Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

[Dennis in MA]

These people are sick. Mentally sick and corrupted

Playin to the base. It is too risky to abandon gun control as a platform point. But doing so would GAIN them voters. There are some gun lovers who look and say, "You know, we SHOULD be doing more for social issues." They would gain those folks.

But they fear losing the rabid anti-gunners (of which there are fairly few) as if there was some place these RAG's would go. They ain't going to the GOP. LOL

The Democraps are tied to gun control just like the GOP is tied to moral high ground and religion. And both fear pissing the group off so they just play to that base even though it isn't what they want.

Except Sheldon Whitehouse. That man has the IQ of a banana.

 

[M1911]

...with a similar result.

Yeah. We may be playing whack-a-mole for a couple years.

 

[milktree]

Yeah. We may be playing whack-a-mole for a couple years.

So, wouldn't all this publicity, and multiple court rulings, make it clear that law enforcement was "put on notice" that they'd be violating our constitutional rights, and therefore ineligible for Qualified Immunity?

 

[Picton]

So, wouldn't all this publicity, and multiple court rulings, make it clear that law enforcement was "put on notice" that they'd be violating our constitutional rights, and therefore ineligible for Qualified Immunity?

In a perfect world? Absolutely.

But a perfect world is not what we've got.

 

[M1911]

So, wouldn't all this publicity, and multiple court rulings, make it clear that law enforcement was "put on notice" that they'd be violating our constitutional rights, and therefore ineligible for Qualified Immunity?

Not a lot of people have the wherewithal to pursue such a case. A fellow I know is a retired attorney who used to practice in a smaller city in MA. He ended up suing the police force after harassment from police officers. They had ample opportunity for retribution. For about a year, he repeatedly received bogus traffic tickets — they were dismissed by judges who knew what was going on. Suing a police department is not something to be taken lightly, particularly if you want to continue to live in that town.

 

[SFC13557]

I doubt that. The law will get smacked down. They may try passing another law that is more limited and roll the dice again.

What would be their motivation to cave and respect the Court's decision? They've already declared SCOTUS as illegitimate.

 

[milktree]

In a perfect world? Absolutely.

But a perfect world is not what we've got.

Not a lot of people have the wherewithal to pursue such a case. A fellow I know is a retired attorney who used to practice in a smaller city in MA. He ended up suing the police force after harassment from police officers. They had ample opportunity for retribution. For about a year, he repeatedly received bogus traffic tickets — they were dismissed by judges who knew what was going on. Suing a police department is not something to be taken lightly, particularly if you want to continue to live in that town.

Right, but there absolutely organizations that will sue .gov on the part of individuals to make a point, and to get .gov to stop doing what they're doing. IJ is one. I bet there's a bunch of gun-specific organizations that would take that case. It'd be a long one, but one that's difficult to lose given the facts.

 

[Dadstoys]

Whose to say they won't ignore the new case also?

I suspect it will get to arrests for deprivation of rights under color of law at some point .
How long that might be is anyone's guess.

 

[Dennis in MA]

What would be their motivation to cave and respect the Court's decision? They've already declared SCOTUS as illegitimate.

Eventually the Dems won't control everything on the Federal level. Could be as quick as January. FAAFO. "We're not recognizing this federal right." "We're not recognizing the need to fund your state's roads and schools and government and Medicaid and. . . . "

At some point, you get FORCED into compliance. Rule of Law DOES matter.

Besides, they won't do shit. This is all posturing. They'll wail and guh-nash their teefs. But they'll not attempt anything again. Because losing twice is just ugly. Better to line your pockets with campaign donations "on the blood of the innocent gangbangers who are killed" than lose another court fight.

 

[SFC13557]

Eventually the Dems won't control everything on the Federal level. Could be as quick as January. FAAFO. "We're not recognizing this federal right." "We're not recognizing the need to fund your state's roads and schools and government and Medicaid and. . . . "

At some point, you get FORCED into compliance. Rule of Law DOES matter.

Besides, they won't do shit. This is all posturing. They'll wail and guh-nash their teefs. But they'll not attempt anything again. Because losing twice is just ugly. Better to line your pockets with campaign donations "on the blood of the innocent gangbangers who are killed" than lose another court fight.

The Dems/leftists already control DC/the swamp. You're assuming if/when a Republican is elected President the swamp will obey his orders. How did that work out during the Trump Admin? The swamp/govt. spent 4 yrs trying to undermine the Trump Admin with phony accusations/impeachments to hamper his ability to govern. They attempted a non-violent coup, and largely succeeded, and sent a message to Conservatives that it's open season on you if you challenge their authority. Will the FBI, DOJ, US Marshalls obey President Trump/ DeSantis if he orders them to arrest NY/CA. State officials who defy SCOTUS or the Feds on firearm licenses, gun free zones, etc? The leftists have already declared they will disobey laws they don't agree with and respond with violence. What happens when a NY citizen is arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned for violating NY's new, restrictive firearm laws? I know, they get slapped down in Federal Court and they tell the Feds to F off, State's rights. The issue is WE believe in the rule of law and THEY don't unless it's a law THEY agree with and have declared that they will NOT OBEY.

 

[pastera]

What would be their motivation to cave and respect the Court's decision? They've already declared SCOTUS as illegitimate.

Once SCOTUS clearly defines a portion unconstitutional and they enforce it then qualified immunity can be pierced in federal court - no cop or DA wants to give up their life savings for the cause.

 

[pastera]

Eventually the Dems won't control everything on the Federal level. Could be as quick as January. FAAFO. "We're not recognizing this federal right." "We're not recognizing the need to fund your state's roads and schools and government and Medicaid and. . . . "

At some point, you get FORCED into compliance. Rule of Law DOES matter.

Besides, they won't do shit. This is all posturing. They'll wail and guh-nash their teefs. But they'll not attempt anything again. Because losing twice is just ugly. Better to line your pockets with campaign donations "on the blood of the innocent gangbangers who are killed" than lose another court fight.

And they risk losing the all of the extremely burdensome requirements if they push it too far.
The only requirements likely to survive a clear challenge for carry licensure would be a safety/basic legal training and a simple marksmanship test similar to Rhode Island (assuming the current makeup of SCOTUS)

 

[straightshooterjake]

The only requirements likely to survive a clear challenge for carry licensure would be a safety/basic legal training and a simple marksmanship test

I am not even sure a shooting test more than hit a full size silhouette at 5 yards will pass. Any more than that seems like discrimination against the disabled. And disabled people are especially vulnerable, and have real reasons to be concerned about their safety.

I am pretty sure that at least one state has found that legally blind people are still entitled to a concealed carry permit.

 

[Dennis in MA]

I think the FAAFO ideology of the current states of crazy (CA, MA, NY, etc.,) are going to cause the SC to push that boundary even further as to not let them "try and make up a new requirement."

I'm ready to get FAAFO tattooed on my chest at this point. LOL

 

[Dadstoys]

The Dems/leftists already control DC/the swamp. You're assuming if/when a Republican is elected President the swamp will obey his orders. How did that work out during the Trump Admin? The swamp/govt. spent 4 yrs trying to undermine the Trump Admin with phony accusations/impeachments to hamper his ability to govern. They attempted a non-violent coup, and largely succeeded, and sent a message to Conservatives that it's open season on you if you challenge their authority. Will the FBI, DOJ, US Marshalls obey President Trump/ DeSantis if he orders them to arrest NY/CA. State officials who defy SCOTUS or the Feds on firearm licenses, gun free zones, etc? The leftists have already declared they will disobey laws they don't agree with and respond with violence. What happens when a NY citizen is arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned for violating NY's new, restrictive firearm laws? I know, they get slapped down in Federal Court and they tell the Feds to F off, State's rights. The issue is WE believe in the rule of law and THEY don't unless it's a law THEY agree with and have declared that they will NOT OBEY.

That didn't work out too well in the south.
It will get there in time.

 

[Coyote33]

What would be their motivation to cave and respect the Court's decision? They've already declared SCOTUS as illegitimate.

Once SCOTUS clearly defines a portion unconstitutional and they enforce it then qualified immunity can be pierced in federal court - no cop or DA wants to give up their life savings for the cause.

Which IS it? Both of these can't be true. Is SCOTUS "illegitimate" (whatever that may mean), or are they going to define something and have it "stick"? Is it real or not?

We're waiting.

 

[pastera]

Which IS it? Both of these can't be true. Is SCOTUS "illegitimate" (whatever that may mean), or are they going to define something and have it "stick"? Is it real or not?

We're waiting.

I didn't contradict anything
While NY state legislators can ignore federal courts, NY citizens cannot.
NY's new restrictions will be struck and if any law enforcement attempts to enforce the unconstitutional edicts (not laws once struck) then they open themselves to federal civil rights violations.
Did you think you would see the uber red towns roll over and issue unrestricted?
It happened because pushing SCOTUS that hard was highly likely to incur personal financial risk to those involved.
Their love of tyranny ends at their bank account.

 

[Coyote33]

I didn't contradict anything
While NY state legislators can ignore federal courts, NY citizens cannot.
NY's new restrictions will be struck and if any law enforcement attempts to enforce the unconstitutional edicts (not laws once struck) then they open themselves to federal civil rights violations.
Did you think you would see the uber red towns roll over and issue unrestricted?
It happened because pushing SCOTUS that hard was highly likely to incur personal financial risk to those involved.
Their love of tyranny ends at their bank account.

OK, there's your side. (Never said you contradicted anything.)

SFC seems to think otherwise. You can't both be right.

 

[pastera]

OK, there's your side. (Never said you contradicted anything.)

SFC seems to think otherwise. You can't both be right.

Actually we both are right
NY state executive and legislative branches have given SCOTUS the finger by ignoring them.
That does not mean that they at the state level can't individually be run through the federal wringer for trying to enforce their unconstitutional decrees.

 

[Coyote33]

Actually we both are right
NY state executive and legislative branches have given SCOTUS the finger by ignoring them.
That does not mean that they at the state level can't individually be run through the federal wringer for trying to enforce their unconstitutional decrees.

When has that happened with the 2A?

 

[pastera]

When has that happened with the 2A?

Maryland? Red towns issuing unrestricted?
Remember Bruen only decided one particular question - may issue licensing.
All of the rest of what is being talked about is based on dicta from the decision. Dicta, or reasoning of the court in making it's decision, is informative but not fully compelling to lower courts. The dicta in Bruen supporting overturning AWB and Magazine restrictions is quite clear but needs to work through the courts to become actual case law.

As far as what NY is doing with declaring essentially the entire island of Manhattan a sensitive area is in direct contradiction to Bruen - that they used legal constructions to prohibit different areas differently in order to create the essentially total ban is irrelevant. They were warned and this will likely result in a clear definition of limited sensitive areas where the 2nd can be restricted.
These things take years to work through.
Proclaiming the decision is meaningless just because it doesn't fix a wide range of issues isn't being realistic.
It sucks that we can't get everything wrong fixed in one fell swoop but it just doesn't work that way.
Heller set a foundation with a federal right in the home
McDonald expanded it to the states
Caetano set the stage for modern weapons
Bruen builds on Heller with right outside the home. It's not perfect in that it doesn't demand permitless carry but it definitely sets a high bar going forward on infringements.

Sorry but it simply feels like the messenger is taking the beating that the politicians deserve.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Maryland? Red towns issuing unrestricted?
Remember Bruen only decided one particular question - may issue licensing.

It even allows "may issue" provided the standard is not "need" - for example, allowing states to set different standards (for example, many things that a disqualifiers in MA are not disqualifiers in other states, and I'm not just referring to misdefelonies.

 

[pastera]

It even allows "may issue" provided the standard is not "need" - for example, allowing states to set different standards (for example, many things that a disqualifiers in MA are not disqualifiers in other states, and I'm not just referring to misdefelonies.

Correct but those disqualifies are "objective" in that a person can know beforehand whether they are qualified.
By that measure the license is shall issue if you meet a BS standard.

I should have been more clear and stated it as "discretionary may issue"

 

[MaverickNH]

In Upstate NY this week. It’s surprising how many people have a pistol or two not listed on their license. These are honest, law-abiding folks who just don’t want to wait for the final confiscation phase. Since the SAFE act was enacted in 2013, a lot of folks got used to being felons-in-waiting.

There’s a quiet buzz about cash-and-carry shops with 80% lowers in inventory and machine shops that can turn them out. It’s more a “we want what’s banned” thing for most. I mentioned that what you want is a modern sporting rifle and 30rd magazines with ammo not on any government list - it doesn’t matter if there’s a SN on the firearms or not if not traceable to you. Nods all around. The retired LEOs have banned “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines” by virtue of the LE exemptions but they are on lists. They know where to get them “off the record books” but there’s this strange ethic that making a “ghost gun” is OK but buying an “illegal gun” on the street” is not ethical. It’s the sellers they find the ethical catch, not owning such hardware. Criminalize guns and criminals take up the trade once maintained by honest, law-abiding citizens.

These retired LEOs said their buddies still on the force mostly take a “don’t ask, don’t tell” attitude for those not in the traditional criminal category (those who rob, steal, assault, etc.) - nobody wants to deal with the mess. Compliance to the 2013 SAFE act is estimated at <5%. Nobody knows how to comply with the new laws…

A small sample size in a one Central NY region but probably representative of most LEOs outside NYC, Albany, Rochester, Buffalo, etc.

 

[SteelShooter]

In Upstate NY this week. It’s surprising how many people have a pistol or two not listed on their license. These are honest, law-abiding folks who just don’t want to wait for the final confiscation phase. Since the SAFE act was enacted in 2013, a lot of folks got used to being felons-in-waiting.

There’s a quiet buzz about cash-and-carry shops with 80% lowers in inventory and machine shops that can turn them out. It’s more a “we want what’s banned” thing for most. I mentioned that what you want is a modern sporting rifle and 30rd magazines with ammo not on any government list - it doesn’t matter if there’s a SN on the firearms or not if not traceable to you. Nods all around. The retired LEOs have banned “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines” by virtue of the LE exemptions but they are on lists. They know where to get them “off the record books” but there’s this strange ethic that making a “ghost gun” is OK but buying an “illegal gun” on the street” is not ethical. It’s the sellers they find the ethical catch, not owning such hardware. Criminalize guns and criminals take up the trade once maintained by honest, law-abiding citizens.

These retired LEOs said their buddies still on the force mostly take a “don’t ask, don’t tell” attitude for those not in the traditional criminal category (those who rob, steal, assault, etc.) - nobody wants to deal with the mess. Compliance to the 2013 SAFE act is estimated at <5%. Nobody knows how to comply with the new laws…

A small sample size in a one Central NY region but probably representative of most LEOs outside NYC, Albany, Rochester, Buffalo, etc.

I have several cousins that are LEO on Long Island, and quietly say the same thing, they also say there are a lot of their 'co-workers' that are more than happy to hassle citizens over any little thing they can get them on.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Correct but those disqualifies are "objective" in that a person can know beforehand whether they are qualified.
By that measure the license is shall issue if you meet a BS standard.

I should have been more clear and stated it as "discretionary may issue"

The standard is a bit closer to objective, but it is not entirely so.

Take for example someone who pled to a misdemeanor of being a dissident present at the January 6 activities.

Some issuing authorities, and courts, may consider this to present a "potential for dangerousness to self or others" even if the charges for which they are convicted did not involve violence. Others may not. There is no way for such an applicant to tell.

And what of someone who held a gun by their side while being threatened by a large individual with a pending assault charge and was charged but found not guilty of assault as a result?* Does that indicate that the person with the gun presents a danger to <preferred pronoun>self or others? Once again, opinions of issuing authorities and courts may differ.

Of what of a 60 year old who was convicted is misdemeanor unarmed assault when he was 19 but has an otherwise clean record? Is that person disqualified due to dangerousness?

* Really happened, pre-Bruen LTC appeal lost

 

[pastera]

The standard is a bit closer to objective, but it is not entirely so.

Take for example someone who pled to a misdemeanor of being a dissident present at the January 6 activities.

Some issuing authorities, and courts, may consider this to present a "potential for dangerousness to self or others" even if the charges for which they are convicted did not involve violence. Others may not. There is no way for such an applicant to tell.

And what of someone who held a gun by their side while being threatened by a large individual with a pending assault charge and was charged but found not guilty of assault as a result?* Does that indicate that the person with the gun presents a danger to <preferred pronoun>self or others? Once again, opinions of issuing authorities and courts may differ.

Of what of a 60 year old who was convicted is misdemeanor unarmed assault when he was 19 but has an otherwise clean record? Is that person disqualified due to dangerousness?

* Really happened, pre-Bruen LTC appeal lost

Agree
All of that BS was generated before Bruen and it's going to take decades to make its way back through the courts unless there is a unicorn case with a perfect plaintiff available for a GOOD 2a action group to use. Unfortunately way too many bad plaintiffs with lousy representation will pollute the path before that happens

 

[MaverickNH]

NYC revoked firearms permits held in the name of businesses in Time Square, I hear? Does the gun-free zone include the Diamond District?

 

[vicorjh]

Maryland:


View: https://youtu.be/hDn3zHQVvJg

 

[Rob Boudrie]

NYC revoked firearms permits held in the name of businesses in Time Square, I hear? Does the gun-free zone include the Diamond District?

I didn't realize a gun permit could be issued in the name of a business in NY.

I initially predicted these broad based edicts were going to cause headaches among the "special" people who had unrestricted NYC permits before Bruen.