Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

Hoover said:
New linsky bill t9 ban carry in “sensitive “ places. Basically a ripoff of NY and NJ. bans carry pretty much everywhere



The rep from Amherst has a bill with a 36% tax on gun and ammo to fun some health fund.
Click to expand...
And why would they exempt active duty military if their intent wasn't to deploy armed military units into these sensitive areas (everywhere). Seems an odd thing to keep legal in a country where the military isn't supposed to be used in an armed capacity on the citizens.
 
KBCraig said:
It's been three days since the final rule was released, and two of those were weekend days.

How "timely" do you expect SCOTUS to be on this timeline?
Click to expand...
Not very timely
The timeline for enforcement is 120 days so I don't think we'll see anything from SCOTUS since there is time to go to lower court first.
 
pastera said:
Not very timely
The timeline for enforcement is 120 days so I don't think we'll see anything from SCOTUS since there is time to go to lower court first.
Click to expand...

It also doesn’t start the clock until it’s filed in the federal register and I’m note sure that’s happened yet either. We’ll see lawsuits across the country for the rule once someone has standing.
 
42! said:
And why would they exempt active duty military if their intent wasn't to deploy armed military units into these sensitive areas (everywhere). Seems an odd thing to keep legal in a country where the military isn't supposed to be used in an armed capacity on the citizens.
Click to expand...
The exemption of on-duty active military is a BS allusion to their insistence that the 2nd applies only to militia.
The military is not under state control nor held to state law so the exemption is meaningless
 
pastera said:
The exemption of on-duty active military is a BS allusion to their insistence that the 2nd applies only to militia.
The military is not under state control nor held to state law so the exemption is meaningless
Click to expand...
A member of the military who is on leave is still active duty. So when they are just walking around like any other person, they would be allowed to carry. Why should they be special? I've met some in the military I wouldn't trust unsupervised with a slingshot, let alone a gun. There is a reason the army doesn't have everyone walking around the base with a gun, why do they want to allow it among the general public?
 
42! said:
A member of the military who is on leave is still active duty. So when they are just walking around like any other person, they would be allowed to carry. Why should they be special? I've met some in the military I wouldn't trust unsupervised with a slingshot, let alone a gun. There is a reason the army doesn't have everyone walking around the base with a gun, why do they want to allow it among the general public?
Click to expand...
I said "on duty"
The legislature put the following in because they know that it will never be authorized so it won't happen and they get to say that it is their to further "the true intent of the 2nd" per their interpretation.
As far as carry on base or in public, I don't have any issue with it.
There would be a few less dead military members if they weren't defenseless (shootings on base)
That you don't trust some unnamed, unknown private changes nothing about the inalienable right of self defense.
(ii) any member of the military or other service of any state or the United States, including members of the national guard, reserves and junior reserve officer training corps;
Click to expand...

provided, however, that any such person described in clauses (i) to (iii), inclusive, shall be authorized by a competent authority to so carry a loaded or unloaded rifle or shotgun on a public way and such person is acting within the scope of his duties or training
Click to expand...
 
pastera said:
I said "on duty"
The legislature put the following in because they know that it will never be authorized so it won't happen and they get to say that it is their to further "the true intent of the 2nd" per their interpretation.
As far as carry on base or in public, I don't have any issue with it.
There would be a few less dead military members if they weren't defenseless (shootings on base)
That you don't trust some unnamed, unknown private changes nothing about the inalienable right of self defense.
Click to expand...

A JROTC exemption? Now that’s just silly…does somebody’s kid in the legislature belong to a High School JROTC?
 
MaverickNH said:
A JROTC exemption? Now that’s just silly…does somebody’s kid in the legislature belong to a High School JROTC?
Click to expand...
True; it is silly, more than that it's F'n hillarious.
However, politicians point to those meaningless lines of text to say that their law doesn't infringe because they exempted those who are covered by the 2nd. They also know that not a single (j)ROTC member will ever be given an order or permission to carry. As far as military, they aren't under Massachusetts jurisdiction so the exemption is also meaningless (and the number of military that would get permission/orders to regularly carry in public is essentially zero).

It's all smoke and mirrors designed to confuse the ignorant and truly stupid - And the process works phenomenally well
 
pastera said:
They also know that not a single (j)ROTC member will ever be given an order or permission to carry.
Click to expand...

Well... we carried rifles all the time in JROTC. They had a rod welded down the barrel, but the receivers were unaltered. We stored them in the high school and signed them out to practice D&C, to do color guards at bball games, to work out moves for the drill team, or to march in parades. They got a lot of use, and not just on campus. We did a LOT of color guard events for local organizations, so we often traveled with them.

JROTC is not active duty military. They are high school students. They've signed no contracts.
 
Picton said:
Well... we carried rifles all the time in JROTC. They had a rod welded down the barrel, but the receivers were unaltered. We stored them in the high school and signed them out to practice D&C, to do color guards at bball games, to work out moves for the drill team, or to march in parades. They got a lot of use, and not just on campus. We did a LOT of color guard events for local organizations, so we often traveled with them.

JROTC is not active duty military. They are high school students. They've signed no contracts.
Click to expand...
a parade rifle != firearm so no need for an exemption
 
pastera said:
a parade rifle != firearm so no need for an exemption
Click to expand...

Sure, but that was just MY ROTC program. Some of them have pistol or rifle teams that actually shoot Real Gunz.

And I remember one of our Mausers had a barrel rod that would fall out sometimes. Then, it became a Real Gun too.
 
Picton said:
Sure, but that was just MY ROTC program. Some of them have pistol or rifle teams that actually shoot Real Gunz.
Click to expand...
But those are sanctioned and likely have people with FID/LTCs supervising and transporting the guns (but per the quoted statutes not actually necessary as long as someone can actually define '"competent authority")
 
The latest news to upset Gov. J.B. Pritzker is a request for preliminary injunction in the National Shooting Sports Foundation backed lawsuit against Pritzker's new AWB in IL.

The initial complaint by NSSF and others was filed 1/24/2023 and Judge J. Phil Gilbert was assigned but two days later was recused and the case, Barnett v. Raoul, moved to Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly going forward. Magistrate Judge Daly is a former counsel to Southern Illinois University and one time assistant AG for IL, a resume which to me doesn't necessarily scream defender of 2A rights, but what do I know.

www.nssf.org

NSSF Challenges Illinois’ Unconstitutional Gun and Magazine Ban

WASHINGTON, D.C. — NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, along with several co-plaintiffs, filed a legal challenge seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent Illinois from enforcing the recently enacted law that bans most semiautomatic firearms including Modern Sporting Rifles...
www.nssf.org www.nssf.org

Rob Romano is relentless in his efforts to share relevant 2A judicial information, if you are not following him you should.




🐯
 
"In 2020, Ford sold 787,442 F-Series pickup trucks (including, but not limited to, the F-150, the most popular model). That is less than a third of the number of AR-style rifles sold that year."
Click to expand...

Gee I wonder if Pritzker and the IL legislature could tell me what else was happening that year that might have helped prompt sales of rifles over pickup trucks?

I5Kkesnl.jpg



🐯
 
Waher said:

View: https://twitter.com/2Aupdates/status/1618081014085214208?cxt=HHwWgIDT5f-GyvQsAAAA
Click to expand...


Nebraska has a weird legislature where it's one body, not a senate and a house and you need a super majority to pass things. The legislature is overwhelmingly GOP but there were enough dems to block the super majority needed last year to pass constitutional carry. After the mover 2022 election people in Nebraska say they have the votes now to pass constitutional carry this year, so they’ll be number 26/27 along with Florida. Louisiana passed it last year but fell a few votes short of overriding the asshat governor. Possible they have the votes this year. If they don’t, the governor is term limited and the next governor is almost certainly a GOP so constitutional carry will pass next year if not this year.
 
SFC13557 said:
Is JROTC even allowed in Ma. schools?
Click to expand...

Yes. But a lot of schools are either uninterested or don't know about it. And I'd imagine there are few eligible instructors around here; you have to be a retiree, and the school needs to pony up half your salary (always for more than one instructor) and a heap of space in the building. Space that's not normally easy to find in the enclosed schools up here.
 
Picton said:
Yes. But a lot of schools are either uninterested or don't know about it. And I'd imagine there are few eligible instructors around here; you have to be a retiree, and the school needs to pony up half your salary (always for more than one instructor) and a heap of space in the building. Space that's not normally easy to find in the enclosed schools up here.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I was being sarcastic.
I think some of the cities still had JROTC like Lowell HS.
 
SFC13557 said:
Sorry, I was being sarcastic.
I think some of the cities still had JROTC like Lowell HS.
Click to expand...

My HS had it down in Southern California, but there were VERY few other detachments down there. Schools just can't afford to give up the space, usually.
 
5th circuit court of appeals strikes down federal domestic violence gun restraining order. He 5th circuit is the most conservative circuit by far so an appeal en banc won’t be a good option for the gov, they’ll need to appeal to SCOTUS who will likely deny cert (hearing the case). The 5th en banc just struck down the bump stock ban 13-3.



View: https://twitter.com/2aupdates/status/1621214956111777793?s=61&t=DvWn-6uZdqCseeIImeupvQ




Cheers frank lautenberg 🤣
 

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