Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

[milktree]

So, how does this work? Does their legislature then have to reconvene and vote to remove it from the law books?

The legislature would not remove the laws even if/when SCOTUS finds them unconstitutional. The laws would simply be unenforced/unenforceable.

Lots of unconstitutional laws are still "on the books", but they're ignored by everyone including police, DAs, prosecutors, etc.

If you want an example: Lots of states had anti-abortion laws that became unenforceable when Roe v. Wade was decided. Some states even made new unenforceable laws. They sat there dormant until Dobs, then became enforceable laws again.

 

[oldgunner]

 

[Dennis in MA]

You’ll see some college protests, but they’ll be small. The real gnashing of teeth will be the race agenda politicians and the media. It’s a virtue signal issue for the DC to NY white liberal crowd.

Who is going to protest???? I'm looking for the outrage. Unless there are Hahhh'vuhhhd students who feel that some less-qualified student should have taken their place. Wait. Hold up. LOL

Damn. I may need to counter-protest in the event they do protest. "If you think the SC is wrong, quit and give your seat to a minority!" LOL

 

[Dennis in MA]

View attachment 680711

. . . OR the definition.

 

[Coyote33]

I don't know if this was posted in this like, but it supports the idea that courts will be striking down laws fairly quickly.

Federal Judge Strikes Down New York’s Ban on Firearms in Places of Worship | Duke Center for Firearms Law

firearmslaw.duke.edu

This is simply a temporary restraining order. It is not a final decision. There will be addition judicial proceedings and if the state loses they may appeal.

No, even if it was at the appellate level it would only effect that circuit

No, a lot of these TROs are foreshadowing of what will happen.
NY's law on no carry in private property without posting or direct permission in churches impermissibly infringes on both the first and second amendments

The judge that allowed the law to stand used a legal argument not allowed by Bruen and rejected by multiple other courts already.

It would be better to take these pronouncements with a decent dose of reading.

We have already explained this to you. This does not directly affect MA. Once again, with feeling, this is not a final decision. This is simply a temporary restraining order

But by now you should realize any time that you read an article about a temporary restraining order that the restraining order is temporary. It isn't a final decision. Furthermore, you should by now understand the difference between the federal district court, the federal appeals court, and the Supreme Court of the United States. You should understand that even a final decision by a district court is subject to multiple appeals.

Nowhere in that post by GaryS did it mention "temporary". It also did not say New York state, it said "federal". I did not read the article, I was taking the headline and its announcement on face value and asked a question to get to the heart of the matter. Hopefully it helped someone else as well.

 

[Picton]

I did not read the article, I was taking the headline and its announcement on face value

No offense, but this kind of attitude is much of what's wrong with our country. You're in good company.

 

[firestorm]

Nowhere in that post by GaryS did it mention "temporary". It also did not say New York state, it said "federal". I did not read the article, I was taking the headline and its announcement on face value and asked a question to get to the heart of the matter. Hopefully it helped someone else as well.

If you didn't read the article, perhaps that is the best place to start instead of having to be told the same thing 100 times because you clearly refuse to understand any part of how the courts work.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

View: https://youtu.be/9OO8IIn5k4c

 

[M1911]

Nowhere in that post by GaryS did it mention "temporary". It also did not say New York state, it said "federal". I did not read the article, I was taking the headline and its announcement on face value and asked a question to get to the heart of the matter. Hopefully it helped someone else as well.

Well, if you had actually read the article instead of just the headline, you would have seen that the very first sentence was this:

On October 20, a federal judge in the Western District of New York issued a decision in Hardaway v. Nigrelli granting a motion for a temporary restraining order and enjoining New York’s ban on carrying firearms in “any place of worship or religious observation.”

 

[Hoover]

Our court systems are a confusing mess to a lot of people, I can understand why @Coyote33 and others might get confused. I know sometimes I lose track of what is happening where and who it affects.
And with all the idiot YouTubers screaming about the super victory, major desition, etc when all they are talking about is a TRO, or some low level court decision that is obviously going to be appealed, wel ya it will get confusing if you don't filter out the BS.

One thing is for sure , when the final decisions start coming out, you will hear about it here. And not just some YouTube link. What it won't say is TRO or Temporary anything.

Click bait stinks everywhere, YouTube, nES, Twitter, newspapers , TV, etc.

Yeah, it’s not “game changing” for a district court to issue a TRO or deny an extended discovery period etc. the best are Stephen Gutowski and @2aupdates. They are sober and report information in a measured way without hype. They understand these are long fights with years of court action, not days or weeks.

 

[Len-2A Training]

We have already explained this to you. This does not directly affect MA. Once again, with feeling, this is not a final decision. This is simply a temporary restraining order.

This is just the local district, not the appeals court. Once there is a final decision in the local district, if NY loses, then they can appeal. They will appeal to the 2nd District appeals court. If NY loses that appeal and does not appeal to SCOTUS, then the case would be binding in the 2nd District. But we are in the 1st District so that appellate decision would not be binding in our district.

If NY loses at appeal and then appeals to SCOTUS, AND if SCOTUS agrees to hear the appeal AND if NY loses the appeal THEN it would be binding in MA.

Notice all the IFs in the paragraph above?

Furthermore, there is currently no law in MA banning carry in a church, so there would be no change to MA law as a result of a decision in this case. Would such a district or appeals court decision set a precedent that would be referred to in any similar case in MA? Yes, it would. But it would not be binding.

Stop holding your breath. The wheels of Justice will be turning for a while.

I admire your continued attempts to educate those that refuse to read and comprehend what they are told, over and over again! Sadly, you are on a mission of futility.

 

[Hoover]

We have already explained this to you. This does not directly affect MA. Once again, with feeling, this is not a final decision. This is simply a temporary restraining order.

This is just the local district, not the appeals court. Once there is a final decision in the local district, if NY loses, then they can appeal. They will appeal to the 2nd District appeals court. If NY loses that appeal and does not appeal to SCOTUS, then the case would be binding in the 2nd District. But we are in the 1st District so that appellate decision would not be binding in our district.

If NY loses at appeal and then appeals to SCOTUS, AND if SCOTUS agrees to hear the appeal AND if NY loses the appeal THEN it would be binding in MA.

Notice all the IFs in the paragraph above?

Furthermore, there is currently no law in MA banning carry in a church, so there would be no change to MA law as a result of a decision in this case. Would such a district or appeals court decision set a precedent that would be referred to in any similar case in MA? Yes, it would. But it would not be binding.

Stop holding your breath. The wheels of Justice will be turning for a while.

I know you meant 2nd circuit, etc rather than 2nd district

And I know you’re familiar enough with the process to know even if say Massachusetts were to lose an AWB case in the 1st circuit court of appeals. That would be binding on Massachusetts, RI, NH, Me and Puerto Rico. Other states like NY, MD, NJ, CT, CA etc would pressure Massachusetts not to appeal the AWB loss to SCOTUS because a decision there would likely end AWBs nationally rather than only the 1st circuit.

The case which gives me a headache now is the defense distributed vs NJ. NJ is fighting in fed court in NJ to hear the case there, DD is in the 5th circuit and Texas district court to get the case heard there. Various courts are ruling and it’s hard to understand what’s going on. And all this is just over jurisdiction, they haven’t even started with the case yet.

 

[Hoover]

And again, just for clarity, does this, or does this not affect other states, such as Massachusetts?

I perused this, it will probably explain the process for you.

The U.S. Court System Explained

Read the latest Explainer.

www.democracydocket.com

 

[Waher]

Click bait stinks everywhere, YouTube, nES, Twitter, newspapers , TV, etc.

Yeah, it’s not “game changing” for a district court to issue a TRO or deny an extended discovery period etc. the best are Stephen Gutowski and @2aupdates. They are sober and report information in a measured way without hype. They understand these are long fights with years of court action, not days or weeks.

Rob Romano @2Aupdates does follow NES.

 

[MaverickNH]

A Federal Judge Calls Clarence Thomas’ Bluff on Gun Rights and Originalism

Reeves’ order is bracingly honest about the sorry state of Second Amendment jurisprudence today.

slate.com

Better hire a white, wealthy, male historian…

"Last Thursday, Judge Carlton Reeves of the Southern District of Mississippi charted a different course: He proposed appointing a historian to help him “identify and sift through authoritative sources on founding-era firearms restrictions” to decide the constitutionality of a federal law barring felons from possessing firearms…

Federal judges “lack both the methodological and substantive knowledge that historians possess. The sifting of evidence that judges perform is different than the sifting of sources and methodologies that historians perform. And we are not experts in what white, wealthy, and male property owners thought about firearms regulation in 1791.” Putting oneself in the mindset of rich, white men in the 18th century requiring training and practice. “Yet we are now expected to play historian in the name of constitutional adjudication.”

 

[EJFudd]

A Federal Judge Calls Clarence Thomas’ Bluff on Gun Rights and Originalism

Reeves’ order is bracingly honest about the sorry state of Second Amendment jurisprudence today.

slate.com

Better hire a white, wealthy, male historian…

"Last Thursday, Judge Carlton Reeves of the Southern District of Mississippi charted a different course: He proposed appointing a historian to help him “identify and sift through authoritative sources on founding-era firearms restrictions” to decide the constitutionality of a federal law barring felons from possessing firearms…

Federal judges “lack both the methodological and substantive knowledge that historians possess. The sifting of evidence that judges perform is different than the sifting of sources and methodologies that historians perform. And we are not experts in what white, wealthy, and male property owners thought about firearms regulation in 1791.” Putting oneself in the mindset of rich, white men in the 18th century requiring training and practice. “Yet we are now expected to play historian in the name of constitutional adjudication.”

The anti-gun/anti-gunowner left will never give up pushing the idea that the Second Amendment really doesn't mean what it says and that it's really just about allowing the states to possess arms.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

Rob Romano @2Aupdates does follow NES.

Thanks for the info!

 

[SFC13557]

The anti-gun/anti-gunowner left will never give up pushing the idea that the Second Amendment really doesn't mean what it says and that it's really just about allowing the states to possess arms.

Of course, it's all they got but it's a fundamental belief they hold just like the Constitution and Bill of Rights are antiquated and not relevant today.
This is why it's a waste of time talking with them, they must be defeated soundly and banished from polite society which will never happen. They're on a mission and it's to destroy the country and us. Without a total reform of American Universities, they will keep turning out little fanatical leftist/socialist activists/foot Soldiers whose sole purpose in life is to bring down Western Civ.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

A Federal Judge Calls Clarence Thomas’ Bluff on Gun Rights and Originalism

Reeves’ order is bracingly honest about the sorry state of Second Amendment jurisprudence today.

slate.com

Better hire a white, wealthy, male historian…

"Last Thursday, Judge Carlton Reeves of the Southern District of Mississippi charted a different course: He proposed appointing a historian to help him “identify and sift through authoritative sources on founding-era firearms restrictions” to decide the constitutionality of a federal law barring felons from possessing firearms…

Federal judges “lack both the methodological and substantive knowledge that historians possess. The sifting of evidence that judges perform is different than the sifting of sources and methodologies that historians perform. And we are not experts in what white, wealthy, and male property owners thought about firearms regulation in 1791.” Putting oneself in the mindset of rich, white men in the 18th century requiring training and practice. “Yet we are now expected to play historian in the name of constitutional adjudication.”

Reeves is a really impressive guy. He sits in the same chambers he cleaned while putting himself through school. Awhile back he wrote a blistering opinion on a QI case. But I digress.

I actually share some of his concerns about the workability of the standard laid out in Bruen. History is messy and all we’re going to get is dueling amici briefs from historians for and against.

One of the problems with ‘history’ is that as soon as the bill of rights was amended, the government set about violating it. That’s the ‘history’.

 

[MaverickNH]

Reeves is a really impressive guy. He sits in the same chambers he cleaned while putting himself through school. Awhile back he wrote a blistering opinion on a QI case. But I digress.

I actually share some of his concerns about the workability of the standard laid out in Bruen. History is messy and all we’re going to get is dueling amici briefs from historians for and against.

One of the problems with ‘history’ is that as soon as the bill of rights was amended, the government set about violating it. That’s the ‘history’.

Yeah, addressing questions wrt historical analogs will just allow yet another level of acceptance/rejection at lower courts. The good-enough minimum in one court will fail to meet the bar in another court. The net effect may be a plus for RKBA though - in former may-issue states the past of very few carry permits may be replaced by more permits with very few places to carry, but challenges to sensitive places in shall-issue/constitutional carry states will probably diminish sensitive places and other restrictions rather than increase them.

New York Federal Courts Split on How Expansively To Read the Second Amendment | Duke Center for Firearms Law

firearmslaw.duke.edu

”Bruen, in short, continues to license unbounded judicial discretion that permits federal courts to implement their policy preferences in the guise of historical fact-finding.”

A church, is like a park, is like a restauraunt that serves alcohol as children may be present, so all are sensitive places and guns are banned.

My favorite anti-gun legal academics at Duke continue to grasp at straws. To argue against the “bad guys don’t follow the laws” position using Oath Keepers caching of guns outside DC in Virginia 6 Jan is just silly…gangbangers/robbers and “insurrectionists” are vastly different categories of ”criminals”. I don’t think most anti-gun Progressives would seriously support the notion, but might just choose not to disagree. From Moderate-Liberals on rightward, nobody will buy that argument.

“The court also found that the plaintiffs had established they would suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction. Churches are sites of protected First Amendment activity. Plus, according to the court, churches can be dangerous places:

Law-abiding citizens are forced to forgo their Second Amendment rights to exercise their First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion, or vice versa. And they are forced to give up their rights to armed self-defense outside the home, being left to the mercy of opportunistic, lawless individuals who might prey on them and have no concern about the place of worship exclusion.

In other words, criminals don’t follow the law. (Besides being a reductive gun-rights talking point, it’s also not the case that all those bent on doing harm flout gun laws—see, e.g., the many January 6th insurrectionists who left their guns at home, or at a staging area in Virginia, rather than take them into D.C. precisely because of the District’s strict gun laws.)”

 

[Coyote33]

Well, if you had actually read the article instead of just the headline, you would have seen that the very first sentence was this:

If the headline had that information in it, that would have taken care of all that.

 

[M1911]

If the headline had that information in it, that would have taken care of all that.

You need to read more than just the headline before asking a question about an article. In the media world, headlines are often written by an editor in order to grab your attention, and are often not a completely accurate description of the article.

 

[vicorjh]

The Santa Clara sheriff in CA was busted taking bribes.

And, now a convicted ex-sheriff:


View: https://youtu.be/XZPt2cHik6M?t=147

 

[strangenh]

And, now a convicted ex-sheriff:


View: https://youtu.be/XZPt2cHik6M?t=147

Yep.

Former Santa Clara County sheriff guilty on all counts in civil corruption trial

The unusual trial, which sought only to remove Laurie Smith from office, continued even after Smith abruptly stepped down Monday. She was found guilty on six counts of committing willful or corrupt misconduct in office.

www.latimes.com

Show this article to anyone saying discretionary "may issue" of any kind is a reasonable standard.

 

[M1911]

And, now a convicted ex-sheriff:


View: https://youtu.be/XZPt2cHik6M?t=147

But it's only a civil trial. If she was still in office, it would have resulted in her being tossed out. It isn't a criminal case, which could result in jail time. Let's see if they DA starts a criminal prosecution.

 

[M1911]

Yep.

Former Santa Clara County sheriff guilty on all counts in civil corruption trial

The unusual trial, which sought only to remove Laurie Smith from office, continued even after Smith abruptly stepped down Monday. She was found guilty on six counts of committing willful or corrupt misconduct in office.

www.latimes.com

Show this article to anyone saying discretionary "may issue" of any kind is a reasonable standard.

It's not the first time this has happened and possibly not the worst.

Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced today that PAUL DEAN was sentenced to 18 months in prison by the U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos today in connection with a bribery scheme involving the approval of gun licenses by the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”) License Division. Specifically, DEAN, who as second-in-command of the License Division had accepted gifts and favors in connection with his approval of gun licenses, conspired upon his retirement from the NYPD to open his own “expediting” business in which he would pay bribes to his fellow NYPD officers, once his subordinates in the License Division, to issue gun licenses to DEAN’s clients.

Full text: Former New York City Police Department Official Sentenced To 18 Months For Conspiring To Bribe Fellow Officers In Connection With Gun License Bribery Scheme

This has always been the goal of discretionary licensing -- to keep guns out of the hands of poor people and minorities. It's about power, not public safety.

 

[Picton]

But it's only a civil trial. If she was still in office, it would have resulted in her being tossed out. It isn't a criminal case, which could result in jail time. Let's see if they DA starts a criminal prosecution.

I bet it means she can no longer hold office in CA. That's the only reason I can see for continuing with the trial after she bailed.

 

[Dench]

I bet it means she can no longer hold office in CA. That's the only reason I can see for continuing with the trial after she bailed.

She's a 4 star general also. Or something. Police ranks are serious business.

 

[strangenh]

She's a 4 star general also. Or something. Police ranks are serious business.

Yep. Big fish, small tank.

 

[Hoover]

I bet it means she can no longer hold office in CA. That's the only reason I can see for continuing with the trial after she bailed.

She’s a sheriff in CA, I bet her pension for the rest of her life will be substantially more than $100,000/ yr