There have bee been some cases on voter ID where courts struck them down because of the cost for a license or ID. Most if not all states provide at least a basic state ID for no charge to prevent these types of lawsuits. GA is one such state, their voter ID law was struck down in the late 1990s I believe and they set up mobile voter ID trucks where they’ll literally go to you.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/Pioneer Valley Arms February Giveaway ***Smith & Wesson SD9VE 9MM***
Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread
- Thread starter soloman02
- Start date
There have bee been some cases on voter ID where courts struck them down because of the cost for a license or ID. Most if not all states provide at least a basic state ID for no charge to prevent these types of lawsuits. GA is one such state, their voter ID law was struck down in the late 1990s I believe and they set up mobile voter ID trucks where they’ll literally go to you.
pastera
NES Member
Bolded portion can be applied both to the state and the person if the court so desires - Since most of these scumbags have publicly given SCOTUS a double FU, it's likely that at least one very high profile person will run foul of SCOTUS and get their personal finances cleared out as a clear warning to others
Rob Boudrie
NES Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 48,955
- Likes
- 36,423
Legal fees in the Com2a Legal Resident Alien and Marijuana convict federal cases where paid by Massachusetts after we won. Although a 1983 suit was looming, the state was very professional in their dealings with Comm2a, and we were able to negotiate reasonable amounts in both cases without going to trial. Unlike NY, MA has generally been professional and non-obfuscatory when the lose a gun rights case.
Rob Boudrie
NES Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 48,955
- Likes
- 36,423
Cool....
--- We'll have a public vaccination van in your neighborhood on the 20th; unused/expired Rx drug pickup on the 21st, the bookmobile every other Wednesday; the garbage truck on Thursday mornings and the firearms licensing van the 25th of each month.....
Last edited:
SFC13557
NES Member
You didn't answer my question Justice Hoover, when will NYC start issuing unrestricted LTC's?
We're talking about NY not Ma. because Ma. didn't pass any restrictive laws to counter Bruen.
You seem to have unquestioned faith in the judicial system and you "assume" your NY State anti-gun Pols would/will obey a lower court ruling when they defiantly
rejected a SCOTUS ruling. Isn't SCOTUS the higher authority?
So Governor Zeldin tells NY Pols to knock the shit off and issues guidelines to comply with the Bruen decision and they tell him to F off. What happens?
The Governor can't force Mayor's to comply with a SCOTUS decision, which is the LAW?
Please explain your opinion.
I guess our difference of opinion comes down to you believe NY, NJ, CA Pols will cave to a lower court ruling and/or the Biden Admin/DOJ will enforce Bruen decision if Dem States refuse to comply. I believe there's no way they can cave without losing face and support from their leftist followers.
Dadstoys
NES Member
That was a lot of the reason DeValue couldn't get much though.
Dadstoys
NES Member
The only reason there weren't trailer boxes full of their corpses is the police were actually sent to protect them.
If if all breaks down and the cops beat feet like they did during the L.A. riots I wouldn't give them a chance in hell.
The only places there that didn't get looted and burned were the ones with roof Koreans and they weren't tossing flowers off the roofs.
inkdesigner
NES Member
WTF. How do you use the analogy that since we charge taxes and fees to get a hotel room we can do the same for a firearms license? It's not evening the same ballpark. One is a constitutional right helped by SCOTUS and the other is a luxury or convenience for folks. I just can't wrap my head around it. Should we be charging taxes and fees to vote as well then?
Do you know what a 1983 suit is? This has been brought up to you several times...
You better spell it out for him.
Rob Boudrie
NES Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 48,955
- Likes
- 36,423
42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights
cstockwell
NES Member
I don't spend too much time following the courts in depth so if you guys wouldn't mind answering what is a ball park time-frame for these types of things to get through the court and struck down after being passed? I know the wheels of justice move slow...but how slow? If the pols pass a bill that is meant to circumvent NYSRPA will the courts act on it quickly or drag it out so the pols basically get more time to come up with the next scheme?
I meant with explanations.42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights
www.law.cornell.edu
My understanding:
A 1983 case is when an individual sues a government agent for violating his constitutional rights. The individual can be found personally responsible for damages. The usual defense is "Qualified Immunity"; the very, very low bar for that defense is, "I couldn't possibly have known that it was a violation of the constitution to burn down your house under color of law." The counter to that is when there's a ruling from an appellate court saying that burning down someone's house is a violation of constitutional rights. In which case QI doesn't apply.
In this case, SCOTUS has said very clearly that states can't make every location "sensitive", have absurd licensing requirements, have "you look like a bad person" disqualifers, etc.
Therefore: when the state violates your constitutional rights by refusing to comply with a clear SCOTUS ruling, the people doing that can be sued directly, and they can't use QI as a defense.
That's an oversimplification based on listening to IJ podcasts while driving.
Last edited:
42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights
Yeah, like who enforces that, and how? And when? When the Governor and AG want something a certain way, and the President and U.S. AG all want it the same way, is there really any enforcement?
The cases are in federal district courts right now. The action could be in weeks or maybe next year. Once the cases are decided, NY won’t have any other option
You file suit. In federal court. Then the presiding judge decides whether your case has merit, a jury is selected, and a trial follows. Then the "civil servant" who violated the SCOTUS ruling and, in the process, deprived you of your rights, gets a multimillion dollar judgement against him. Or her.
They probably offer to settle somewhere along the line. You smile and say, "Nope," because your case is as clear as a mountain stream.
And every other "civil servant" in the country takes a look at the judgement amount and decides, "Nah. I'm good. I think I'll stop standing in the way of RKBA, thanks. It's not worth my kid's college fund."
That's how lawsuits work, in essence. The enforcement mechanism is greed, basically.
ETA: In before the usual suspects flapping their arms about BuT wHy WoULd tHE jUdGe LeT tHe TriAL PrOcEeD????" That's been answered many times. These are federal courts, and they're already siding with Bruen nationwide. Even the Dem appointed judges.
Last edited:
It really depends and many variables. The court schedules things and can have an expedited schedule or slow. In California there are 2 different AWB cases, the bush judge who previously struck down CAs AWB has a schedule set to where he’s probably going to issue a ruling before January. The Obama judge who has the other probably won’t rule until mid summer at the earliest. Are there TROs, is a case decided by summary judgement or after a trial, etc. then they’re appealed and that court sets a schedule and can take years to issue a ruling if they really want.
Just a guess, I think most of these cases will be through circuit courts by the end of 2024. That includes the mag limit cases in NJ, MD and CA, AWB in NJ, NY, CT, MD CO and CA.
The early canary in the coal mine are the Mag limit/AWB case already are the 4th circuit court of appeals (bianchi vs Frosh) and the CA mag limit case and AWB cases (separate cases in California both with roger benetiz who struck them down pre NYSRPA). Those cases will will probably be decided by the circuit court of appeals by this time next year (benetiz will have decisions on those in December or January)
The states in these cases, particularly California, really want to slow things down. In all the California court filings, they ask the judges for very extended discovery time frames. Saying they need historical research don’t and that takes many months, etc. They know they are going to lose because there is no history of mag limits or handgun rosters, AWBs etc. I think they’re hoping to extend it years and hope the make up of SCOTUS changes. That’s a desperate move but they really don’t have any other options. Most gun control started in the 1980s and a few things in 1934 and 1968. SCOTUS said the dates relevant at 1791 and 1868, any law must be similar to something then.
cstockwell
NES Member
OK. Thanks for the explanation. So basically we will be lucky to see much in the way of relief anytime soon....
The issue with the NY law and why there are court challenges is SCOTUS said general things but nothing specific. They said you can’t make everyone a sensitive place, you can’t make the island of Manhattan a sensitive place. They said licensing requirements are ok but no specifics. NY passed that asinine law, now the courts will have a say in what is allowed by NYSRPA and what is not.
Well, I mean, relative to what?
We've been getting rights eaten away since 1934. That's a lot of damage to undo. It took almost 90 years to get this bad; a lot of the damage should be undone within the next couple of years. That's not awful, considering how due process works.
Remember, Brown v Board took almost 20 years for full enforcement, in many places. This is a marathon, not a sprint, but Bruen is not going away.
Why would you need to file a lawsuit for rights violations if there’s already been a court ruling they are suppose to be following?
Because they're not following the ruling...
One hopes the threat of a 1983 suit will prevent the Mayor Adamses of the world from actually trying to enforce the act. So far, that hasn't happened yet. Once someone tries to enforce this daft NYS law? Nellie, bar the door.
Within 2 years is pretty quickly. Once there are some ruling in NY, NJ, CA, etc if other states do it, people will be able to point to those rulings and get their courts to agree and issue TROs in that state.
Weird. It’s almost like they don’t care. But you said things are different now post Bruen!
See above. I ninja-edited.
By all means, pretend 1983 suits are not a thing. But they are.
Because they’re not following a ruling on that specific issue, like the Kim Davis case. Once a circuit court ormSCOTUS speaks to the sensitive places, licensing requirements, etc then the local and state officials know what they cannot do. If they do it anyway, like Davis, then the 1983 suits come into play.
No one is going to risk financial ruin a 1983 suit would expose them to. I doubt they’d even have their attorney paid by the government, so they’d have huge legal costs at a minimum even if they beat the civil suit.
I’m not pretending they aren’t a thing. You and some others have been pretending there’s some magic unicorn court ruling that will somehow make government stop violating peoples rights in the first place. That’s delusional.
People say this crap after every SCOTUS ruling like things will somehow change. It was said after Heller. It was said after McDonald. It goes on and on. And nothing ever changes. And nothing ever will. There will never be a court ruling that will transform government where they follow the law and uphold rights instead of the opposite. That’s fairytale land shit.
No kidding they aren’t following the ruling. That’s the point. And let me know when a court treats someone who violates the second amendment even close to the same as they treat a homophobe.
Not in the least.
A successful 1983 suit requires that the government violate peoples' rights. 1983 suits don't STOP the tyrants from tyrannizing; they provide relief AFTER the tyrants tyrannize. On this issue? I want Mayor Adams to try to enforce the Act, and in the process violate someone's RKBA. Then the process starts.
Again, that's how lawsuits work. They provide the THREAT that consequences will follow IF they choose to violate someone's rights.
Pre NYSRPA 95% of gun control would be upheld by courts using a 2 step process (interest balancing). Basically, step one does the law impact the core of the 2nd amendment, if yes go to step 2. Is the gun control law narrowly tailored and to accomplish a compelling govt interest (to make thing safer, save lives.).
Courts can’t do the 2 step interest balancing any longer, it has to be text, history. Obama and Biden judeges issued TROs against AWBs because they said the laws were likely unconstitutional. There are a few years of post NYSRPA lawsuits necessary to knock down these laws based on the post NYSPRA standard. Once that happens, the focus can shift too NFA, GCA 1968, etc.
