Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

[Dench]

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.

Ah, interesting. I did not know some states provided free IDs.

 

[pastera]

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.

There is no unicorn ruling coming that's not how it works.
Just because Heller and McDonald didn't have direct and large impact here in Mass doesn't mean they didn't have big impacts.
If nothing every changes please explain why red towns are issuing unrestricted?

 

[Hoover]

Ah, interesting. I did not know some states provided free IDs.

I believe it was the late 1990s or maybe early 2000s when Georgia passed a voter ID law, dems and the NAACP in Georgia sued saying the law was racist because somehow black people didn’t have IDs like white people. Dem judges struck the law down based on the cost associated with getting an ID, the travel to get an ID, etc.

so Georgia passed a new law but included a free state ID option with mobile vans to go right to the persons house, work, whatever. The dems and NAACP sued again and said it still was racist. That was upheld. Dems and the NAACP (a liberal dem group and nothing more) don’t want any voter ID laws because it makes fraud harder. Anything which make fraud harder will be challenged in court by dems and their liberal allies.

 

[Garys]

The first rule of holes is that once you realize that you have dug yourself into one, stop.

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.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

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 federal courts. Do you think the MA AGs office negotiated 42 USC 1983 settlements with Comm2a in two cases because they thought payment was optional and they wanted to do the right thing?

 

[cathouse01]

I have a question. From what I've read, I only see NYSRPA v. Bruen addressing the requirement to have a "license/permit" to carry outside your home. What about states like MA that require you to have a "license/permit" to merely own a handgun (even if you only intend to keep it at home for self defense in the home)? MA goes even further and requires a "permit" to own any firearm. Isn't the FID/LTC requirement for simple ownership an obvious infringement (I know it is). Why doesn't the law see it that way? Has there ever been a case challenging the licensing requirement for simple ownership?

 

[xtry51]

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.

This is stupid because they aren't passing the law to prosecute. They are passing them to keep people scared from even trying. And it works on most people because most people can't afford a multi year legal battle and lose their job.

Real relief also includes putting people who passed the law I. The first place in jail.

 

[Picton]

This is stupid because they aren't passing the law to prosecute. They are passing them to keep people scared from even trying. And it works on most people because most people can't afford a multi year legal battle and lose their job.

Real relief also includes putting people who passed the law I. The first place in jail.

Not under 1983.

You'd need to pass another law to make that happen. I'd agree with it.

The cliches exist for a reason: the law is not a perfect system. The law is a claymore, not a scalpel. And more. The bottom line is that a perfect system doesn't exist. So we fumble along as best we can... but Bruen gave us many more weapons. It's taking some posters longer to accept that than others, but that's okay.

 

[Mesatchornug]

I have a question. From what I've read, I only see NYSRPA v. Bruen addressing the requirement to have a "license/permit" to carry outside your home. What about states like MA that require you to have a "license/permit" to merely own a handgun (even if you only intend to keep it at home for self defense in the home)? MA goes even further and requires a "permit" to own any firearm. Isn't the FID/LTC requirement for simple ownership an obvious infringement (I know it is). Why doesn't the law see it that way? Has there ever been a case challenging the licensing requirement for simple ownership?

This should be under Heller. The 1st Circuit has refused to abide so far...

 

[Hoover]

I have a question. From what I've read, I only see NYSRPA v. Bruen addressing the requirement to have a "license/permit" to carry outside your home. What about states like MA that require you to have a "license/permit" to merely own a handgun (even if you only intend to keep it at home for self defense in the home)? MA goes even further and requires a "permit" to own any firearm. Isn't the FID/LTC requirement for simple ownership an obvious infringement (I know it is). Why doesn't the law see it that way? Has there ever been a case challenging the licensing requirement for simple ownership?

There may have been some cases pre NYSRPA, those would have been decided using the interest balancing 2 step standard of review, post NYSRPA it’s a text history standard and laws like that will fall. There will be A LOT of legal activity but it’s going to take some time. SAF alone has 40 current lawsuits. FPC, SAC CRPA, GOA etc are all very active. They new standard opened the door for all these types of cases, it takes some time to get plaintiffs to want to,sue, develop the case then get it through the courts.

 

[Hoover]

This should be under Heller. The 1st Circuit has refused to abide so far...

The 1st wasn’t alone, most of the circuits used the 2step interest balancing and ignored Heller. Because it was a 5-4 with a squish like Kennedy as the 5th, justices didn’t want to take cases and have bad precedent because Kennedy would want to find a middle ground. Now with the NYSRPA case and a reliable 6-3 court, they can defend their decision until post heller.

Kennedy didn’t want to decide cases, he want3d to mediate them and find a middle point. Without Kennedy the justices can know reliably what other justices are likely to do.

 

[Coyote33]

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.

OK, but it seems this only helps in the state where the lawsuit happens. I don't see much of anything happening in MA, for example.

OK. Thanks for the explanation. So basically we will be lucky to see much in the way of relief anytime soon....

Yeah, first we have to wait several years for "That includes the mag limit cases in NJ, MD and CA, AWB in NJ, NY, CT, MD CO and CA" to happen there, then wait some more for it to happen here.

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?

Wasn't the original problem a rights violation? Do they need to have double violations for this to work?

 

[Coyote33]

The federal courts. Do you think the MA AGs office negotiated 42 USC 1983 settlements with Comm2a in two cases because they thought payment was optional and they wanted to do the right thing?

Who knew? Who knows? This might be the best kept secret in the 2A/gun control battle. Is this being broadcast far and wide? If not, why not? Are there any others like this?

... but Bruen gave us many more weapons. It's taking some posters longer to accept that than others, but that's okay.

That, or some are just less patient with how slow the courts work.

 

[Picton]

OK, but it seems this only helps in the state where the lawsuit happens. I don't see much of anything happening in MA, for example.

...you're filing in federal court. You're bypassing the state court system. Do you not get that 1983 lawsuits are not about changing state law or challenging state statutes? That they are about individual relief for individual citizens suing individual officials? That those suits can be filed in ANY federal court district? That the judges in those districts are already using the history/precedent standard in deciding ongoing cases? That the outcome is a foregone conclusion, given that new standard?

This is what Bruen did, as I and others have posted ad nauseam but a lot of folks here don't get. The way the ruling is written fundamentally changed the way those cases are going to be adjudicated, going forward. There's no way around it, no matter what an individual judge believes about RKBA.

A MA marsupial who sees a NYS marsupial get his peepee smacked in federal court knows that he is next.

 

[pastera]

I have a question. From what I've read, I only see NYSRPA v. Bruen addressing the requirement to have a "license/permit" to carry outside your home. What about states like MA that require you to have a "license/permit" to merely own a handgun (even if you only intend to keep it at home for self defense in the home)? MA goes even further and requires a "permit" to own any firearm. Isn't the FID/LTC requirement for simple ownership an obvious infringement (I know it is). Why doesn't the law see it that way? Has there ever been a case challenging the licensing requirement for simple ownership?

There have been cases dealing with needing a license for simple possession in the home - all of them failed because lower courts stated intermediate scrutiny but applied zero scrutiny to their predetermined outcome.
Under Bruen they don't really have that option.

 

[Coyote33]

...you're filing in federal court. You're bypassing the state court system. Do you not get that 1983 lawsuits are not about changing state law or challenging state statutes? That they are about individual relief for individual citizens suing individual officials? That those suits can be filed in ANY federal court district? That the judges in those districts are already using the history/precedent standard in deciding ongoing cases? That the outcome is a foregone conclusion, given that new standard?

This is what Bruen did, as I and others have posted ad nauseam but a lot of folks here don't get. The way the ruling is written fundamentally changed the way those cases are going to be adjudicated, going forward. There's no way around it, no matter what an individual judge believes about RKBA.

OK, we get that. But then, how come every time someone says "How will this help us here in MA?", the answer is always "It won't, that is for NY only (or whatever state)."?

It either does or does not help here, and the answer keeps changing.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

There have been cases dealing with needing a license for simple possession in the home - all of them failed because lower courts stated intermediate scrutiny but applied zero scrutiny to their predetermined outcome.
Under Bruen they don't really have that option.

And a Heller case in MA court failed (but was recently GVR'ed by Scotus- see Morin v. Lyver) because the applicant did not exhaust every legal avenue to obtain a handgun. The one he missed was inheritance. I shit you not, the court actually said that.

The only time I know that the AGs office stated that an FID covers a handgun in the home under current MGL was when arguing that case (the court accepted that declaration from the ADA as fact).

 

[Picton]

OK, we get that. But then, how come every time someone says "How will this help us here in MA?", the answer is always "It won't, that is for NY only (or whatever state)."?

It either does or does not help here, and the answer keeps changing.

We’re talking about two different kinds of court cases.

Challenges designed to make mag limits or AWB go away in states are not the same as 1983 lawsuits.

In both cases, you’re seeking a remedy. The remedy you want in the first kind of case is invalidation of a bad law. Those decisions are only binding on a specific circuit, and if they grant your remedy, it extends to everyone else living in that circuit. A 1983 case is a tort, and the remedy you seek is money. Those are individual suits against a specific official in his personal capacity.

IANAL, though.

 

[Bonesinium]

You'd need to pass another law to make that happen. I'd agree with it.

No. You wouldn't. It's been a crime since at least 1948.

18 U.S. Code § 241 and 242​

It's never enforced, and why would it be. The government not only isn't going to prosecute itself, but our lovely courts created doctrine out of thin air that directly contradicts federal law.

News flash. Our government is corrupt. Laws don't matter to them. Case law doesn't matter to them. They do what they want and will continue to oppress us. They are criminals who ought to be in prison. That will never happen. There is only one solution, and they know it, hence their extreme efforts to ban guns.

 

[Picton]

No. You wouldn't. It's been a crime since at least 1948.

18 U.S. Code § 241 and 242​

It's never enforced, and why would it be. The government not only isn't going to prosecute itself, but our lovely courts created doctrine out of thin air that directly contradicts federal law.

That section covers officials acting in contravention of the Constitution, like police officers, but it only covers ACTS. Legislators do not "act" in the same way that, say, prison guards do. This section doesn't cover legislators, wasn't written to cover legislators, and never has covered legislators. Which was what I was responding to.

 

[strangenh]

Do you know what a 1983 suit is? This has been brought up to you several times...

 

[Dennis in MA]

So Antifa and the Anarchists are unarmed? Who was throwing Molotov cocktails at Cops, Police Stations? Who was burning down city centers? Recently Antifa has been showing up at "White Supremacist" rallies armed. Remember Andy Ngo? He was violently assaulted in Portland by Antifa thugs and NO ONE was arrested/prosecuted even thou it all was on tape. They don't need AR's to accomplish their mission, they have numbers and are not stupid.
Also there's no way in hell Antifa exists without inside help. Have any of them been arrested? Has the FBI infiltrated their ranks like they do/did with the Oath Keepers? Proud Boys? Mafia? Black Panther's? Has the Govt. even attempted to stop them from rioting and committing violence against their fellow Americans? Negative!

Such a small % of the liberals are these weak Antifa doofs.

 

[Hoover]

OK, we get that. But then, how come every time someone says "How will this help us here in MA?", the answer is always "It won't, that is for NY only (or whatever state)."?

It either does or does not help here, and the answer keeps changing.

Courts have jurisdiction over their area. Just like a Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling has no direct effect on anyone in the other 49 states and territories. NY is in the 2nd circuit, NJ, 3rd, Massachusetts the 1st etc

United States courts of appeals - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The comm2a guys and others in Massachusetts would need to answer you but with regards to mag limits for instance, there is a case currently pending in RI federal court. Whatever happens in that case at the district court will be appealed to the 1st circuit court of appeals. A pro 2 a ruling there would be binding on the states in the 1st circuit, ME, NH, PR, RI and MA. Filing a case in Massachusetts may be looked at as a waste since the RI case is already working its way through the system.


Even though a case in NY isn’t binding on the 1st circuit, positive rulings will be used by the pro 2A lawyers in other lawsuits and those positive rulings cited as to their reasoning and why another gun law should be struck down.

 

[Hoover]

OK, but it seems this only helps in the state where the lawsuit happens. I don't see much of anything happening in MA, for example.
Yeah, first we have to wait several years for "That includes the mag limit cases in NJ, MD and CA, AWB in NJ, NY, CT, MD CO and CA" to happen there, then wait some more for it to happen here.
Wasn't the original problem a rights violation? Do they need to have double violations for this to work?

Court isn’t a sprint, it’s a 1/2 marathon or marathon. The guy fighting Hawaii for a carry license, George young, filed his first case in 2011. Because of NYSRPA vs bruen Hawaii is settling and the case should be resolved in a month. I believe the mag limit case in California, Duncan, started in 2017. Pro 2A side won at the district court, appeal’s court, then lost en banc and appealed to SCOTUS. SCOTUS GVR ed the case and the 9th circuit set it back to the district court. So it’s basically starting over from near the start and will be considered based on the post NYSRPA standard.

I’m not a patient person either but it’s required for court unfortunately.

 

[Garys]

Maybe some of the others better versed in the topic can answer, but the issue might be standing in a MA case about needing a license for mere possession. As they have already federal courts in the 1CA can rule that until someone has exhausted all possible means of obtaining a license, they don't have standing.

OTOH, if they HAVE exhausted all possible means and file a suit they risk a bad outcome in court which would be problematic for all of us.

Which is why every organization trying to bring suit in this type of case wants a "pure" plaintiff in order to deny the defense or a judge from finding some flimsy excuse to deny the plaintiff relief.

The plus side of Bruen here would appear to be that at the time the Constitution was written no one needed a permit for mere possession.

Maybe I have that all wrong, so I'd like to see what other people think.

I have a question. From what I've read, I only see NYSRPA v. Bruen addressing the requirement to have a "license/permit" to carry outside your home. What about states like MA that require you to have a "license/permit" to merely own a handgun (even if you only intend to keep it at home for self defense in the home)? MA goes even further and requires a "permit" to own any firearm. Isn't the FID/LTC requirement for simple ownership an obvious infringement (I know it is). Why doesn't the law see it that way? Has there ever been a case challenging the licensing requirement for simple ownership?

 

[Hoover]

Maybe some of the others better versed in the topic can answer, but the issue might be standing in a MA case about needing a license for mere possession. As they have already federal courts in the 1CA can rule that until someone has exhausted all possible means of obtaining a license, they don't have standing.

OTOH, if they HAVE exhausted all possible means and file a suit they risk a bad outcome in court which would be problematic for all of us.

Which is why every organization trying to bring suit in this type of case wants a "pure" plaintiff in order to deny the defense or a judge from finding some flimsy excuse to deny the plaintiff relief.

The plus side of Bruen here would appear to be that at the time the Constitution was written no one needed a permit for mere possession.

Maybe I have that all wrong, so I'd like to see what other people think.

It’s definitely very important to file good cases and have the right lawyers involved. Isn’t that how the lawsuit against the mass AWB failed a few decades ago? A suit was filed and they were idiots and lost and the court precedent has screwed us since?

A bad lawsuit can screw up the effort, so waiting a bit for a better opportunity is FAR batter.

 

[Dennis in MA]

Do you know what a 1983 suit is? This has been brought up to you several times...

HUUUUGE shoulder pads. Floppy wide legs. Massive amount of break at the shoe. Possible vest. Definitely a yellow tie.

What do I win?

 

[SFC13557]

Do you know what a 1983 suit is? This has been brought up to you several times...

I'm sure the good leftists of NY are terrified of lawsuits filed by gunowners that will go nowhere. I love how Justice Hoover keeps bringing up Kim Davis, a low level County Clerk who pissed off the Homosexual cabal. Hmmm, according to latest report 2 homosexual "couples" are suing her and she lost in a case dating back to 2015. So, 7-8 yrs later they win judgement for money which she doesn't have.

So according to the posters maybe in 7-10 yrs some low level clerk or a NY politician will be served papers because they refused to issue an LTC to a NY resident. Remember, Kim Davis acted on her own against the homosexual cabal, any NY State employee or Pol will have the full backing of the State govt. and anti-gun groups. Times on their side folks, please get back to me when NY, Ca., NJ, etc. issue unrestricted LTC's or a NY State employee or Pol is arrested and jailed.

I KNOW the law and unlike Picton, Hoover, etc. I have no faith the law will be applied because of GUNZ. This is a moral crusade on the leftists part and they have many dedicated followers in govt,, the halls of justice and Law enforcement in NY and the Biden Admin as well as Congress. You guys should know better being Ma. residents.

 

[SFC13557]

From Picton;
"
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."

Right, and every anti-gun group as well as every A list Hollyweird celebrity donates Millions to their defense fund, pays for A list lawyers and establishes a gofundme account to support the plaintiff and family. The Plaintiff becomes a Liberal celebrity, appears on CNN, MSNBC, the View and is hailed as the next Rosa Parks. These people aren't stupid, they play the long game.

 

[Picton]

You can lead a horse to water. But you can’t make him drink.

This thread cites 42 examples of successful 1983 RKBA suits in MA. And that’s even BEFORE Bruen. But that doesn’t fit your narrative. So go ahead and ignore them.