Garys
NES Member
-
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
Dennis in MA
NES Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 40,798
- Likes
- 36,274
How much drugs is Mitt Romney on
That guys brain is fried.
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
Ummm, is he any different than he was 30 years ago??? You people think that because someone has D or R next to their name they always do X or Y. Not the case. If Charlie Baker got elected Senator from Montana, do you think he'd be a gun rights champion???
RTFC.
Rob Boudrie
NES Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 48,949
- Likes
- 36,417
Sorry, Conservatives, De Tocqueville Did Not Call the 2012 Election
From the moment President Obama was reelected, disgruntled conservatives began circulating a quote heralding democracy's downfall at the hands of greedy voters. We hate to break it to them in their time of mourning, but their favorite bit of historical wisdom is fabricated.
www.theatlantic.com
SCOTUS wants briefs regarding the petition to lift the stay in the NY state bruen response bill
View: https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/1607757314894725122?s=61&t=lOAADjV44pjtIIH-jhpirw
Before people ask, this is what happened. SCOTUS ruled in June, 8 days later NY state passing an absurd bill which makes it impossible to carry bet making A LOT of places “sensitive places” where guns are not allowed.
Federal district court judge issues TRO against many parts of the NY bill. NY state appeals to 2nd circuit court of appeals 3 judge panel to stay (pause) the district court TRO. The TRO stops the enforcement of the NY state bill, the stay by the 2nd blocks that TRO and allows the NY bill to go into effect.
This appeal to SCOTUS is to lift the 2nd circuit stay and allow the district court TRO to be in effect (blocking parts of the NY state bill) while the case is heard by the district court.
NJ actually passed a worse bill last week than the abomination NY passed in July. There are two cases in NJ to block the NJ from being enforced, those cases will be heard over the next week. A ruling by SCOTUS is important even though it’s only on a TRO without the cases being heard on the merits yet. SCOTUS needs to slap down their judges who ignore the NYSRPA vs bruen ruling. Hopefully the mag case in RI follows soon. The judge in that case explicitly used interest balancing which SCOTUS said was not to be used.
View: https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/1607757314894725122?s=61&t=lOAADjV44pjtIIH-jhpirw
Before people ask, this is what happened. SCOTUS ruled in June, 8 days later NY state passing an absurd bill which makes it impossible to carry bet making A LOT of places “sensitive places” where guns are not allowed.
Federal district court judge issues TRO against many parts of the NY bill. NY state appeals to 2nd circuit court of appeals 3 judge panel to stay (pause) the district court TRO. The TRO stops the enforcement of the NY state bill, the stay by the 2nd blocks that TRO and allows the NY bill to go into effect.
This appeal to SCOTUS is to lift the 2nd circuit stay and allow the district court TRO to be in effect (blocking parts of the NY state bill) while the case is heard by the district court.
NJ actually passed a worse bill last week than the abomination NY passed in July. There are two cases in NJ to block the NJ from being enforced, those cases will be heard over the next week. A ruling by SCOTUS is important even though it’s only on a TRO without the cases being heard on the merits yet. SCOTUS needs to slap down their judges who ignore the NYSRPA vs bruen ruling. Hopefully the mag case in RI follows soon. The judge in that case explicitly used interest balancing which SCOTUS said was not to be used.
Dadstoys
NES Member
?Ummm, is he any different than he was 30 years ago??? You people think that because someone has D or R next to their name they always do X or Y. Not the case. If Charlie Baker got elected Senator from Montana, do you think he'd be a gun rights champion???
RTFC.
Just to be clear, #4 is the latest, which is a good thing for our side. Right?
They need to issue a blistering ruling as a shot across the bow of insubordinate lower courts and 'insurrectionist' state legislatures.
Just looked this up.
In 2010 the Court rejected argument in McDonald v. Chicago to overrule the established precedent of Slaughterhouse and decided instead to incorporate the Second Amendment via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
CatSnoutSoup
NES Member
Mark Smith has a pragmatic view of this latest event and it seems he is leaning toward thinking the plaintiff's emergency appeal may be denied on procedural grounds.
They could have denied the petition. That would leave the stay in place and allow the process t9 continue with the NY bill in effect. It’s definitely more positive than not that SCOTUS asked for briefs. That means they’re looking at it and may lift the stay.
How it goes is probably a battle between the usual path where the higher courts don’t get involved in situations and leave things in place vs the likelihood of success of winning the case. The safe position for a court is to leave the stay, that’s what normally would happen. The catch here is the politicians were very clear they were passing the bill in direct defiance of SCOTUS, making the NYSRPA vs bruen decision moot. The defendants (NY state) have zero chance of success in the case
VetteGirlMA
NES Member
If SCOTUS does get in the middle then it will send a pretty clear signal to the other circuits to get in line and do their jobs instead of being activists.
Mark Smith has a pragmatic view of this latest event and it seems he is leaning toward thinking the plaintiff's emergency appeal may be denied on procedural grounds.
That’s a very good summation, it explains the situation very well.
The big question is will SCOTUS allow open defiance of their recent bruen ruling. NY was very clear their bill was designed to make carrying in public impossible. The briefs to the lower courts and SCOTUS literally quote the NY governor and others saying they intend to negate SCOTUS. NJ just passed an even more restrictive bill last week.
If the stay is allowed to remain and the NY law gets enforced, it’s going to be at least 18 months to 2 years before a decision from the 2nd circuit and if that crazy circuit upholds the NY state law, it would be 3 plus years before a SCOTUS decision if they head the case, a little less if they granted, vacated and remanded it.
If SCOTUS allows the stay, is basically a green light for anti states (MA, NY, NJ, CT, RI, DE, MD, CA, IL, HI, ) to pass similar unconstitutional laws. It would also be taken as a sign of weakness by anti judges who are hearing mag limit cases, AWB cases, etc. those judges would ignore bruen and continue the interest balancing BS and we’d be in a pre bruen world in the anti 2A circuits.
I think Alito, Gorsuch, Thomas are inclined to lift the stay. Barrett I think is probably with them as well. Roberts and Kavanaugh are more procedural and cautious. This NY bill isn’t what has been done over the years with abortion, new laws increasing the regulations or restrictions. The NY bill was 8 days after bruen and explicitly to completely moot bruen. It wasn’t an increase in restrictions, it was an elimination of a constitutional right SCOTUS said has always existed.
VetteGirlMA
NES Member
Mark Smith has a pragmatic view of this latest event and it seems he is leaning toward thinking the plaintiff's emergency appeal may be denied on procedural grounds.
Yeah and sadly what it means is that we'll end up with 10 more years of fighting for 2A rights while waiting for a case to make it to SCOTUS. I think putting a little fear of god in them that they must adhere to the Bruen precedent might go a long way to curtail the lower courts from thumbing their noses at SCOTUS decisions.
In this particular situation, I think NY and NJ have forced the issue to a point SCOTUS can’t ignore it. It NY passed a bill which increased license fees to $1k, hours of training 100 etc. those are increases in the hoops to jump. SCOTUS talked about restrictions in the oral arguments for bruen and in the decision. The discussion was about “sensitive places” and (I believe Thomas) said ‘you can’t say the island of Manhattan is a sensitive place’. They actually went far beyond that, and they were obnoxiously taunting SCOTUS when they passed it. NJ did the same and passed an even more extreme bill.
SCOTUS definitely should act. It’s not how they like to handle things as they like to allow lower courts to resolve issues without the need to get involved. But NY and now NJ forced it and this is a more unique situation than most.
It won’t be like post McDonald. Remember the court was 5-4 with Kennedy and the unreliable 5th. After Kavanaugh there was a reliable 5th and with Barrett a reliable 6th for actual cases. This court struck down Roe, it’s not the meek Kennedy court
Garys
NES Member
Yes. Justice Thomas wrote a scathing concurrence wherein he argued that privileges or immunities should have been restored by taking the opportunity to overturn Slaughterhouse. Unfortunately, he could not convince the other Justices.
That said, he may well have chosen a better route by writing Bruen in such a way as to remove "balancing" from consideration when deciding Constitutional law.
That said, he may well have chosen a better route by writing Bruen in such a way as to remove "balancing" from consideration when deciding Constitutional law.
Garys
NES Member
It would seem where a Sua Sponte response by SCOTUS would be appropriate, but they apparently aren't going to move in that direction.
It's going to be "Whack A Mole" for a while as NY, NJ, probably MA, and others try to figure out a way to thwart the decision.
It's going to be "Whack A Mole" for a while as NY, NJ, probably MA, and others try to figure out a way to thwart the decision.
MaverickNH
NES Member
On RI’s denial of a motion to preliminarily enjoin Rhode Island’s recent statutory prohibition of “Large Capacity Feeding Devices,” or LCMs.
“The judge first made findings of fact from the evidentiary record, which included opposing declarations by expert historians retained by the parties. The judge stated that “the credentials of the proffered experts weigh heavily in the Court’s view of which opinions to accept where there is a conflict.” According to the judge, the background and credentials of the plaintiffs’ experts suggested potential bias, whereas “[t]he State’s historians are more traditional neutral academics.”
The judge wouldn’t judge the validity of historians’ analyses but would judge the historians’ credentials for potential bias. LOL! Going back to testimony in favor os passing the RI mag limit law, would one find any testimony from biased gun control advocates? of course, but that’s not in the judges equation. NRA-ILA | Rhode Island: Senate Leaders Maneuver to Pass Magazine Ban
Judges from states with restrictive gun laws will find this a good delaying tactic so they need not be the ones providing precedents for reversing <10rd mag bans, as well as AWBs, sentive places restrictions, etc. While staying new restrictive gun laws may be possible (like NY), staying decisions to NOT reverse existing laws has no claim of immediate harm.
Last edited:
I would be against them ruling summarily on cases that aren't specifically brought to them, just as a question of constitutional precedent.
Although I'd love them to smack MA down personally, I don't think it's good for SCOTUS to take on cases without due process.
Garys
NES Member
The case has been brought before them and decided. That case was Bruen and it is now the law of the land. It would be the same as if a state decided that they were going to ignore Miranda.
Miranda is still being adjudicated. SCOTUS ruled on portions of it just this past summer, in Vega v. Tekoh. And five subsequent cases have modified it; states have never stopped challenging it. But it's apples to oranges, anyway, since Miranda itself was an amalgamation of four similar cases from four different judicial districts, so SCOTUS did what you wanted them to in Miranda. All those districts had to comply at once.
They didn't in Bruen. Bruen technically only relates to NYS, because they didn't merge it with other similar cases. States that are deciding to challenge it are within their rights, technically, until SCOTUS strikes them down one by one OR until they get tired of it and choose to hear a new, merged case; states that are choosing not to challenge it are acknowledging they'd lose. The "law of the land" in Bruen is the text/history test, not the specifics about NYS' discriminatory licensing scheme. The other details still need to work themselves out, unfortunately.
Last edited:
One issue is a few courts, the fed district court in RI for one, are still using interest balancing which Thomas very clearly said could not be used. With respect to the NY and NJ cases with sensitive places, the bills clearly go way way beyond what SCOTUS said in oral arguments and the decision.
It’s hard for me to understand how the RI guy can get away with pretending the new rule doesn’t apply, but then the inner workings of the federal courts are not my thing.
He won’t get away with it but he can in the short term. That opinion he put out was openly defying SCOTUS and he didn’t hide it at all.. it’s so bad I wouldn’t be shocked if the 1sr circuit overturns him
SFC13557
NES Member
Because he's an anti-gun leftist, activist Judge who's doing the Anti's bidding I believe.
The Left has declared SCOTUS decisions they disagree with not applicable to them because of the makeup of the court and has declared War on the Conservative Justices. The Left is desperate, and the Court needs to slap them down hard.
This is what I'm unsure about: what happens to him? Obviously his decision will get overturned (I'm not worried about that), but does he get censured or reprimanded? And if so, does it have any teeth? I would imagine not, but if he stopped getting cases assigned, that would have more impact.
I just don't know how that kind of thing works. Jackson is our circuit justice, but I doubt even she knows what she's able to do; she probably only just learned where her parking space is.
CatSnoutSoup
NES Member
Who is now protesting outside his family's home Kavanaugh style?
Sorry I forgot, what-goes-around-comes-around is not a doctrine of the lawful right, even though it probably should be.
Parker Schreiber
NES Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2020
- Messages
- 2,244
- Likes
- 3,232
It's not obvious to me his decision will be overturned. The 1st circuit isn't exactly gun friendly, and it's their decision that would be overturned by the Supreme Court.
What happens to him? In all probability nothing, but the process is covered under the US Code Here:
28 U.S. Code Chapter 16 - COMPLAINTS AGAINST JUDGES AND JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE
TL;dr version. The judge can be censured privately or publicly. They can have cases removed from their docket, and given cr*p cases to adjudicate, or no cases at all. The judicial council can ask that they resign. And finally, they can request that the House of Representatives impeach him, which the House can also do on their own initiative.
This is the fairest thing that I think should happen.
Who decides that? The circuit justice (Jackson)?
I believe the chief of that district court could reprimand him in a way and affect assignments but he’s the chief lol.
His ruling was only non a TRO so it’s very unlikely the 1st or SCOTUS reverses him on that. His opinion on the merits of the case will probably be this spring and I’m certain it will be as dumb and unconstitutional as his TRO. The plaintiffs should try to get to that point as soon and possible then get to the 1st with the appeal.
