Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

firearmslaw.duke.edu

Justice Thomas’ Dissent in Voisine and Non-Felon Prohibitions | Duke Center for Firearms Law

firearmslaw.duke.edu firearmslaw.duke.edu

“As litigators and judges grapple with Bruen’s historical tradition test, one issue that is sure to surface repeatedly is the status of group prohibitions on gun possession. Notably absent from the list of “presumptively lawful” restrictions in Heller is the federal prohibition on gun possession by those convicted of domestic-violence misdemeanor offenses, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9). The provision was recently expanded by the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act to cover offenses against non-spouse victims with whom the perpetrator has a “continuing serious relationship of a romantic or intimate nature.”…

Justice Thomas also wrote, in a section not joined by Justice Sotomayor, that, “[t]o be constitutional, . . . a law that broadly frustrates an individual’s right to keep and bear arms must target individuals who are beyond the scope of the ‘People’ protected by the Second Amendment,” and opined that there was no “other fundamental constitutional right that a person could lose forever by a single conviction for an infraction punishable only by a fine.”…

After Bruen, the more fundamental question seems to be whether 922(g)(9) is sufficiently rooted in historical tradition given the lack of direct analogues throughout most of American history…

…Justice Thomas is suspicious of the entire enterprise of disarming misdemeanants—whether domestic violence offenders, violent misdemeanants, or otherwise. But what of Bruen’s historical approach and the fact that a neat felony/misdemeanor dividing line did not exist at the time of the Founding?”

Legal gun control advocates continue to struggle with “historical approach” - it’s not Founding-era only but not post-Sullivan Act (1911) either. The courts will be sliding on that slippery slope a good deal before they reach stable ground.

1663627537976.jpeg
 
MaverickNH said:
firearmslaw.duke.edu

Litigation Highlight: Antonyuk v. Bruen | Duke Center for Firearms Law

firearmslaw.duke.edu firearmslaw.duke.edu

“10 days after New York passed a set of revised licensing and gun laws post-Bruen (known colloquially as the Concealed Carry Improvement Act, or CCIA), those laws were challenged in federal court. The case is Antonyuk et al. v. Bruen, Docket No. 1:22-cv-00734 in the Northern District of New York. Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby is presiding over the case.

In a 37-page complaint, the plaintiffs—Ivan Antonyuk (who lives in Schenectady County, NY), Gun Owners of America, Inc., Gun Owners Foundation, and Gun Owners of America New York, Inc.—challenged most aspects of New York’s revised gun laws, including: the “good moral character” requirement (which long pre-dates Bruen); the requirement that applicants attend an in-person interview and submit character references and a list of social media accounts; New York’s sensitive-places prohibition; New York’s default rule that guns are prohibited on private property unless explicitly allowed; and the time and cost of New York’s training requirements. The complaint asserts § 1983 claims under both the First and Second Amendments.

After filing their complaint on July 11, the plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction on July 20. The state subsequently requested additional time to respond to the PI motion. Judge Suddaby granted that motion in part and set the following briefing schedule, noting that the CCIA is set to take effect on September 1: defendant’s response was due on August 15, plaintiffs’ reply is due on August 22, and the preliminary injunction hearing is set for August 23. New York subsequently requested, and was granted, leave to file a response brief longer than the court’s default page limi… New York filed its 65-page response brief (attaching 54 exhibits) on August 15…

The briefs illustrate a fundamental disagreement over Bruen’s stance on shall-issue regimes that retain some discretionary elements.”

The same Court has not been a friend of RKBA, so it’ll be an uphill battle.

www.everytown.org

BREAKING: Federal Court Dismisses Challenge to New York’s Landmark Gun Industry Accountability Law

Everytown Filed an Amicus Brief in the Case with Other Local and National Gun Violence Prevention Groups NEW YORK – Today, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of …
www.everytown.org www.everytown.org
Click to expand...
firearmslaw.duke.edu

Litigation Highlight: Angelo v. District of Columbia | Duke Center for Firearms Law

firearmslaw.duke.edu firearmslaw.duke.edu

"Antonyuk is not the only ongoing case dealing with sensitive places. Angelo v. District of Columbia, currently pending in the federal district court in Washington, D.C., was filed on June 30 and involves a challenge by several permitholders to Washington D.C.’s designation of the Metro as a sensitive place where guns are banned (the law was passed in 2014, and went into effect the following year)...

As to the Metro specifically, the District seems more likely to succeed on its activities-based argument: that the Metro prohibition is sufficiently similar to “early American laws prohibiting the carrying of arms near parades and on trains” because such laws illustrate a historical tradition of prohibiting guns in areas of dense congregation or around official government activities. Specifically, the airport/airplane comparison seems apt, as those are also locations which simply did not exist at the time of the Founding but where few doubt that guns can be banned today...

The plaintiffs cite an 1803 observation by St. George Tucker that it was common for Americans to leave home armed with a rifle or musket. The District, on the other hand, relies on historical laws in the militia context as evidence that normal civilians did not commonly carry arms in public at the time. If judges are to evaluate modern gun regulations by reference to historical laws, there should presumably be some showing that people actually used guns in the manner contemplated during the Founding Era. If guns were not normally carried in certain public settings as a matter of custom, then what we today view as a lack of regulation may just be evidence that there was no need for government to regulate in that setting. The difficult question, of course, is how courts should resolve differing accounts of social custom that might exist in the historical record."
 
MaverickNH said:
firearmslaw.duke.edu

Litigation Highlight: Angelo v. District of Columbia | Duke Center for Firearms Law

firearmslaw.duke.edu firearmslaw.duke.edu

"Antonyuk is not the only ongoing case dealing with sensitive places. Angelo v. District of Columbia, currently pending in the federal district court in Washington, D.C., was filed on June 30 and involves a challenge by several permitholders to Washington D.C.’s designation of the Metro as a sensitive place where guns are banned (the law was passed in 2014, and went into effect the following year)...

As to the Metro specifically, the District seems more likely to succeed on its activities-based argument: that the Metro prohibition is sufficiently similar to “early American laws prohibiting the carrying of arms near parades and on trains” because such laws illustrate a historical tradition of prohibiting guns in areas of dense congregation or around official government activities. Specifically, the airport/airplane comparison seems apt, as those are also locations which simply did not exist at the time of the Founding but where few doubt that guns can be banned today...

The plaintiffs cite an 1803 observation by St. George Tucker that it was common for Americans to leave home armed with a rifle or musket. The District, on the other hand, relies on historical laws in the militia context as evidence that normal civilians did not commonly carry arms in public at the time. If judges are to evaluate modern gun regulations by reference to historical laws, there should presumably be some showing that people actually used guns in the manner contemplated during the Founding Era. If guns were not normally carried in certain public settings as a matter of custom, then what we today view as a lack of regulation may just be evidence that there was no need for government to regulate in that setting. The difficult question, of course, is how courts should resolve differing accounts of social custom that might exist in the historical record."
Click to expand...
Response:
They start with the old tired argument of lack of standing:
Plaintiffs must instead show that they have “been personally threatened with prosecution,” id. at 1255, in the sense of being “singled out or uniquely targeted Case 1:22-cv-01878-RDM Document 18 Filed 09/16/22 Page 20 of 44 15 by the D.C. government for prosecution,” Parker, 478 F.3d at 374–75. “[F]eared injury” is “insufficiently imminent.” Id. (holding that “a general threat of prosecution” does not suffice).
Click to expand...
Requiring a person to place themselves at jeopardy of permanent loss of rights by exercising that right is BS.

Then they go on to say that places where people can't physically defend themselves are sensitive places where they should not be able to have the tools required for self defense.
These laws were designed to, among other things, protect vulnerable groups of people who, because of their age or physical state, cannot easily escape attack, much less defend themselves
Click to expand...
They are quoting 1870's Texas law but the idea is confounding - the persons most in need of protection from the lawless are prohibited from being prepared to defend themselves.

And then this great reason:
Because citizens “can preserve an undiminished right of self-defense by not entering those places” or by “taking an alternate route,” Class, 930 F.3d at 463–65, laws restricting guns “in sensitive locations” “neither prohibit nor broadly frustrate any individual from generally exercising his right to bear arms,”
Click to expand...
So since they principally exclude the entirety of areas of commerce and social interaction, a person may enjoy their 2nd amendment rights only by forgoing all other protected activities
Such laws were intended to prevent the carrying of firearms from hindering the government’s operation or chilling the exercise of other constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

What they leave out is that most of the laws quoted is the parts where purpose of timing is called out - polling places were excluded while voting, churches excluded without proper purpose, etc.
 
Coyote33 said:
So, all this big talk about those with a felony, great.

How about the whole thing with "mis-da-felony" in Massachusetts? Is it asking too much to do something there? Sorry to be doubtful of anything happening...
Click to expand...
Indictment is different from conviction

We eat the elephant one bite at a time.
 
vicorjh said:
RINO Governor (Faker) Signs Laws That Violates Bruen Decision (MA, suitability):


View: https://youtu.be/paKm73Qzecw?t=63
Click to expand...


Our case will never be heard. It'll just be considered moot at some point before next September after 2 other cases are ruled on. Even our liberal douchebags are second-class liberal douchebags. ROFL!!!
 
Coyote33 said:
Just this past Tuesday?????

Was there even a post about it?

What law?
Click to expand...

Firearm Licensing

The recent New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen Supreme Court decision stripped local police chiefs of significant discretion regarding who may possess and carry a firearm. In the wake of this decision, this bill amends Massachusetts law to bring gun licensing provisions into compliance with the Supreme Court decision and to ensure that individuals seeking a license to carry are first interviewed personally by their local police chief.

Gov. Baker Signs Landmark Judiciary IT Bond Bill Into Law – East Boston Times-Free Press

eastietimes.com

Jim Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners Action League, told the Herald that as far as he knows none of the 500,000 lawful gun owners his group represents were consulted about the bill ...

Wallace also said the state’s “suitability” language, which remains in the law, is entirely at odds with the high court’s ruling. Healey’s office told the Herald the state is moving toward compliance.

“We’ve been working with our colleagues in the Legislature to amend the state’s licensing statute in response to Bruen. We look forward to continuing to work with them next session to further strengthen our gun laws and protect public safety,” a spokeswoman for Healey’s office said.

www.bostonherald.com

License to carry a gun in Massachusetts to become easier: Speaker

“Through its New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision, a highly-politicized Supreme Court has threatened the security of Massachusetts residents. This session and next, the H…
www.bostonherald.com www.bostonherald.com

State legislators tweaked several sections of state law as a result of Bruen, making changes they said would put the state in compliance with the decision “while preserving many of the protections that are currently in place,” as Senate Ways and Means Chair Michael Rodrigues put it Saturday.

The proposal removes language requiring a license to carry applicant to have “good reason to fear injury” to themselves, their property, “or for any other reason, including the carrying of firearms for use in sport or target practice only.”

A licensing authority could still deny an application if it determines a person is “unsuitable” based on “reliable, articulable, and credible information” that the applicant has “exhibited or engaged in behavior” that “may create a risk to public safety or a risk of danger to self or others.”

www.officer.com

Mass. Chiefs' Group Praises Proposed Gun Carry Law Change

The president for the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association says changes to the state's “good reason” provision to have a license to carry a concealed handgun in public "...
www.officer.com www.officer.com
 
Last edited:
vicorjh said:
A licensing authority could still deny an application if it determines a person is “unsuitable” based on “reliable, articulable, and credible information” that the applicant has “exhibited or engaged in behavior” that “may create a risk to public safety or a risk of danger to self or others.”
Click to expand...
How about “suitability” is based on factual information?

Just a thought.
 
SBrackett said:
How about “suitability” is based on factual information?

Just a thought.
Click to expand...

In practice, that's what it will have to be. CoPs are unlikely to stick their necks out. Some might, but then they'll lose in court and the law will go away.

The law can say what it likes. Until someone enforces it, knowing the courts will smack them down, it's posturing.
 
Picton said:
In practice, that's what it will have to be. CoPs are unlikely to stick their necks out. Some might, but then they'll lose in court and the law will go away.

The law can say what it likes. Until someone enforces it, knowing the courts will smack them down, it's posturing.
Click to expand...
This - they can use the suitability clause to deny people who can't handle life without the police getting involved on a regular basis but don't get to the point of actual prohibited status.
And they will get away with it since someone that is a police encounter frequent flyer is unlikely to have the resources to fight a denial.
However, if any rabid anti-gun chief goes FR then it will get struck down for being too vague.
 
MaverickNH said:
firearmslaw.duke.edu

Announcing the Center’s September 23, 2022 Symposium with the NYU Law Review | Duke Center for Firearms Law

firearmslaw.duke.edu firearmslaw.duke.edu

Panel 1 – 8:45-9:45 am – Keynote Discussion: Criminal Justice and Prosecutorial Discretion in the Wake of Bruen

Moderator: Vincent Southerland (NYU)

Panelists: Alvin Bragg (Manhattan District Attorney), Zellnor Myrie (New York State Senator), Steven Wu (Chief of Appeals, Manhattan DA’s Office)

Panel 2 – 9:50-10:55 am – Bruen’s Methodology and Practical Consequences for Legislation and Criminal Law

Moderator: Mark Tushnet (Harvard)

Panelists: Cynthia Lee (George Washington), Eric Ruben (SMU), Eugene Volokh (UCLA)

Panel 3 – 11:00-12:05 pm – Sensitive Places and the Challenges of Applying Bruen in the Lower Courts

Moderator: Jamal Greene (Columbia)

Panelists: Joseph Blocher (Duke), Jacob Charles (Pepperdine), Adam Samaha (NYU), Reva Siegel (Yale)

Panel 4 – 12:40-1:45 pm – After Bruen: Implications for Law Enforcement, Stare Decisis, and Supreme Court Legitimacy

Moderator: Sanford Levinson (Texas)

Panelists: Brandon del Pozo (Rhode Island Hospital), Mary Anne Franks (Miami), Barry Friedman (NYU), Haley Proctor (Missouri)
Click to expand...
Listening to this today...

Apparently, NY scoured laws in the states since 1776 and compiled a list of who's, what's and where's that restricted guns and went as broad as possible. In effect, NY took all US history, threw it against the wall in their new laws, and will litigate to see what sticks and for how long. And made up some new stuff too. Freely admitted as a strategy.

One panelist said NYC's laws treat everyone in a car/room with an "illegal gun" as culpable, and 18 teens were sent to Rikers - crazy shit!

Volokh flew from CA to NYC Friday, wake up with COVID and is sitting in his hotel for 5 days. He had 4 vax shots and was at the speakers dinner Friday evening. Let's see who gets COVID! 😷
 
Last edited:
Ergo, Catholics and blacks, and ESPECIALLY Black Catholics will be banned from any sort of firearm ownership. [rofl]

It's going to end bad for them. I'm not even a bit nervous. When you shit all over a plain-text writing of a ruling, the ruling body tends to make it even MORE plainer. Like "Short of X, you're not banning shit. Because you can't play nice."
 
MaverickNH said:
Listening to this today...

Apparently, NY scoured laws in the states since 1776 and compiled a list of who's, what's and where's that restricted guns and went as broad as possible. In effect, NY took all US history, threw it against the wall in their new laws, and will litigate to see what sticks and for how long. And made up some new stuff too. Freely admitted as a strategy.
Click to expand...

I can't wait to see NY dem lawyers using slavery based laws to defend their new laws.
 
xtry51 said:
I can't wait to see NY dem lawyers using slavery based laws to defend their new laws.
Click to expand...
The irony when the much-maligned NRA pulls out their original charter to remind them "we were founded in part to ensure freed blacks have access to firearms." If Wayne could get out of his own way to do that, I might toss them a couple bucks.

Since he can't be bothered, I'll throw a few to Maj instead.
 
Dennis in MA said:
Ergo, Catholics and blacks, and ESPECIALLY Black Catholics will be banned from any sort of firearm ownership. [rofl]

It's going to end bad for them. I'm not even a bit nervous. When you shit all over a plain-text writing of a ruling, the ruling body tends to make it even MORE plainer. Like "Short of X, you're not banning shit. Because you can't play nice."
Click to expand...
Especially when you announce your intention is to negate the effects of the ruling.
 
I’m not a lawyer, nor have I ever played one on TV

Watch from 4 minutes mark, Supreme Court as defined the 4 sensitive places you can not carry guns.


View: https://youtu.be/_MODu98jMlQ


Court House
Legislative Buildings
Polling Places
Schools, but as a student

Not sure how this impacts life in the real world.
 

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
454
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