Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

VetteGirlMA said:
The state of NY is really poking the scotus bear with the shenanigans.
Click to expand...

They made statements in passing the bill their goal was to nullify the SCOTUS decision. Very smart lol

The NJ law passed a few weeks ago is even more extreme than NY. I’ll just passed a loony AWB law, that’s going right to the courts too. They can see the make up of SCOTUS but are so anti 2A they can’t help themselves.
 
Hoover said:
They made statements in passing the bill their goal was to nullify the SCOTUS decision. Very smart lol

The NJ law passed a few weeks ago is even more extreme than NY. I’ll just passed a loony AWB law, that’s going right to the courts too. They can see the make up of SCOTUS but are so anti 2A they can’t help themselves.
Click to expand...
But they don't care because they're fanatics and believe they're above the law and SCOTUS is illegitimate.
I was on RT 2 yesterday and this car passed me and on the back window was written ABORT SCOTUS in white paint.
The shitbox actually had Purple Heart plates on it. 🤨
 
VetteGirlMA said:
The state of NY is really poking the scotus bear with the shenanigans.
Click to expand...
I believe these States are on a Kamikaze mission to take out SCOTUS as presently constituted.
I believe they're hoping to motivate some Leftist fanatic to take out one of the Conservative Justices so Joe gets a nominee and reverses the balance of the Court.
🤨
 
SFC13557 said:
But they don't care because they're fanatics and believe they're above the law and SCOTUS is illegitimate.
I was on RT 2 yesterday and this car passed me and on the back window was written ABORT SCOTUS in white paint.
The shitbox actually had Purple Heart plates on it. 🤨
Click to expand...

I think I might have seen that car before.

I shook my head.
 
SFC13557 said:
I believe these States are on a Kamikaze mission to take out SCOTUS as presently constituted.
I believe they're hoping to motivate some Leftist fanatic to take out one of the Conservative Justices so Joe gets a nominee and reverses the balance of the Court.
🤨
Click to expand...
They've either got something up their sleeve, or they are hoping/counting on the courts being rendered non-functional somehow.
 
Interesting video from Uncivil Law last night that popped regarding 2A cases and in this video he mentions GOAL and the MA AWB. He does mention that he thinks that the GOAL/Comm2A strategy of waiting for decisions is the smart move because courts move too slowly.

 
VetteGirlMA said:
Interesting video from Uncivil Law last night that popped regarding 2A cases and in this video he mentions GOAL and the MA AWB. He does mention that he thinks that the GOAL/Comm2A strategy of waiting for decisions is the smart move because courts move too slowly.

Click to expand...

Guy goes off about SCOTUS issuing decisions without hearing arguments making fun of the writer in the article (~3:50)
Problem is that the article is right - SCOTUS can and does issue opinions without hearing arguments.
per curiam
Per curiam decisions tend to be short.[3] In modern practice, they are most commonly used in summary decisions that the Court resolves without full argument and briefing
Click to expand...

If you are going to mock your opposition you should at least be right.
 
Hoover said:
They made statements in passing the bill their goal was to nullify the SCOTUS decision. Very smart lol

The NJ law passed a few weeks ago is even more extreme than NY. I’ll just passed a loony AWB law, that’s going right to the courts too. They can see the make up of SCOTUS but are so anti 2A they can’t help themselves.
Click to expand...

It's their version of "double-secret probation."

"Oh you're saying our laws are invalid. Well we will pass WORSE laws. . . and go over your head."

Ummmm, you'boys don't quite understand the law, do'ya?
 
firearmslaw.duke.edu

Private-Property Default Exceptions, Firearms Training, and Multi-Tiered Licensing

firearmslaw.duke.edu firearmslaw.duke.edu

“… he [Robert Leider] argues that the law New York passed, and the one New Jersey recently enacted, do not actually change the default rule as they claim to do [from requiring posting prohibiting firearms to requiring posting allowing firearms] because the laws exempt various groups from compliance. In other words, certain individuals are excused from the private-property default rule by virtue of their current or past position of employment or for other reasons, and those groups may carry on private property even when the property owner has not posted a sign specifically allowing firearms to be carried.”

The legal academics are grasping at straws again, suggesting that the police, licensed security & military exception from the requirement that places be posted allowing firearms is due to their extensive firearms training. Hence, the reversed posting requirement is about firearms training to qualify some to carry on private property rather than simply seizing private property owners’ rights. Of course, they then run into Justice Thomas’ rebuke of excessive training requirements.

The SCOTUS majority had to have been tipped off that NY was planning their opus magnum restrictions law in anticipation of losing Bruen, leading Thomas to list all the restrictions that wouldn’t fly.
 

Supreme Court Allows New York Gun Law to Stand for Now​

Gun owners had asked the high court to block new regulations immediately as litigation continues before appeals court​

From today's WSJ.

"WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court declined on Wednesday to block enforcement of new gun regulations New York state enacted in July after the justices ruled a previous state law requiring individuals to demonstrate “proper cause” to obtain concealed-weapons permits violated the Second Amendment.

A group of gun owners sued to strike down the new law, the Concealed Carry Improvement Act, arguing that it too violates the Second Amendment right to bear arms. A federal district judge in Syracuse, N.Y., agreed with the challengers, but the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in New York, expedited the state’s appeal and allowed the law to remain in effect in the interim.

The gun owners, arguing that each day they are deprived of carrying a concealed weapon puts them at risk of violent crime, asked the Supreme Court to block the law immediately even as litigation continues before the appeals court.
The Supreme Court’s order denying that request provided no explanation, as is typical. In a separate statement, Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, noted that the Second Circuit had provided no explanation for its decision to leave the law in force during the appeal.

The gun owners “should not be deterred by today’s order from again seeking relief if the Second Circuit does not, within a reasonable time, provide an explanation for its stay order or expedite consideration of the appeal,” Justice Alito wrote.

The Supreme Court doesn’t ordinarily intervene in cases before lower-court litigation concludes, and the action might not be the justices’ final word on the matter. After the Second Circuit makes its decision, the losing side could appeal to the Supreme Court.

New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act was intended to answer the Supreme Court holding that the previous gun law, on the books for more than a century, gave local officials too much discretion over whether applicants could justify a need to carry a concealed weapon.

Among other provisions, the new law required concealed-weapons applicants to list their social-media accounts, supply at least four character witnesses and take 18 hours of firearms training. It also listed a variety of sensitive locations where guns were restricted, including courts, schools, libraries, parks, playgrounds, homeless shelters, theaters, transit vehicles, bars, mental-health facilities, museums, amusement parks, houses of worship and, specifically, Times Square in New York City.

But gun activists argue that New York’s new measure defies Justice Clarence Thomas’s landmark opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which held that gun laws must at least be “relatively similar” to regulations widely applied in 1791, when the Second Amendment was ratified.

The Bruen opinion, approved in June by a 6-3 vote along the court’s general conservative-liberal divide, replaced the prevailing legal test for gun regulations, which in general upheld measures that were substantially related to important government interests such as public safety and crime control. Gun advocates believe an approach that limits weapons regulation to that which prevailed in the pre-industrial society of 18th-century America will lead courts to strike down more restrictions on firearms.

That, indeed, has been the early impact of the Bruen decision. In January, for instance, a federal district judge in Camden, N.J., blocked a law New Jersey enacted after the Supreme Court ruling with a similar list of sensitive places where firearms would be restricted.

New York, however, remains the epicenter of the weapons struggle. Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, expressed outrage after Bruen threw out a law that had been on the books since the early 1900s.

“We do not need people entering our subways, our restaurants, our movie theaters with concealed weapons. We don’t need more guns on our streets. We’re already dealing with a major gun violence crisis. We don’t need to add more fuel to this fire,” she said, before calling a special session of the state Legislature to enact the Concealed Carry Improvement Act.

Several legal challenges followed, and in November, a federal district judge in Syracuse, Glenn Suddaby, found many of the new law’s provisions unconstitutional and blocked their enforcement. The following month, the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in New York, set an expedited calendar for the state’s appeal, but said the law could remain in effect during the proceedings."
 

Federal Judge Strikes Down New Jersey Gun Law​

Judge called restrictions ‘extensive and burdensome,’ in ruling they violated the Second Amendment​

From WSJ.

"A federal judge Monday blocked enforcement of a New Jersey law that prohibits the carrying of firearms in certain public places, ruling it violates the Second Amendment.

New Jersey can’t enforce bans on concealed weapons in public libraries and museums, bars and entertainment facilities, according to the ruling by U.S. District Judge Renée Marie Bumb. She also blocked a provision that required businesses to indicate that they specifically allow people to carry on their premises.

“Together, the new restrictions are so extensive and burdensome that they render Plaintiffs’ right to armed self-defense in public a nullity,” Judge Bumb, an appointee of President George W. Bush, wrote in granting a temporary restraining order.

Democratic lawmakers in New Jersey passed the restrictions last year following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June that struck down New York’s concealed-weapons permitting regime. The 6-3 Bruen decision said states could ban firearms in “sensitive places” such as libraries and government buildings, but said any restrictions must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.

The ruling prompted several new laws, largely in Democratic-led jurisdictions, aimed at regulating firearm usage.

Gun-rights organizations have filed lawsuits to challenge the new laws, and a similar suite of restrictions in New York was also put on hold last year. Other changes to New Jersey’s permitting process—including a provision that requires pistol owners to obtain liability insurance—weren’t challenged. The insurance requirements aren’t yet in effect.

“While we are pleased that most of our concealed carry law remains in effect, we are disappointed that a right-wing federal judge, without any serious justification, has chosen to invalidate common sense restrictions around the right to carry a firearm in certain public spaces,” said a spokesman for Democratic New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy.

The spokesman said the state was considering an appeal. “We are working closely with the Attorney General’s Office to correct this errant decision and to ensure that the law will be reinstated in its entirety.”

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are a collection of people who hold concealed-weapons permits and regularly carry firearms while conducting business. They were supported by gun-rights groups, including the Firearms Policy Coalition.

Bill Sack, the organization’s director of legal operations, said he was thrilled by the ruling and said the law’s enforcement would have caused irreparable constitutional injury."
 
SFC13557 said:

Federal Judge Strikes Down New Jersey Gun Law​

Judge called restrictions ‘extensive and burdensome,’ in ruling they violated the Second Amendment​

From WSJ.

"A federal judge Monday blocked enforcement of a New Jersey law that prohibits the carrying of firearms in certain public places, ruling it violates the Second Amendment.

New Jersey can’t enforce bans on concealed weapons in public libraries and museums, bars and entertainment facilities, according to the ruling by U.S. District Judge Renée Marie Bumb. She also blocked a provision that required businesses to indicate that they specifically allow people to carry on their premises.

“Together, the new restrictions are so extensive and burdensome that they render Plaintiffs’ right to armed self-defense in public a nullity,” Judge Bumb, an appointee of President George W. Bush, wrote in granting a temporary restraining order.

Democratic lawmakers in New Jersey passed the restrictions last year following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June that struck down New York’s concealed-weapons permitting regime. The 6-3 Bruen decision said states could ban firearms in “sensitive places” such as libraries and government buildings, but said any restrictions must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.

The ruling prompted several new laws, largely in Democratic-led jurisdictions, aimed at regulating firearm usage.

Gun-rights organizations have filed lawsuits to challenge the new laws, and a similar suite of restrictions in New York was also put on hold last year. Other changes to New Jersey’s permitting process—including a provision that requires pistol owners to obtain liability insurance—weren’t challenged. The insurance requirements aren’t yet in effect.

“While we are pleased that most of our concealed carry law remains in effect, we are disappointed that a right-wing federal judge, without any serious justification, has chosen to invalidate common sense restrictions around the right to carry a firearm in certain public spaces,” said a spokesman for Democratic New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy.

The spokesman said the state was considering an appeal. “We are working closely with the Attorney General’s Office to correct this errant decision and to ensure that the law will be reinstated in its entirety.”

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are a collection of people who hold concealed-weapons permits and regularly carry firearms while conducting business. They were supported by gun-rights groups, including the Firearms Policy Coalition.

Bill Sack, the organization’s director of legal operations, said he was thrilled by the ruling and said the law’s enforcement would have caused irreparable constitutional injury."
Click to expand...

Yeah... go for it, NJ. Time to "correct this errant decision."

[rofl]
 
SFC13557 said:
I believe these States are on a Kamikaze mission to take out SCOTUS as presently constituted.
I believe they're hoping to motivate some Leftist fanatic to take out one of the Conservative Justices so Joe gets a nominee and reverses the balance of the Court.
🤨
Click to expand...
Kavanaugh has a bull's eye on his back thanks to the Leftist's, I hope he has security. Since they branded him a gang rapist their means will justify the end result and after the Abortion and Bruen ruling he is their #1 target.
 
El_Guapo77 said:
i take it as 2nd circuit clean up your mess or we will do it for you
Click to expand...
Opinion
JUSTICE ALITO said:
Applicants should not be deterred by today’s order from again seeking relief if the Second Circuit does not, within a reasonable time, provide an explanation for its stay order or expedite consideration of the appeal.
Click to expand...

In other words - Here's some rope. Do what's right or we kick the chair
 
El_Guapo77 said:
i take it as 2nd circuit clean up your mess or we will do it for you
Click to expand...

The denial was expected since it’s so early in the case, SCOTUS rarely gets involved at this point. As @pastera said, the statement from Alito join3d by Thomas was basically ‘we were pretty clear in bruen, we’re watching and we’re not going to allow our ruling to be ignored’
 
Hoover said:
The denial was expected since it’s so early in the case, SCOTUS rarely gets involved at this point. As @pastera said, the statement from Alito join3d by Thomas was basically ‘we were pretty clear in bruen, we’re watching and we’re not going to allow our ruling to be ignored’
Click to expand...
Which means NY, NJ, CA, etc. will continue to give the SCOTUS the finger and dare them to slap them down again.
The Left plays the LONG game.
 
Today's results weren't entirely unexpected but is certainly not a defeat. I had hoped for a full punch in the face but interlocutory interference is not their style. Alito and Thomas pointed the Eye of 2A Sauron at the 2nd Circuit and politely made it clear to them that Bruen is the law of the land and they should respect their authoritae.

-JR
 
JFR2 said:
Today's results weren't entirely unexpected but is certainly not a defeat. I had hoped for a full punch in the face but interlocutory interference is not their style. Alito and Thomas pointed the Eye of 2A Sauron at the 2nd Circuit and politely made it clear to them that Bruen is the law of the land and they should respect their authoritae.

-JR
Click to expand...

Yes. Even CNN is spinning it this way.
 
Gosh. the SC must be reversing their decision. It isn't like they have respect for the process and will wait to see if they even need to do any work. Nope. That can't be it. They must just have decided after passing the most sweeping gun interpretation since 1776 that guns'r'bad'm'kay?
 
Hoover said:
It’s a not going to be optional that they follow what the courts decide.

lawandcrime.com

Anti-Gay Marriage Former County Clerk Kim Davis Loses Bid for Qualified Immunity in Lawsuit Brought by Same-Sex Couples, Again

This is the second time Davis lost an effort to claim qualified immunity in the Sixth Circuit for her repeated, unlawful denials of marriage licenses.
lawandcrime.com lawandcrime.com
Click to expand...
We've been thru this before, Kim Davis acted on her own, she wasn't the Governor nor a highly influential NY/NJ Democrat. She was a low-level County Official not part of the protected class and this is about GUNZ, not Homosexual Marriage. She didn't have the backing of the Dem Party and wealthy donors who will fund and protect any public official the Feds would try to go after for not enforcing Bruen. Gun control is a core Leftist ideology and they have declared war on SCOTUS.
Hopefully we soon find out.
 

Similar threads

Garland v. VanDerStok
Replies
0
Views
113
lutstribe
L
Supreme Court decision on rifle bans
Replies
9
Views
738
Tartakovsky
Tartakovsky
Supreme Court ending permits
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
Worcester State Court Gun Policy
Replies
12
Views
453
Mark from ?
M
Is it time yet for a "Why is there even a dealer classifieds" Megathread?
Replies
12
Views
266
Individualist
Individualist
Back
Top Bottom