Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

[Garys]

No shit. However, the rational for the decision, as expressed in Justice Thomas' opinion goes far, far beyond concealed carry. If it didn't there would be a lot of cases GVRed and there wouldn't be any challenges to magazine bans for rifles.

On June 23, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, overturning a New York gun safety law. The Court ruled that New York's law requiring a license to carry concealed weapons in public places is unconstitutional.Jul 12, 2022

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

 

[Picton]

I think they’ll name the leaker. Their clerkship has already ended, the way to punish the leaker is to out them and destroy their legal career.

This is what I meant when I said the people who need to know the leaker's ID already know the leaker's ID.

Think of it this way: he/she is likely to be the only clerk in SCOTUS history to leave their term without a glowing letter of rec to whatever law firm they're applying to. Any firm hiring manager is going to know what that means.

There are probably gigs that won't care about the leak (probably outside the legal profession) or who are too desperate for people (public defenders, say), and that's where the leaker will end up. They won't be the usual top-tier firms SCOTUS clerks go to, however, and the leaker won't be invited to any reunions or anything. All those networking opportunities will dry up.

 

[SFC13557]

I think they’ll name the leaker. Their clerkship has already ended, the way to punish the leaker is to out them and destroy their legal career.

Correct, that's what I thought but that clerk, if ID'd, would still get a job with some Leftist DC Law Firm

 

[Mesatchornug]

On June 23, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, overturning a New York gun safety law. The Court ruled that New York's law requiring a license to carry concealed weapons in public places is unconstitutional.Jul 12, 2022

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

The quote you include is editorializing by the League of Women Voters (source: Understanding the Supreme Court's Gun Control Decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen | League of Women Voters)

Here's the meat of the ruling taken from p. 63 of the source document:

New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.

You'll note that they did not constrain it to "concealed" carry. They recognized that there may be a tradition of regulating the manner of carry that varies among the several states and refused to weigh on that part of the question.

 

[Hoover]

Correct, that's what I thought but that clerk, if ID'd, would still get a job with some Leftist DC Law Firm

The leak could cost them their law license. I think they’ll be a pariah in the legal field, they’d probably go to Capitol Hill or a left think tank like CAP

 

[T-Unit]

I doubt the leaker was a Justice. Far more likely a clerk on one side or the other.

Why do you doubt it was a justice? I said at the time it happened there was only one person who had reason to do it to preserve their legacy and that's John Roberts. Roberts doesn't want to go down as the Chief Justice of the court that struck down the signature legislation of the first Black president and he didn't want to be the CJ of the court that overturned Roe. He leaked the draft to try and intimidate one of the Trump justices to change their vote.

It's obvious it was Roberts because he was the one responsible for investigating the leak and we haven't heard a definitive who done it since May/June when the investigation began. The reason: Roberts is investigating himself. There's no furor over that leak anymore because it was so long ago, so Roberts played the game well. I mean, he didn't get what he wanted, but he's also not been exposed as the leaker, which in the history of the court that leak was unprecedented.

 

[SFC13557]

Why do you doubt it was a justice? I said at the time it happened there was only one person who had reason to do it to preserve their legacy and that's John Roberts. Roberts doesn't want to go down as the Chief Justice of the court that struck down the signature legislation of the first Black president and he didn't want to be the CJ of the court that overturned Roe. He leaked the draft to try and intimidate one of the Trump justices to change their vote.

It's obvious it was Roberts because he was the one responsible for investigating the leak and we haven't heard a definitive who done it since May/June when the investigation began. The reason: Roberts is investigating himself. There's no furor over that leak anymore because it was so long ago, so Roberts played the game well. I mean, he didn't get what he wanted, but he's also not been exposed as the leaker, which in the history of the court that leak was unprecedented.

I don't believe it was Robert's or his office, he's too much of an institutionalist and wouldn't want to be suspected of being the leaker.

 

[T-Unit]

I don't believe it was Robert's or his office, he's too much of an institutionalist and wouldn't want to be suspected of being the leaker.

Well when he's the one in charge of investigating the leaker he doesn't have much to worry about, does he?

 

[Picton]

Well when he's the one in charge of investigating the leaker he doesn't have much to worry about, does he?

If his ironclad priority is to "protect the integrity of the Court," it's clear that he's going to do whatever that priority requires him to do.

I don't believe he dunnit. I think it would be difficult for the other justices to work with him effectively if they knew he was a leaker. There are a million other reasons too, but remember that this is a tiny, closed club that has to be able to trust each other for many decades. Roberts knows that leaking something (for no reason at all, really) would make his job harder for years to come.

 

[SFC13557]

Well when he's the one in charge of investigating the leaker he doesn't have much to worry about, does he?

Actually, Colonel Gail Curley, the Courts Marshall, is in charge of finding the leaker.

The former Army colonel in charge of searching for Supreme Court leaker

Gail Curley is the Supreme Court's 11th Marshal and the second woman to hold the post.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[Garys]

Sadly, can only upvote once, but it did it with heart emoji!

The quote you include is editorializing by the League of Women Voters (source: Understanding the Supreme Court's Gun Control Decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen | League of Women Voters)

Here's the meat of the ruling taken from p. 63 of the source document:

You'll note that they did not constrain it to "concealed" carry. They recognized that there may be a tradition of regulating the manner of carry that varies among the several states and refused to weigh on that part of the question.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

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.

There are significant differences between MA and states like NY and NJ.

In NY and NJ, pretty much nobody except a VIP got a carry permit (except upstate NY issued "not valid in NYC" permits). Bruen opened up the concept of commoners being allowed to carry which created a "crisis to be solved" compounded by the fact that NY has a procedure allowing no public comment or debate to pass emergency legislation.

In MA there was really very little difference, and no "crisis". The issuance of permits was already under the thumb of police (and will take years of litigation to get the MA courts to understand the new standard), and over 90% of the licenses to possess handguns were unrestricted carry permits. Except for a few holdout jurisdictions like Brookline, nothing chanced at the macro level, and no mass hysteria of "omg - people without a government pension carrying guns".

CA is interesting because even VIPs were frequently denied carry permits in places like LA and SF, but they were available in other areas and valid in those cities. In effect, this mimicked the old Texas "traveler" law. MD was somewhat in the middle, and HI was even worse that NYC or LA (really surprised HI didn't pull the emergency legislation trick).

 

[SFC13557]

"There are significant differences between MA and states like NY and NJ.

In NY and NJ, pretty much nobody except a VIP got a carry permit (except upstate NY issued "not valid in NYC" permits). Bruen opened up the concept of commoners being allowed to carry which created a "crisis to be solved" compounded by the fact that NY has a procedure allowing no public comment or debate to pass emergency legislation."

Good point and you are correct. Bruen is nowhere near a threat to Ma. Pols as it is to NY/NJ Pols. As bad as we have it Ma., it's Nirvana for gunowners compared to NY/NJ/HI.

 

[Toast]

Apologies if I missed it in the preceding 182 pages, but has there been any discussion of how the ruling effects 18 U.S. Code § 930, the prohibition of firearms and other weapons in federal facilities, if at all?

 

[Mesatchornug]

Apologies if I missed it in the preceding 182 pages, but has there been any discussion of how the ruling effects 18 U.S. Code § 930, the prohibition of firearms and other weapons in federal facilities, if at all?

It doesn't

 

[Hoover]

There are significant differences between MA and states like NY and NJ.

In NY and NJ, pretty much nobody except a VIP got a carry permit (except upstate NY issued "not valid in NYC" permits). Bruen opened up the concept of commoners being allowed to carry which created a "crisis to be solved" compounded by the fact that NY has a procedure allowing no public comment or debate to pass emergency legislation.

In MA there was really very little difference, and no "crisis". The issuance of permits was already under the thumb of police (and will take years of litigation to get the MA courts to understand the new standard), and over 90% of the licenses to possess handguns were unrestricted carry permits. Except for a few holdout jurisdictions like Brookline, nothing chanced at the macro level, and no mass hysteria of "omg - people without a government pension carrying guns".

CA is interesting because even VIPs were frequently denied carry permits in places like LA and SF, but they were available in other areas and valid in those cities. In effect, this mimicked the old Texas "traveler" law. MD was somewhat in the middle, and HI was even worse that NYC or LA (really surprised HI didn't pull the emergency legislation trick).

MA is significantly better than HI, NY, NJ. As you knotweed they issues in MA (other than the places you mentioned like Brookline) are with AWB, mag limits, handgun roster stuff. It was funny about 6 years ago GA passed a “guns anywhere “ bill as the antis dubbed it and their restrictions for carry were still quite a bit more than MA.

The other difference between MA and CA, NY, NJ are how aggressive the pols are. Those 3 states pass new gun control yearly or every few years, MA pols are not 2A friendly but they are not even close to as active as those other states.


In CA a sheriff was just convicted civilly for taking bribes to issue carry licenses to Silicon Valley VIPs.

 

[Hoover]

Apologies if I missed it in the preceding 182 pages, but has there been any discussion of how the ruling effects 18 U.S. Code § 930, the prohibition of firearms and other weapons in federal facilities, if at all?

That’s going to be an issue at some point with the “sensitive places” litigation. Just a guess but I think SCOTUS will ultimately define sensitive places as a place with fences, walls, etc and some type of security ie metal detectors, armed guards…. So the immediate secured area of time square on New Year’s Eve or in the secured area of the Boston marathon would count for those limited times. I don’t think they’ll say malls, parks, subways, beaches etc will count because those are not secured or can’t be secured.

 

[Dadstoys]

The first Circuit can't do it because the justices on that court are like 90% Donk nominated and if they strike down the RI mag law then it applies to MA and CT as well. The only aspect of the law I could see the 1st Circuit striking down is the lack of grandfathering as Mass has had that for decades, but I don't think the court can take a case ruling on the Bruen precedent of text and history for magazine bans as a whole and only apply it to the grandfathering.

One thing is certain tho with all the Donk judges on all the Circuit courts is they know if they uphold AWB and mag bans that SCOTUS has a high chance of granting cert to an appeal and overturning them to make the decision nationally binding and the goal of every Anti right now is to keep as many 2A cases away from SCOTUS as far as possible.

Which NY seems determined to do.
I find it amusing .
I do wonder if there have been any calls from other 2A unfriendly states telling them "For the love of god just f*cking stop before we have nothing left."

 

[Dadstoys]

I thought she was a bad guy. Dammit. That's two changes to my scorecard in less than 24 hours. (Shockingly, even though they do vote "against" us a lot of times, the Supreme's have respect for the majority decision and rule of law. I have to say it's pretty comforting.)



It's law. You throw a crapton of stuff at the wall and hope that ANYTHING sticks. You go to GREAT lengths to make STUPID points, on the off chance they are accepted. I recall back in a law class, teh prof pointed to the student center out the window. "Can I get to the SC going through that window?" "Sure". "Can I get there going (and he pointed 180 degrees away) that way?" Many said, "no." "Of course you can. But you've got to go ALL THE WAY AROUND THE WORLD. That's what law is like. You make every argument however stupid. Some of it sticks and you win."

It also explains why anything lawyerly takes 800x longer than necessary and costs 2000x more than expected.

If a ruling that she was not in favor can be flipped off and brushed aside , so can one she's in favor of.
They are supposed to be the last word and they are getting punked.
I would imagine if she's planning on looking for support when it's her turn she'll give it now.

 

[Hoover]

Which NY seems determined to do.
I find it amusing .
I do wonder if there have been any calls from other 2A unfriendly states telling them "For the love of god just f*cking stop before we have nothing left."

NJs bill is even crazier than NY. Both are on a kamikaze mission, I doubt anyone could talk sense into them. CAs legislature tried a bill a few months ago but fell a vote short of the necessary number. They’ll pass it in January once they get back int9 session.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

No shit. However, the rational for the decision, as expressed in Justice Thomas' opinion goes far, far beyond concealed carry. If it didn't there would be a lot of cases GVRed and there wouldn't be any challenges to magazine bans for rifles.

No Shit.

 

[Toast]

It doesn't

I'm not sure how "It doesn't" is responsive to a question explicitly framed as "has there been any discussion of ....".

 

[Mesatchornug]

I'm not sure how "It doesn't" is responsive to a question explicitly framed as "has there been any discussion of ....".

It was a reply to the second half: "how it affects [...]"

 

[42!]

But without outing the leaker they encourage another leak by a Leftist clerk during the next anti-Left case like the Harvard anti-Asian case. That will be the next Leftist breakdown.

Being a clerk for SCOTUS is a major plus in a legal career. I'm sure the word is out, pull this shit again and you'll be chasing ambulances for the rest of your life.

 

[Coyote33]

Which NY seems determined to do.
I find it amusing .
I do wonder if there have been any calls from other 2A unfriendly states telling them "For the love of god just f*cking stop before we have nothing left."

When I asked from "an other unfriendly state" (Massachusetts), I was effectively told earlier in this thread "None of this Bruen stuff is about Massachusetts, and what is happening is slow and won't happen for years. You will be told in this thread when either of those changes."

 

[T-Unit]

When I asked from "an other unfriendly state" (Massachusetts), I was effectively told earlier in this thread "None of this Bruen stuff is about Massachusetts, and what is happening is slow and won't happen for years. You will be told in this thread when either of those changes."

The NY stuff is about states that had garbage may issue schemes that were de facto no issue. Some parts of Mass were like that, but not all and so far Mass isn't pulling the same stunts that NY is.

I would like to know how people inside that vaunted housing recession proof zone inside I95 are doing getting LTCs that were previously unobtainable.

 

[general disorder]

Being a clerk for SCOTUS is a major plus in a legal career. I'm sure the word is out, pull this shit again and you'll be chasing ambulances for the rest of your life.

The thing about many young leftist is they think their doing God's work. They don't realize that communism is a machine that will chew and spit you out when it's done with you.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The NY stuff is about states that had garbage may issue schemes that were de facto no issue. Some parts of Mass were like that, but not all and so far Mass isn't pulling the same stunts that NY is.

I would like to know how people inside that vaunted housing recession proof zone inside I95 are doing getting LTCs that were previously unobtainable.

NY was all about NYC; commoners could get unrestricted permits in part of upstate NY.

Many years ago there was a NY push to remove restrictions on all NY permits. Then mayor Koch announced all restricted permits would be revoked (even just "in the home" permits) immediately if that law was passed.

 

[SFC13557]

The thing about many young leftist is they think their doing God's work. They don't realize that communism is a machine that will chew and spit you out when it's done with you.

You are correct but reality is a bitch. The DC legal cabal is bought and paid for by the DC swamp creatures, look what happened to the 2 lawyers who successfully argued Bruen.

Bruen attorneys leave law firm after being told to ditch 2A clients

bearingarms.com

 

[chuckules]

You are correct but reality is a bitch. The DC legal cabal is bought and paid for by the DC swamp creatures, look what happened to the 2 lawyers who successfully argued Bruen.

Bruen attorneys leave law firm after being told to ditch 2A clients

bearingarms.com

Yet their (former) firm, Kirkland and Ellis, has no problem defending Jeffrey Epstein for sex trafficking minors.

Kirkland & Ellis - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

• Jeffrey Epstein in a case of sex-trafficking with minors, resulting in a reduced charge plea bargain with limited penalties, which later garnered "accusations that the lenient sentence enabled Epstein to continue his abuse."[31] Evaded legal obligation[32] to notify victims of the plea bargain, thereby violating victims rights under the CVRA, by holding secret meetings with Alex Acosta's staff in the Marriott hotel[33]