces from fame is somehow more important than the danger one faces from living in a crime infested neighborhood and getting a reputation for calling the police on drug dealers.
 
watchman said:
If, as others have said in this thread, SCOTUS decides it's states right in the matter I can see Maura using this to her advantage to ban carry altogether knowing that SCOTUS allows the state to decide like NY.
Click to expand...
I mean, she could practically do that now, but the reason it's not done is because they don't want to feed an easy and obvious case to SCOTUS to be overturned.

This 2A case is really a wolf in sheep's clothing, it's going to do far more harm than good I'm afraid.
 
T-Unit said:
I mean, she could practically do that now, but the reason it's not done is because they don't want to feed an easy and obvious case to SCOTUS to be overturned.

This 2A case is really a wolf in sheep's clothing, it's going to do far more harm than good I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

"Frequently an issue of this sort will come before the Court clad, so to speak, in sheep’s clothing: the potential of the asserted principle to effect important change in the equilibrium of power is not immediately evident, and must be discerned by a careful and perceptive analysis. But this wolf comes as a wolf. "
 
Last edited:
Bladerunner said:
State law cannot contravene the Constitution. Heller already paves the way for this decision.

This will be a no brainer as the historical roots of 2A were built upon self defense outside of the home. Heller did not require some arbitrary test of need and neither will this case.

I'm buying some gunz today in anticipation of the moonbat meltdown party when the entire concept of "May Issue" is eviscerated and finally destroyed.
Click to expand...
Someone should tell the mAss AG
 
Waher said:

View: https://twitter.com/CamEdwards/status/1386760713629220865

View: https://twitter.com/CamEdwards/status/1386796155514892291

And of the 42 Shall Issue states 20 are now Constitutional Carry. So if SCOTUS wanted to not do something too controversial they'd strike down May Issue and not touch anything else.


View: https://twitter.com/StephenGutowski/status/1386817456056963072
Click to expand...

Best comment.

chris sullivan

@navillus126
·
53m


DC is Shall Issue with a big frigging asterisk- $75 fee for a license good for just 2 years. Plus ~$300 for training, $35 for fingerprinting, $13 for gun registration. Not to mention the huge list of DC concealed carry no-go zones- the city is literally a 2A legal minefield.
 
Even the lady who reads the news on WTAG was saying it like it was a done deal that it will open up gun rights across the country.
 
SCOTUS will uphold all commie unconstitutional restrictions. Remember, Roberts (or someone) had said that he believes that the job of the court is to find a way to uphold the laws that are passed. Which completely flies in the face of checks and balances and out foundation as a nation.

Sorry, but I have zero confidence in our court system after this past excuse for an election
 
Picton said:
Which is exactly the kind of attitude that gives me pause.

I think and hope she's right, but pedal down in the meantime anyway.
Click to expand...
Because the lying media keeps saying that it's a 6-3 conservative court, they think it is a done deal and it really isn't. SCOTUS hasn't touched possession of firearms outside the the home and they could easily uphold the status quo in the few states that have a may/no issue setup or they could make all those states shall issue, but it's feckless and means nothing because unless it's like shall issue states where all you do is pay a fee and get your prints taken and background check done and you get a permit, these may issue states in the Northeast, California, and Hawaii are all going to pull shenanigans. They'll let you pay the fees to get the permit, but only if you pay in Confederate Dollars or thru 1000 hours of community service.

That's what the Left is, that's how they play.

Honestly, the best ruling SCOTUS could give is that so long as one is not prohibited from owning a firearm, they cannot be denied from carrying that same firearm outside the home for ANY reason and since that is a right it cannot be taxed or require individuals to pay a fee to exercise a right.

Basically, it would tell the states "Yeah, you can still require people to go thru a background check and have their photo taken every few years, but you can't make them take classroom training or range qualifications (because we know how you POS Democrats play) or charge them for seeking to obtain a carry permit." Most states aren't going to burn money, so it would effectively turn all states into permitless carry states.

The likely outcome is SCOTUS will say may issue states have to become shall issue states, but will leave it up to them as to what reasons one should be disqualified from receiving the carry license. Most of these states already have laws on the books regarding what you have to do to qualify, such as shooting at a target at 25 yards and getting a certain score, but you'll see a mad dash to move the target back to 1000 yards and the person taking the test will have to get a perfect score with a minimum of 1000 rounds fired, all the ammunition shot will have to be provided by the person seeking to obtain the license to carry.
 
Last edited:
Horrible said:
SCOTUS will uphold all commie unconstitutional restrictions. Remember, Roberts (or someone) had said that he believes that the job of the court is to find a way to uphold the laws that are passed. Which completely flies in the face of checks and balances and out foundation as a nation.

Sorry, but I have zero confidence in our court system after this past excuse for an election
Click to expand...
That is 100% wrong him, not you. The purpose of the court is to uphold the constitution. It's not that hard to understand this.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

f*** Rosenberg and his stupid ass comment about the 2A. It's meant for the national guard? The militia is us WE the PEOPLE ! not some reserve branch of armed government.
Show me where it states that in this.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Stan should not be in office, he does not believe in the constitution, and only mentions it when it's convenient, for his or others gains.
 
crispnipz said:
Okay big brains, give it to me straight. Does a favorable ruling have any chance at forcing MA's hand with regard to restrictions?

Me waiting to renew my restricted LTC:
Click to expand...
Probably not. If SCOTUS were to rule that states had to issue, but could still have a permit/license system, MA and everyone else would just make impossible standards. I've heard about the "old days" in Boston, when city residents had to go to Moon Island. And use a department owned revolver. So, think older/handicapped. "You have to shoot this .38 revolver, in double action, and hit the target "x" times. When I was first learning to shoot I thought it would be easy. Wow, was I wrong. .38 DA police revolver, and I missed a lot. So, if a new shooter tried to pass, but only had access to limited training/practice to start... Just look at how long it takes to get an LTC/renewal now. Even in NH, where licenses are supposed to be issued within 14 days, 2x the cities I've lived in have gone over. Even if I found someone to sue, how much longer would that take? See where I'm going with this?
 
T-Unit said:
Because the lying media keeps saying that it's a 6-3 conservative court, they think it is a done deal and it really isn't. SCOTUS hasn't touched possession of firearms outside the the home...
Click to expand...

This is untrue, and was a fundamental reason why Dred Scott lost his case as detailed by Chief Justice Taney in his decision- that is, the ruling that codified, in spirit if not in law, the underlying basis of all gun control in this country.

What was true at the ratification of the Constitution in 1788 was true in 1857- that citizens were recognized as having the right to bear arms in any and all circumstances in public; hence the ruling that Africans were not intended for citizenship by the Constitution, because, to paraphrase Taney and six other Democrat Justices- we just can't have negroes strapped on the thoroughfares like the rest of the population.

It's time that anti-2A supporters be reminded of this fact, and this may be the case to actually cut it loose. Either citizens are just that, and their rights are acknowledged by their government- from one end of this nation to the other, or it's time the charade ends.
 
Wooderson said:
This is untrue, and was a fundamental reason why Dred Scott lost his case as detailed by Chief Justice Taney in his decision- that is, the ruling that codified, in spirit if not in law, the underlying basis of all gun control in this country.

What was true at the ratification of the Constitution in 1788 was true in 1857- that citizens were recognized as having the right to bear arms in any and all circumstances in public; hence the ruling that Africans were not intended for citizenship by the Constitution, because, to paraphrase Taney and six other Democrat Justices- we just can't have negroes strapped on the thoroughfares like the rest of the population.

It's time that anti-2A supporters be reminded of this fact, and this may be the case to actually cut it loose. Either citizens are just that, and their rights are acknowledged by their government- from one end of this nation to the other, or it's time the charade ends.
Click to expand...
I agree and do you notice whenever there's some big news of a Black man with a gun and he dies or kills someone it gets memory holed, but if there's a White man with a gun that shoots someone or dies while carrying a gun it's a national tragedy and flags get lowered to half staff?

I don't want to say the secret conspiracy among Anti's is they're against 2A just to keep Blacks unarmed, but the roots of it do indeed go back to freed slaves.

The biggest mistake the US made was the Democrat party wasn't abolished after the Civil War. They're like a phoenix in no matter how many times you kill it, it just comes back to life.
 
The SCOTUS by taking this case is saying they believe there is a Constitutional issue at hand. When one starts to think about the abridgment of Constitutional rights, it isn't something that is taken lightly. If they focus on the question of need, which they have not stated, how could that possibly be consistent with the Bill of Rights? Now our rights are need based?

And for those that think this is States' rights issue that doesn't fly when it comes to the Bill of Rights.

The issue will be more about whether 2A covers concealed carry, and if it does then what prerequisites are acceptable to impose on individuals that are allowable under 2A? This is a complex one.

Wish we still had Scalia to weigh in on this one.
.
 
A quote from Coumo the elderly killer from the WSJ, "Imagine somebody carrying a gun thru Times Sq., onto a subway or to a tailgate outside a Bill's game. The streets of NY are not the OK Corral and the NRA's dreams of a society armed to the teeth is abhorrent to our views." I guess Fredo's big brother hasn't been paying attention to the crime wave in NYC and other Dem controlled big cities? What a tool and hypocrite, typical Dem thou.
 
The passage below from Heller will always haunt the 2A. At least for CCW, it would seem that licensing and qualifications would be permitted. In other words, there should be guaranteed a right to possess for any reason, and a right to open carry, but not necessarily a right to concealed carry w/o qualifications. That is what worries me from the literal language below, even though arguably what is the difference between unfettered open carry but requiring certain qualifications to conceal carry. Additionally, the first sentence is wide open, though the court was saying that it was not going into an analysis of all those other cases so who knows what is in them and what the courts permitted in terms of limitations on 2A. The concealed carry issue is just an example. Maybe the other court cases dealt with felons and the mentally ill.

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
 
LittleCalm said:
The passage below from Heller will always haunt the 2A. At least for CCW, it would seem that licensing and qualifications would be permitted. In other words, there should be guaranteed a right to possess for any reason, and a right to open carry, but not necessarily a right to concealed carry w/o qualifications. That is what worries me from the literal language below, even though arguably what is the difference between unfettered open carry but requiring certain qualifications to conceal carry. Additionally, the first sentence is wide open, though the court was saying that it was not going into an analysis of all those other cases so who knows what is in them and what the courts permitted in terms of limitations on 2A. The concealed carry issue is just an example. Maybe the other court cases dealt with felons and the mentally ill.

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
Click to expand...
You might want to read more decisions to get a better feel for what's being said here. The entire paragraph is basically exposition. Taken literally, it's no more damning than Justice Holmes in Schenck v. United States - Wikipedia even though folks are unfortunately misquoting his "errant passage" in much the same way.
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.
Click to expand...

His point is simply that historically we have forgiven certain restrictions. If that's true, it's not unreasonable to allow that there exist certain acceptable restrictions. Further, it isn't the job of the Court to revisit and retry the whole of history; they are only charged with reviewing this one case, and the specific question it presents.
 

Similar threads

Garland v. VanDerStok
Replies
0
Views
113
lutstribe
L
Supreme Court decision on rifle bans
Replies
9
Views
738
Tartakovsky
Tartakovsky
Supreme Court ending permits
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
Worcester State Court Gun Policy
Replies
12
Views
453
Mark from ?
M
Is it time yet for a "Why is there even a dealer classifieds" Megathread?
Replies
12
Views
266
Individualist
Individualist
Back
Top Bottom