Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

OK, here goes:

en.wikipedia.org

Gun laws in New York - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

www.thecity.nyc

New York Passed a Law Defining No-Guns Zones. Where Exactly? That’s Complicated.

“There’s going to be challenges” admits an NYPD lawyer who’s among those puzzling out how to apply hazy new rules passed after the Supreme Court’s gun decision.
www.thecity.nyc www.thecity.nyc

www.findlaw.com

New York Gun Control Laws - FindLaw

Learn about gun license requirements in New York and gun law violation penalties at FindLaw's New York Gun Control Laws page.
www.findlaw.com www.findlaw.com


www.governor.ny.gov

Governor Hochul Signs Landmark Legislative Package to Strengthen Gun Laws and Protect New Yorkers

Governor Hochul signed a landmark legislative package to immediately strengthen the state's gun laws, close critical loopholes exposed by shooters in Buffalo and Uvalde and protect New Yorkers from the scourge of gun violence that continues to infect our nation and endanger our communities.
www.governor.ny.gov www.governor.ny.gov

ag.ny.gov

Understanding Recent Changes to New York’s Gun Laws

Click to read more.
ag.ny.gov ag.ny.gov

www.timesunion.com

New York's new gun laws expected to face court challenge

The chairmen of New York's Republican and Conservative parties on Thursday pledged to...
www.timesunion.com www.timesunion.com

www.whec.com

Judge blocks part of NY law that restricts carrying gun at houses of worship

BUFFALO, N.Y. — A federal judge in Buffalo ruled that it’s unconstitutional to restrict the concealed carry of guns in New York State houses of worship, striking down part of the new state gun law that went into effect on September 1. The New York State gun law listed houses of worship like...
www.whec.com www.whec.com


www.rte.ie

US judge blocks New York from banning guns in church

A US federal judge has barred the state of New York, at least for now, from enforcing the part of a closely watched gun law that bans firearms from churches or other places of worship.
www.rte.ie www.rte.ie

buffalonews.com

Federal judge halts key parts of New York's new gun law

New York's attorney general has appealed a federal judge's ruling that halted key provisions of the state's new rules on guns. The judge ordered a temporary hold earlier Thursday over
buffalonews.com buffalonews.com


So, the best I can tell, is that the latest is the last one: New York's attorney general has appealed a federal judge's ruling that halted key provisions of the state's new rules on guns.

So, from that, it looks like we are awaiting some decision on that appeal. There you have it.
 
Coyote33 said:
What is the current status in New York? Are Hochul's laws standing, stalled, or dead? Where are things headed? What are we waiting on now? Is anything due this coming week?
Click to expand...
From the enforcement side…

Just back from an event at the NY Preparedness Training Center in Oriskany NY - a fine facility between nowhere and nothing. The consensus appears to be that Hochul‘s new law is being taken as seriously as is the SAFE Act by Upstate NY law enforcement...possible add-on charges for the usual suspects to be plea-bargained down, but nobody is on stop-and-frisk duty. YMMV in Rochester, Buffalo, Syracuse, NYC, Albany, etc.
 
Coyote33 said:
What is the current status in New York? Are Hochul's laws standing, stalled, or dead? Where are things headed? What are we waiting on now? Is anything due this coming week?
Click to expand...

I think there are at least 4 or.5 lawsuits. The main one put a TRO on most of the law but the AG appealed to the 2nd circuit and the judge stayed his ruling. Another is a number of churches and synagogues suing because of the ban on guns in religious facilities. Judge Sinatra put a TRO on that and it has not been stayed.
 
MaverickNH said:
From the enforcement side…

Just back from an event at the NY Preparedness Training Center in Oriskany NY - a fine facility between nowhere and nothing. The consensus appears to be that Hochul‘s new law is being taken as seriously as is the SAFE Act by Upstate NY law enforcement...possible add-on charges for the usual suspects to be plea-bargained down, but nobody is on stop-and-frisk duty. YMMV in Rochester, Buffalo, Syracuse, NYC, Albany, etc.
Click to expand...

The upstate sheriffs have openly said they’re not going to enforce it. They’ve been very critical of it.
 
Hoover said:
I think there are at least 4 or.5 lawsuits. The main one put a TRO on most of the law but the AG appealed to the 2nd circuit and the judge stayed his ruling. Another is a number of churches and synagogues suing because of the ban on guns in religious facilities. Judge Sinatra put a TRO on that and it has not been stayed.
Click to expand...
Stays are generally granted when there is "irreparable damage" if the order being stayed is eventually overturned. For example, if a law banning full capacity mags is not stayed, the state can argue its side has been "damaged" should they eventually prevail and commoners stocked up on such mags during the stay. In the case of a stay allowing church/subway/Times Square/private businesses without a guns welcome sign, there is no "irreparable damage" because the state eventually prevailing would not have any continuing damage - the law would go back to what it stuffed in to neuter Bruen. There is no legal logic that justifies a stay other than "the court prefers the law as it is", and an intellectually honest judge would not issue one.

Another great example is the court order for ticket resellers to disclose the source of their inventory. Ticketmaster (I think, could have been StubHub) was ordered to disclose such info, and was granted a stay pending appeal because the appeal, if successful, would not have undone the ongoing damage of the info having been disclosed absent a stay.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
Many years ago Mayor Koch threatened to immediately revoke all NYC pistol permits that were not "Full Carry" if the NY legislature removed the validity of the restrictions on the premises/target licenses.

Their current governor is attempting to deliver on that promise, but without the ability to leave the special, elite and connected unscathed. It will be hard for her administration to offer any credible testimony the law passed on the "express no public hearing urgent path" (same as the NY SAFE act was) is anything but an attempt to avoid compliance with Bruen. If she offered the lie these were long overdue corrections unrelated to Bruen, the court would have something handy to hang an adverse (for us) decision on, but she was so arrogant in her belief of the righteousness of her position that she forgot basic strategy.
Click to expand...

"Howmydoin?" Poor Ed. Tough time to be mayor of NY. He was even a host in the dark days of SNL. Funny was them buffooning him in Ghostbusters. I'd say that Taking of Pelham 1-2-3 was as well, but it was 1974 and he wasn't mayor until 77. LOL

Chevy 2 65 said:
this will be gold

reason.com

New Jersey joins New York in defying the SCOTUS decision upholding the right to bear arms

These regulations, Democrats bragged, will make New Jersey "the toughest in the nation when it comes to concealed-carry laws."
reason.com reason.com
Click to expand...

Still reminds me of the Civil Rights movement. "We're not gonna let the SC dictate how we treat our subjects!" No. You ARE going to. Because that's what the rule of law says, you putz! And those are human beings, not subjects!

Rob Boudrie said:
I always consider people, on either side, who use arguments like "The issue settled" (as did Houchul) or the classic "You know I am right" to be idiots.
Click to expand...

Also the proverbial "quite frankly" and "I think you'll agree" as well. I had a (former) client once scold me on a financial issue he had NO idea what he was talking about. He's a city councillor. He QF'd and ITYA'd me to death. It's like "Quite frankly, hotdogs are made of almonds. And I think you'll agree that that is racist."

He was talking out of his ass. He was trying to extract $ from his mom's accounts for himself. Total scumbag. She was a nice lady but she was a shithole of a mom - because she raised two horrid children. Both were completely and totally self-absorbed. (And in their 50's at the time. Imagine that disaffected selfish brat you can picture in your head at the mall. Face in their phone. Just a total tool. No FF them to 55. Same person. Fat and slobby. It's not a pretty picture. I hope she gave it all away to charity.)
 
Coyote33 said:
OK, here goes:

So, the best I can tell, is that the latest is the last one: New York's attorney general has appealed a federal judge's ruling that halted key provisions of the state's new rules on guns.

So, from that, it looks like we are awaiting some decision on that appeal. There you have it.
Click to expand...

Here a segment of the debate in one NJ committee, it was in my YouTube feed this morning


View: https://youtu.be/T-a2a6n0r5A



The witness is the one who wrote the bill. He’s a moron and clearly doesn’t know a thing about the issue. The NJ bill is worse than NY. It has all the same BS of NY and more including requiring insurance to carry.
 
Last edited:
Hoover said:
Here a segment of the debate in one NJ committee, it was in my YouTube feed this morning


View: https://youtu.be/T-a2a6n0r5A



The witness is the one who wrote the bill. He’s a moron and clearly doesn’t know a thing about the issue. The NJ bill is worse than NY. It has all the same BS of NY and more including requiring insurance to carry.
Click to expand...

Joe is a f***ing scumbag.
 
Hoover said:
They’re delusional if they think the courts are going to ok what NY and NJ are attempting. Biden and Obama judges in Colorado put injunctions on AWB because they believe they’re unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
These States don't care, they pander to their Leftist voters. As I've stated before they will ignore any court rulings because they can. They don't recognize the 2nd Amendment and believe they have the moral high ground. Do you think the FBI, DOJ under Joey would send in the US Marshalls to enforce Bruen in NY, NJ, CA? NOT!
 
SFC13557 said:
These States don't care, they pander to their Leftist voters. As I've stated before they will ignore any court rulings because they can. They don't recognize the 2nd Amendment and believe they have the moral high ground. Do you think the FBI, DOJ under Joey would send in the US Marshalls to enforce Bruen in NY, NJ, CA? NOT!
Click to expand...

They’ll get sued and subject the state to substantial costs. They may be on the hook personally if they can’t get qualified immunity.

www.law.cornell.edu

42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu

Courts are not going to be kind to those who purposely thumb their noses at rulings. People like Houchul were expressly clear in what they are doing. SCOTUS will thump them.
 
Chevy 2 65 said:
This history thing with the SCOTUS. What about the history of permits? Like LTC.
How would that hold up in court?
Click to expand...

There have been a number of restrictive gun ordinances in American history. Think about Old West towns that banned the carry of firearms in city limits, stuff like that.

The good news is that most of that happened when those places were territories, not states. It makes a huge difference in terms of applying Bruen.

As for "permits," @M1911 said it above. SCOTUS is fine with them. Just not if they're "may-issue."
 
Picton said:
As for "permits," @M1911 said it above. SCOTUS is fine with them.* Just not if they're "may-issue."
Click to expand...
* so far.

Technically, they weren't pressed to weigh in on that. The implication seemed to be that they're ok, with the caveat that they mustn't create undue hurdles. If the states continue to create hurdles, even under effectively "shall issue" protocols, that could be reconsidered.
 
Hoover said:
They’ll get sued and subject the state to substantial costs. They may be on the hook personally if they can’t get qualified immunity.

www.law.cornell.edu

42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu

Courts are not going to be kind to those who purposely thumb their noses at rulings. People like Houchul were expressly clear in what they are doing. SCOTUS will thump them.
Click to expand...
And they are in States that support their decisions and will pay/shield them from the Courts. What Court in their States will rule against them and what Law Enforcement Agency would enforce a ruling against them? So Joe Q. Public gets arrested for carrying in NYC, he gets thrown in Rikers for weeks, gets a lawyer and sues. Years later he goes to trial and he is acquitted. He sues NY for unlawful arrest and they tell him to F off. 5 yrs later he wins judgement and NY ignores decision because all parties are no longer in govt. or some other BS excuse. NY would appeal until the cows come home and Joe is bankrupt. My point is will a Federal Govt. actually send in the Marshall's, Troops, etc. to enforce a gun control law?
 
SFC13557 said:
And they are in States that support their decisions and will pay/shield them from the Courts. What Court in their States will rule against them and what Law Enforcement Agency would enforce a ruling against them? So Joe Q. Public gets arrested for carrying in NYC, he gets thrown in Rikers for weeks, gets a lawyer and sues. Years later he goes to trial and he is acquitted. He sues NY for unlawful arrest and they tell him to F off. 5 yrs later he wins judgement and NY ignores decision because all parties are no longer in govt. or some other BS excuse. NY would appeal until the cows come home and Joe is bankrupt. My point is will a Federal Govt. actually send in the Marshall's, Troops, etc. to enforce a gun control law?
Click to expand...

Your suggestions are not how courts work nor will in these possible situations. The cases will be in federal court also and even judges as liberal as sotomayor won’t protect the govt officials as you suggest
 
Hoover said:
Your suggestions are not how courts work nor will in these possible situations. The cases will be in federal court also and even judges as liberal as sotomayor won’t protect the govt officials as you suggest
Click to expand...

I was gonna say... this has already come up several times in this thread.

The consensus is that the federal courts are going to be bound by SCOTUS, and will (sooner or later) strike down any law not in accordance with it. At that point, elected officials will have some decisions to make.

But a NYS LEO arresting someone IAW a state law that they know full well has been federally stayed, struck down, or TRO'd is liable for a civil rights lawsuit in federal court that, I'm quite sure, he does not want.
 
Picton said:
I was gonna say... this has already come up several times in this thread.

The consensus is that the federal courts are going to be bound by SCOTUS, and will (sooner or later) strike down any law not in accordance with it. At that point, elected officials will have some decisions to make.

But a NYS LEO arresting someone IAW a state law that they know full well has been federally stayed, struck down, or TRO'd is liable for a civil rights lawsuit in federal court that, I'm quite sure, he does not want.
Click to expand...

The only way this stops has always been having a single case where SCOTUS explicitly rules for a citizen and in the ruling they remove QI from the politicians who voted for the law, prosecutors, judges and cops who made the case happen. They all get to be personally sued for civil damages.

Do this for 1 case and every bullshit law will stop on the spot. The only reason it keeps happening is there are no personal consequences.
 
Picton said:
I was gonna say... this has already come up several times in this thread.

The consensus is that the federal courts are going to be bound by SCOTUS, and will (sooner or later) strike down any law not in accordance with it. At that point, elected officials will have some decisions to make.

But a NYS LEO arresting someone IAW a state law that they know full well has been federally stayed, struck down, or TRO'd is liable for a civil rights lawsuit in federal court that, I'm quite sure, he does not want.
Click to expand...

I’m in Massachusetts and the cops I’ve interacted with some are pretty 2A. They’re not worried about law abiding gun owners and understand it’s a political thing not about safety, etc. those cops definitely don’t want to get sued personally which they’d be open to if they violate civil rights after 2A rights are clearly set.

The illegal 4th amendment case Caniglia vs strom fr9m RI last spring was 9-0. The courts are not going to protect constitutional violations, liberals are not govt friendly in those cases even if it involves guns.
 
xtry51 said:
The only way this stops has always been having a single case where SCOTUS explicitly rules for a citizen and in the ruling they remove QI from the politicians who voted for the law, prosecutors, judges and cops who made the case happen. They all get to be personally sued for civil damages.

Do this for 1 case and every bullshit law will stop on the spot. The only reason it keeps happening is there are no personal consequences.
Click to expand...

There’s an interesting QI case from Waterbury CT working it’s way through the courts. Cop lost in the district court, I believe it’s in the 2nd circuit court of appeals now.
 
Coyote33 said:
Where in the case was that mentioned?
Click to expand...
Do you have a copy of the decision at hand?

The syllabus section at the beginning lays out much of this in broad strokes. If you jump to page 7, you get to the actual decision. Much of the Syllabus' text is drawn directly from the footnotes of the decision.

Here's paragraph 2, in full (reformatted for clarity; bolding mine):
The parties nevertheless dispute whether New York’s licensing regime respects the constitutional right to carry handguns publicly for self-defense. In 43 States, the government issues licenses to carry based on objective criteria. But in six States, including New York, the government further conditions issuance of a license to carry on a citizen’s showing of some additional special need. Because the State of New York issues public-carry licenses only when an applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we conclude that the State’s licensing regime violates the Constitution.
Click to expand...
TL;DR: shallmay-issue licensing is unconstitutional.

Aside - this was the actual question at hand in this case. Anything else is either bonus (so-called emanations and penumbras) or caught up in their need to appropriately answer the question. Most notably, the Court saw it necessary to clarify the appropriate test for questions related to Second Amendment-protected rights, and to relieve judges of making arbitrary decisions on topics of which they're not experts. This is the new "text, history, and tradition" test.

Finally, on page 30, we have footnote 9 (again, formatted for clarity; bolding mine)
To be clear, nothing in our analysis should be interpreted to suggest the unconstitutionality of the 43 States’ “shall-issue” licensing regimes, under which “a general desire for self-defense is sufficient to obtain a [permit].” Drake v. Filko, 724 F. 3d 426, 442 (CA3 2013) (Hardiman, J., dissenting). Because these licensing regimes do not require applicants to show an atypical need for armed self-defense, they do not necessarily prevent “law-abiding, responsible citizens” from exercising their Second Amendment right to public carry. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 635 (2008). Rather, it appears that these shall-issue regimes, which often require applicants to undergo a background check or pass a firearms safety course, are designed to ensure only that those bearing arms in the jurisdiction are, in fact, “law-abiding, responsible citizens.” Ibid. And they likewise appear to contain only “narrow, objective, and definite standards” guiding licensing officials, Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U. S. 147, 151 (1969), rather than requiring the “appraisal of facts, the exercise of judgment, and the formation of an opinion,” Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 305 (1940)—features that typify proper-cause standards like New York’s. That said, because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.
Click to expand...
(Edit - well that typo changed meaning completely...)
 
Last edited:

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