Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

[Dadstoys]

It’s so easy to use the system as a weapon. Think about this, a woman wants a divorce because she’s not in love any longer or he cheated, whatever. If she has an evil or anger in her. She tears her shirt, hits her self in the face enough to leave redness, makes some marks on her arms, makes some scratches, knocks a few thins over, breaks a lamp…., then runs out of the house screaming, go3s to the neighbors to call 911. Cops show up, woman says my husband attacked me…. guy says I didn’t touch her, I was watching tv in the basement. Cops automatically arrest husband and he’s getting prosecuted for that. Then wife files for TRO with the arrest, police report etc as evidence.

Wife gets a burner phone, texts her own phone says “you had me arrested, I’m going to kill you”. Husband is arrested for violating TRO before the hearing on extending the TRO. TRO will definitely be extended, a judge is always going to go that way. Husband is going to get killed in the divorce, have a TRO, the RO and the risk wife could claims he threatened her again etc and get arrested again for violating it, spend a ton of money on lawyers, probably lose friends over this because some will want to be away from the controversy and possibly lose his job.

If it were an ex gf she could arrange a meeting at her house or his and much of the same. Obviously a guy could attempt the same but because men and generally larger than woman and police and courts are MUCH less likely to view men as sympathetically as women in these situations, it is less likely to work. A co worker, neighbor etc could do much of this and destroy a person.

With a few hours to plan and enact the scheme, an evil person with an understanding of how the system works, can toss someone into the gears of the system to endure months or years of hell and after the first few days or weeks, the evil person really won’t need to do anything else, the system will be on autopilot and destroy the persons life.

A friend of mine had a break up ( Not married) and she filed a restraining order against him.
They had a kid and she called him up and said she wanted to talk and work things out for the sake of the kid.
As soon as she hung up she called the PD and told them he just called to say he was coming to kill her.
When he showed up , four cops jumped him and beat the ever living bag out of him before cuffing and arresting him.

 

[Hoover]

My sister had a lawyer during her divorce that was pushing it to the point where she fired her.
My sister said no and she was harping on it to the point of obsession .
They just wanted to do it in a civil manner and put it behind them and the bitch lawyer was foaming at the mouth wanting to wreck his life.

Hat tip to your sister for being a good person.

 

[Hoover]

A friend of mine had a break up ( Not married) and she filed a restraining order against him.
They had a kid and she called him up and said she wanted to talk and work things out for the sake of the kid.
As soon as she hung up she called the PD and told them he just called to say he was coming to kill her.
When he showed up , four cops jumped him and beat the ever living bag out of him before cuffing and arresting him.

Sadly not isolated, the crazy ex nor the thug cops.

 

[CatSnoutSoup]

Just going to exit the Divorce Court proceedings here and walk back down the hall to the 2A Court proceedings...

A truly awful ruling in IL that sounds like it was authored by a Giffords ghostwriter for Judge Virginia Kendall. Against an injunction request from the same group, NAGR, that has also filed suit against MA for AWB.

 

[Mesatchornug]

Good. I look forward to the results of the appeal.

 

[Picton]

Yes. These things are good.

The court system works on precedent, and every aspect of each legal question is open for judgement. Every ruling like this invites a smackdown which shuts off another of those dozen or so avenues for the other side to try. Sooner or later, all those avenues will be blocked off.

This is how you create long-lasting, durable case law.

 

[CatSnoutSoup]

That whole thread led to a Fudd amusingly splain'n the 2A to folks and rightfully getting dragged for it...

 

[Drix]

If guns are only meant to kill people, and there's 300 or so million if them, with fbi firearms Stats doesn't that mean there's a 99.99% chance a gun won't fulfill its alleged purpose?

 

[42!]

If guns are only meant to kill people, and there's 300 or so million if them, with fbi firearms Stats doesn't that mean there's a 99.99% chance a gun won't fulfill its alleged purpose?

either that or the population of the US is about to take a dramatic fall

 

[milktree]

If guns are only meant to kill people, and there's 300 or so million if them, with fbi firearms Stats doesn't that mean there's a 99.99% chance a gun won't fulfill its alleged purpose?

You’re missing some 9s

 

[Drix]

You’re missing some 9s

If guns are for killing people:

Estimated 394 million guns in America, 54% of them is 212,760,000 suicides? (Guns are used in sucide 54% of the time).

That doesn't add up...

Let me see, 24,292 suicides by firearm, 394,000,000 estimated firearms, .006% of firearms are used in suicide?

Guns must be used for something more than suicide...

45,222 firearm deaths, 394,000,000 firearms, that's .011% efficiency for their intended purpose of killing per year (including legal self-defense and police shootings, I always like to point out that Tamerlan Tsarnaev(sp) is a victim of gun violence in statistics)- that's f***ing dreadful, there should be a mass recall with those numbers. Imagine taking a medication with a .011% efficacy rate.

Its almost like, there's a 99.989% chance that any firearm in the United States will not be used for "killing people", or rounded, 99.99%.

 

[milktree]

If guns are for killing people:

Estimated 394 million guns in America, 54% of them is 212,760,000 suicides? (Guns are used in sucide 54% of the time).

That doesn't add up...

Let me see, 24,292 suicides by firearm, 394,000,000 estimated firearms, .006% of firearms are used in suicide?

Guns must be used for something more than suicide...

45,222 firearm deaths, 394,000,000 firearms, that's .011% efficiency for their intended purpose of killing per year (including legal self-defense and police shootings, I always like to point out that Tamerlan Tsarnaev(sp) is a victim of gun violence in statistics)- that's f***ing dreadful, there should be a mass recall with those numbers. Imagine taking a medication with a .011% efficacy rate.

Its almost like, there's a 99.989% chance that any firearm in the United States will not be used for "killing people", or rounded, 99.99%.

I stand corrected.

You did the math, I was being hyperbolic.

 

[MaverickNH]

If guns are for killing people:

Estimated 394 million guns in America, 54% of them is 212,760,000 suicides? (Guns are used in sucide 54% of the time).

That doesn't add up...

Let me see, 24,292 suicides by firearm, 394,000,000 estimated firearms, .006% of firearms are used in suicide?

Guns must be used for something more than suicide...

45,222 firearm deaths, 394,000,000 firearms, that's .011% efficiency for their intended purpose of killing per year (including legal self-defense and police shootings, I always like to point out that Tamerlan Tsarnaev(sp) is a victim of gun violence in statistics)- that's f***ing dreadful, there should be a mass recall with those numbers. Imagine taking a medication with a .011% efficacy rate.

Its almost like, there's a 99.989% chance that any firearm in the United States will not be used for "killing people", or rounded, 99.99%.

I think we have the basis for a lawsuit against manufacturers of firearms right there - they’re clearly defective. It would be *amusing* to see how far such suits got in NY, MA, NJ, CA, etc., before they were dismissed. And would make for good press and infuriate the anti-gun crowd.

 

[pastera]

Good. I look forward to the results of the appeal.

This
Bad district rulings suck but only appeals court rulings create case law.

 

[Drix]

I stand corrected.

You did the math, I was being hyperbolic.

To be fair to you, I'd done the math weeks ago in a different argument and copy pasta'd.

 

[Drix]

I think we have the basis for a lawsuit against manufacturers of firearms right there - they’re clearly defective. It would be *amusing* to see how far such suits got in NY, MA, NJ, CA, etc., before they were dismissed. And would make for good press and infuriate the anti-gun crowd.

First thing they would do is pump those numbers by using violence against year.

394 Million is all time firearms possession, so it's a collection of all available data for every firearm, 45,222 is a single year of all cause firearms death. If you wanted to be accurate you'd want to look at all firearms deaths regardless of year, or you could look at single year deaths against guns manufactured in that year and see the trend going up/down.

The former would give you a number over .011. In 2021 the number of firearms manufactured was 13.8 million, I forget what year my 45,222 deaths come from but we're ballparking .03% efficacy rate when we look at numbers in that vacuum.

You could open the net by talking about violent crime instead of murder, but clearly, statistically speaking, if guns are only used to kill they're f***ing horrible at their job and there should be a mass recall- I'd actually argue if someone used that in a legal brief they're arguing to lift the machine gun ban.

 

[MaverickNH]

Judge Higginson and the Role of the Solicitor General in United States v. Quiroz | Duke Center for Firearms Law

firearmslaw.duke.edu

"The entire line of questioning about the Solicitor General’s involvement, requesting additional supporting history, and the procedural questions, all get at a fundamental question that courts are struggling with when applying Bruen: are the judges supposed to be doing history, or are they simply evaluating whether the government has met its burden on a case-by-case basis?

Judge Higginson has emerged as a strong voice for the former view. To him, it would lead to an absurd legal landscape if, as he stated at the beginning of the argument, “in portions of the country, you’re a felon because some judges think history is one thing; in other portions of the country, now, you’re not a felon.” To Judge Higginson, American history should have the same import in every American jurisdiction."

Or, as we have now, in portions of the country, you’re a felon because some judges think The 2nd Amendment is one thing; in other portions of the country, now, you’re not a felon.

 

[Hoover]

Judge Higginson and the Role of the Solicitor General in United States v. Quiroz | Duke Center for Firearms Law

firearmslaw.duke.edu

"The entire line of questioning about the Solicitor General’s involvement, requesting additional supporting history, and the procedural questions, all get at a fundamental question that courts are struggling with when applying Bruen: are the judges supposed to be doing history, or are they simply evaluating whether the government has met its burden on a case-by-case basis?

Judge Higginson has emerged as a strong voice for the former view. To him, it would lead to an absurd legal landscape if, as he stated at the beginning of the argument, “in portions of the country, you’re a felon because some judges think history is one thing; in other portions of the country, now, you’re not a felon.” To Judge Higginson, American history should have the same import in every American jurisdiction."

Or, as we have now, in portions of the country, you’re a felon because some judges think The 2nd Amendment is one thing; in other portions of the country, now, you’re not a felon.

Everything I’ve read or heard (Duke has a podcast) from Duke is anti 2A. Every professor, etc all attack bruen because it hurts the anti cause. They’re incredibly biased.

It moronic Duke thinks higginson is on to something with inconsistencies across circuits. As you say, that’s not unique to this issue, nor new. If there are circuit splits, SCOTUS can resolve them, that’s one reason why they take cases.

 

[11B10]

Bruen just happened 7 months ago so the decisions citing bruen is small but will grow substantially. Every 2A case now is based on bruen so it’s going to be cited non stop until SCOTUS decides another 2A case

Yes, Bruen happened 7 months ago. In CA assualt rifle ban gone, mag bans gone and firearms list gone. In MA nothing moving in the right direction. Where is GOAL? Like the NRA? Yes, go along get along.

 

[drgrant]

A friend of mine had a break up ( Not married) and she filed a restraining order against him.
They had a kid and she called him up and said she wanted to talk and work things out for the sake of the kid.
As soon as she hung up she called the PD and told them he just called to say he was coming to kill her.
When he showed up , four cops jumped him and beat the ever living bag out of him before cuffing and arresting him.

Too bad he had to learn the lesson the hard way.

Once a woman files an RO on you, thats the end of that. Forever. There's no coming back from that, it's literally 1000 times worse than
cheating on him or anytihng else she could have done save for hurting their kid.

Once they do that, "never again". Never speak to them ever again, except through an attorney. Even if the RO is vacated, they need to just f*** off and never be heard or seen ever
again.

 

[MaverickNH]

Everything I’ve read or heard (Duke has a podcast) from Duke is anti 2A. Every professor, etc all attack bruen because it hurts the anti cause. They’re incredibly biased.

It moronic Duke thinks higginson is on to something with inconsistencies across circuits. As you say, that’s not unique to this issue, nor new. If there are circuit splits, SCOTUS can resolve them, that’s one reason why they take cases.

Yes, indeed. There are few academics anywhere that can be identified as favoring less restrictive gun policies - Rand could only recruit 26 of 173 “gun experts” (15%) after efforts in 2016 & 2020. No academic “Center for Violence Research” has other than anti-gun faculty on their roster. Aside from Volokh, Olsen and Kopel, few find any press. Gun Control & Academics go along with Democrats & Woke.

 

[42!]

Yes, Bruen happened 7 months ago. In CA assualt rifle ban gone, mag bans gone and firearms list gone. In MA nothing moving in the right direction. Where is GOAL? Like the NRA? Yes, go along get along.

GOAL is legislative action. We don't have a prayer of passing new, better laws.
Comm2a is legal, hopefully they are planning something.

 

[Parker Schreiber]

Yes, Bruen happened 7 months ago. In CA assualt rifle ban gone, mag bans gone and firearms list gone.

None of those are gone yet. I predict what’s about to happen is Benitez will strike down the laws, again. The 9th circuit will stay the ruling, again. Then depending what judges get appointed to the 3 judge panel, Benitez will get reversed based on a different cherry picking of history either by that panel or en banc. Eventually, there will be a conflict in the circuits, and the Supreme Court won’t be able to dodge the decision again.

But it’ll be at least three years before Californians can buy happy sticks again.

 

[Hoover]

Yes, Bruen happened 7 months ago. In CA assualt rifle ban gone, mag bans gone and firearms list gone. In MA nothing moving in the right direction. Where is GOAL? Like the NRA? Yes, go along get along.

The AWB and Mag limit cases in CA are still in district court, no decision has been made. When benetiz decides, CA will appeal to the 9th and a stay will be in place. Those two issue will not be resolved until at least late this year if the 9th doesn’t drag their feet.

The CA hand gun roster case had their final arguments for a PI/summery judgement feb 10 and no opinion has been released by the district court.

There are cases in Massachusetts district court against the AWB and handgun roster, those courts are moving slower than CA. Remember the CA cases are from 2017/18 and were remanded back to district court so those cases were already briefed many times before and the judge knew the issue very well.

 

[Hoover]

None of those are gone yet. I predict what’s about to happen is Benitez will strike down the laws, again. The 9th circuit will stay the ruling, again. Then depending what judges get appointed to the 3 judge panel, Benitez will get reversed based on a different cherry picking of history either by that panel or en banc. Eventually, there will be a conflict in the circuits, and the Supreme Court won’t be able to dodge the decision again.

But it’ll be at least three years before Californians can buy happy sticks again.

The CA handgun roster case (Renna I believe), and AWB (Miller) and mags (Duncan) will be decided fairly soon. I think it’s possible all get 9th circuit decides by the end of the year. Then we find out of the 9th tries to go en banc like the past to uphold the laws. The asshat chief who lead a lot of the en banc circus Sidney thomas and is gone now. It’s definitely possible those laws fall for goo later this year or early next. I definitely think the time frame for most of these laws falling is more like 18-24 months.

 

[xtry51]

Don't worry. The states will pass 10s of more laws in that time and this endless game of whack a mole will never end because SCOTUS won't just strike all laws like they should have, and people who pass unconstitutional laws never get sued or go to prison. They just get left unharmed in office to pass more bullshit laws.

 

[Hoover]

Don't worry. The states will pass 10s of more laws in that time and this endless game of whack a mole will never end because SCOTUS won't just strike all laws like they should have, and people who pass unconstitutional laws never get sued or go to prison. They just get left unharmed in office to pass more bullshit laws.

Should a case make its way to SCOTUS or should SCOTUS just strike down every gun control law without a case?

 

[xtry51]

Should a case make its way to SCOTUS or should SCOTUS just strike down every gun control law without a case?

SCOTUS should have unilateral authority to protect freedom and strike any law that restricts freedom at will. The idea cases take years is absurd. A 2A case should take 60 seconds.

"Does this law prevent citizens from obtaining, owning, carrying or using a weapon? Yes? Struck down and everyone who passed this law goes to prison for treason."

 

[xtry51]

The Founding Father's made a huge mistake with respect to the courts ability to both strike down law and punish all public officials who vote for or enforce unconstitutional laws.

No punishment = no change in behavior.

 

[Picton]

SCOTUS should have unilateral authority to protect freedom and strike any law that restricts freedom at will. The idea cases take years is absurd. A 2A case should take 60 seconds.

Uhhhhhh... no?

Methinks you're putting ENTIRELY too much power on one branch of government, dude. Judges make mistakes too.