DarthRevan
NES Member
Unreal…
-
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
any update on timing for arguments? If this went our way, would it be incorporated to all states or only NY?
This is one to watch. If this doesn't go our way, the second amendment is dead.
This is one to watch. If this doesn't go our way, the second amendment is dead.
Every "may issue" state is corrupt. MA included. Boston, for sure.And the cash.
Bribes don't pay themselves.
Ex-cop: NYPD gun license division was a bribery machine
They might as well have a had a hotline: 1-800-GIFTS4GUNS. A former city cop spilled his guts Tuesday, telling Manhattan jurors about years worth of bribes he and his fellow officers received for d…nypost.com
Parker Schreiber
NES Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2020
- Messages
- 2,244
- Likes
- 3,233
Not according to Scotus Blog. Given the number of briefs that have been filed, I doubt it'll be early in the term.
Supreme Court rulings are binding precedent on all states. But there's a wide variety of ways the Supreme Court could choose to rule. To begin with, they have to decide whether or not the Heller and McDonald decisions extend beyond "self-defense in the home." Based on the lack of dissent in the Caetano decision, I expect them to rule that Heller and McDonald are so limited, and that will apply to all states. After all, Caetano was arrested for possessing the stun gun outside of work, not in her home.
Beyond that, I can only speculate. The court could rule that New York's "proper cause" language is unconstitutional, but not offer any further guidance. That would leave "may issue" and similar application processes intact; limiting the effect to New York and a few other places with similar language. Or they could go further, holding that "may issue" is unconstitutionally vague and establish guidelines for "shall issue." Or they could go full Alito/Thomas and require "constitutional carry." My guess is that Roberts and Gorsuch will opt for judicial restraint, so it'll be a limited defeat for New York and the "may issue" states.
the new term doesn’t start until October, here the case wasn’t accepted until late last term, I doubt it’s heard until November or December. The decision will almost definitely be in June. They have several hot bottom cases, affirmative action, abortion and guns.
Rob Boudrie
NES Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 48,955
- Likes
- 36,423
Affirmative action and guns have one thing in common - A striking difference between what many in power consider "desired public policy" and "that the constitution clearly requires". This makes it impossible to predict the outcome with any decree of confidence, because you just don't know which the court will consider more important.
it’s only a matter of time before the court strikes down using race in admissions to colleges especially, Robert has been against that policy from the start and to other non kagan, Breyer sotomayor justices are not favorable to them either. I doubt they’ll make a broad ruling beyond school admissions but I think the ruling will open the door to employment affirmative action suits and lead to striking down all race based polices in employment.
I this SCOTUS will strike down the NY law in this case (I think there are at least 6 justices to find NYs law unconstitutional) but I know Roberts will want a very narrow ruling and probably send the case back to a lower court with instructions. I’m comfortable. I hope kavanaugh and Barrett don’t get swayed into a meek ruling
So lets say the supreme court rules in favor of pro 2a (which I think it will or it wouldn’t have taken this case)….. Would that immediately end MA ability to put carry restrictions on ltc holders?
I know theoretically it should but as we know the dems could care less about the constitution.
I know theoretically it should but as we know the dems could care less about the constitution.
SCOTUS needs to stop allowing lower courts to ignore heller and McDonald. After this case, SCOTUS needs to enforce their decision particularly in the 1st, 4th and 9th circuits where judges feel SCOTUS ruling don’t apply to them
Rob Boudrie
NES Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 48,955
- Likes
- 36,423
I expect the court will be unlikely to accept the outcome of hundreds of thousands of ordinary, unconnected people obtaining NYC carry permits and will come up with some decision to prevent that outcome.
Supreme Court will hear arguments Nov. 3 over NRA-backed challenge to NY gun law
Supreme Court will hear arguments Nov. 3 over NRA-backed challenge to NY gun law
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for a major case that centers on whether the Constitution guarantees the right to carry guns outside the home.
I'm excited that this puts sunlight on something that is patently unconstitutional. But, I am fearful knowing SCOTUS has a huge role and does not swing policy in large swoops so the outcome may be tepid from our 2A perspective. The following statement from the article sums it up for me:
The petition for the Supreme Court to review the case argues that the appellate ruling upholding the New York law was “untenable.”
“In its view, the Second Amendment may protect a fundamental, individual right of the ‘people,’ but the state may fundamentally and individually dictate which people (if any) may exercise that right,” said the petition.
That appeal to the high court was written by Paul Clement, who served as solicitor general under former President George W. Bush.
Compared to the INANE statement by that idiot Letitia James:
New York Attorney General Letitia James had argued in February that the Supreme Court should decline to take up the case.
“The law is consistent with the historical scope of the Second Amendment and directly advances New York’s compelling interests in public safety and crime prevention,” James wrote in the opposing brief.
I'm disgusted by the 'public health' crowds trying to latch firearms ownership to it. They need to pound sand.
The petition for the Supreme Court to review the case argues that the appellate ruling upholding the New York law was “untenable.”
“In its view, the Second Amendment may protect a fundamental, individual right of the ‘people,’ but the state may fundamentally and individually dictate which people (if any) may exercise that right,” said the petition.
That appeal to the high court was written by Paul Clement, who served as solicitor general under former President George W. Bush.
Compared to the INANE statement by that idiot Letitia James:
New York Attorney General Letitia James had argued in February that the Supreme Court should decline to take up the case.
“The law is consistent with the historical scope of the Second Amendment and directly advances New York’s compelling interests in public safety and crime prevention,” James wrote in the opposing brief.
I'm disgusted by the 'public health' crowds trying to latch firearms ownership to it. They need to pound sand.
GaryO
NES Member
That's funny, almost like saying Chicago is a safe city.
If more citizens carried guns I would think bad players would give a 2nd thought to robbing someone therefore making NY a safer place.
Dennis in MA
NES Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 40,798
- Likes
- 36,280
The Titted One (that's the rough translation, right?) isn't wrong. Historically, towns and states have had rights to restrict gun ownership and use.
Of course, historically blacks didn't have rights as humans and we could segregate and all that. Prior to the late 60's, cops could beat you and obfuscate your rights when interrogating you. Close to 200 years of court rulings supported it.
Claiming a 19th century interpretation of 2A is probably wrong. We see rights in a much different way in
Of course, historically blacks didn't have rights as humans and we could segregate and all that. Prior to the late 60's, cops could beat you and obfuscate your rights when interrogating you. Close to 200 years of court rulings supported it.
Claiming a 19th century interpretation of 2A is probably wrong. We see rights in a much different way in
safetyfirst2125
NES Member
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2020
- Messages
- 19,014
- Likes
- 51,845
This could also blow up in our face couldn’t it, if SCOTUS rules it’s fine to impose draconian measures to LTC and deny for any reason?Supreme Court will hear arguments Nov. 3 over NRA-backed challenge to NY gun law
Supreme Court will hear arguments Nov. 3 over NRA-backed challenge to NY gun law
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for a major case that centers on whether the Constitution guarantees the right to carry guns outside the home.www.cnbc.com
Couldn’t a bad ruling here pave the way to universal “may issue”?
Last edited:
Rob Boudrie
NES Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 48,955
- Likes
- 36,423
I fear a backfire because SCOTUS may be results driven, when the result is armed unimportants in NYC.
What is worse than gun-control per-se is the NYC system of setting up a law that not only makes the police immune (even when off duty), but allows the police to issue immunity to select individuals. If they want a carry ban. make it for EVERYONE, even the well connected - and do not allow retired or off duty police to carry, and don't play the "on duty 24x7 even when retired" word game.
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
That judge can go read the 2A again, because he failed in his statement. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED !
Rob Boudrie
NES Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 48,955
- Likes
- 36,423
Many times rulings sidestep the essential issue to hang the courts hat on a more defensible reason.
For example, little attention in the NYC case appears to be directed as lack of equal treatment under the law.
We saw it here in MA when the SJC decided that discharge within 500ft of an occupied dwelling was a per-se offense. It did not require any intent; even an AD into a bucked of sand in a clearing bucket in your basement would bring lifetime PP status in MA. The court in part bases its ruling on the "minor" penalty associated with the offense ($100 or up to 3 months), but totally (and no doubt intentionally) made no reference to the lifetime aspect of the punishment.
VetteGirlMA
NES Member
Alan Dershowitz thinks that SCOTUS will update the Heller decision by stating that carrying of weapons both open carry and concealed will be expanded due to the current crime wave.
www.newsmax.com
Alan Dershowitz to Newsmax: Supreme Court Won't Overrule or Affirm Roe v. Wade
The Supreme Court will most likely "split the difference" rather than either wholly affirming Roe v. Wade precedent or completely overruling it, legal expert Alan Dershowitz told Newsmax.
www.newsmax.com
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
what a pile of shit. how's it working?
“The law is consistent with the historical scope of the Second Amendment and directly advances New York’s compelling interests in public safety and crime prevention,” James wrote in the opposing brief.
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
as lack of equal treatment under the law. like in mAss with the it's OK, for them but not you, per-ban BS
"It's not a complete ban on handgun ownership in violation of SCotUS precedent & the Bill of Rights when you still can inherit them from dead people!" -1st Circuit Court Jesters
bigbravehog
NES Member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2013
- Messages
- 7,425
- Likes
- 20,394
I would hope so, but not at all confidant in anything about the current SCOTUSAlan Dershowitz thinks that SCOTUS will update the Heller decision by stating that carrying of weapons both open carry and concealed will be expanded due to the current crime wave.
Alan Dershowitz to Newsmax: Supreme Court Won't Overrule or Affirm Roe v. Wade
The Supreme Court will most likely "split the difference" rather than either wholly affirming Roe v. Wade precedent or completely overruling it, legal expert Alan Dershowitz told Newsmax.
Parker Schreiber
NES Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2020
- Messages
- 2,244
- Likes
- 3,233
I think the odds of the Court imposing universal "may issue" are zero. With the exception of DC, I see this as being the equivalent of a freeroll. The worst possible outcome is the status quo, which I also consider the least likely. My guess is that we'll see a fairly limited ruling that the NY law is unconstitutional, but the ruling won't extend to prohibiting "may issue" altogether.
Yes - we can hope the Court requires some standard. Set of rules that are equal for everyone, not subjective by the issuing authority. Sound like it might be important here in MA to anybody?
Although we may not like the standard they come up with. And NY may take another angle to it which denies almost all the permit. We shall see
Although we may not like the standard they come up with. And NY may take another angle to it which denies almost all the permit. We shall see
safetyfirst2125
NES Member
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2020
- Messages
- 19,014
- Likes
- 51,845
Now would be a good time to remind Roberts of the pics of him on Epstein island, if I were running the DNC..........
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
I am not talking about just hand guns. Rifles and mags. Cops can have it but joe citizen can not, is. f*** the 1st circus
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
Yes, they will more than likely be very vague and not solve anything or follow the constitution
They might pull a Caetano. Which will result in NY ignoring the ruling for a 'do-over' at a later date, which if you look at behavior of the 9th Circus in the Hawaii stun gun case delayed for two years now means effectively never.
View: https://twitter.com/2Aupdates/status/1443771755181576197
Will you please stop with this crap? Roberts was at work in D.C. on those dates. It was a different John Roberts.
