Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

[Waher]

They're just following the IRS' example, sadly. The US Government expects the same thing.

You aren't a citizen of California once you leave, that's the key difference.

 

[JuergenG]

You can check out anytime, but you can never leave....

 

[Waher]

Retconning Heller: Five Takes on New York Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen

New York Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen was the first significant Second Amendment case that the Supreme Court had heard in over a decade since i

papers.ssrn.com

 

[Waher]

Thread by @mkolken on Thread Reader App

@mkolken: The Niagara County, New York District Attorney has conceded that @GovKathyHochul's new gun law prohibiting concealed carry in places of worship is unconstitutional, and his office should not be required to ...…

threadreaderapp.com

The Niagara County, New York District Attorney has conceded that @GovKathyHochul's new gun law prohibiting concealed carry in places of worship is unconstitutional, and his office should not be required to prosecute individuals who violate it. assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicy…
"As properly determined by the district court, New York’s new place of worship or
religious observation exclusion violates an individual’s right to keep and bear arms."
As noted by the district court, New York’s exclusion is valid only if the State ‘affirmatively prove’ that the restriction is part of the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
Despite this long-standing tradition, New York’s new exclusion is in direct conflict with the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen explaining that “confining the right to bear arms to the home would make little sense given that self-defense is the central component of the 2A right.
After all, the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation, and confrontation can surely take place outside the home” and at places of worship.
Consistent with Bruen, the Second Amendment presumptively guarantees plaintiffs-Appellees the right to “bear” arms in public for self-defense, including places of worship.
The decision and order extensively discusses the fact that there is no American tradition supporting the challenged law.
Nor is there a historical tradition of broadly prohibiting the public carry of commonly used firearms for self-defense.
The district court appropriately held that New York’s place of worship exclusion “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.”
Thus, as correctly confirmed by the district court, Plaintiffs-Appellees established that they remain likely to succeed on the merits of their constitutional claim, and the court appropriately issued a preliminary injunction.
The district court properly held that absent a preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs Appellees’ constitutional rights are being violated.
It is undisputed that the challenged restrictions, if enforced, will cause irreparable harm to the Plaintiffs-Appellees.
As properly found by the district court, law-abiding citizens, including the Plaintiffs-Appellees, are being forced to forego their Second Amendment rights to exercise their First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion, or vice versa.
The enactment and enforcement of the
challenged statute has resulted in being forced to sacrifice 2A rights by having to disarm before coming to church, being left to the hands of opportunistic, lawless individuals who have no concern about the place of worship exclusion.
Alternatively, these individuals are forced for their own safety to decline to exercise their right to worship, having been stripped of their ability to defend themselves and their congregations.

Sad how NY Courts acknowledge inalienable rights must coexist simultaneously while MA's insist only one right at a time can be exercised when they want to stomp the boot for their king/queen.

 

[xtry51]

A real response from the AG would have been "any officer arresting a citizen for this unconstitutional law will be prosecuted for kidnapping. All politicians who voted for this law are currently being arrested for sedition."

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Thread by @mkolken on Thread Reader App

@mkolken: The Niagara County, New York District Attorney has conceded that @GovKathyHochul's new gun law prohibiting concealed carry in places of worship is unconstitutional, and his office should not be required to ...…

threadreaderapp.com

Sad how NY Courts acknowledge inalienable rights must coexist simultaneously while MA's insist only one right at a time can be exercised when they want to stomp the boot for their king/queen.

Comm v. Godfrey (Pre Bruen) established one must choose between the 2nd and 5th, but cannot have both. Same situation might turn out differently if it happened again, especially since there is now a basis to go federal.

 

[Waher]

Comm v. Godfrey (Pre Bruen) established one much choose between the 2nd and 5th, but cannot have both. Same situation might turn out differently if it happened again, especially since there is now a basis to go federal.

That's the case I was thinking of and I forgot to tag you in my post because you've cited it various times over the years for the absurdity of it.

Anyone that lost their LTC by pleading the 5th should appeal post Bruen.

 

[MaverickNH]

Litigation Highlight: Ninth Circuit Hears Oral Argument in Challenge to Hawaii’s Butterfly Knife Ban

firearmslaw.duke.edu

Why on earth would Hawaii be struggling to keep their butter-fly knife ban? Is their Slippery Slope that if citizens are allowed knives, next they’ll be allowed guns? Already lost… States are free to squander taxpayer money to curtail civil rights, sure - but this is just silly.

“During oral argument, the panel of judges pushed back on many of the state’s arguments. Notably, Judge Bea pressed the deputy solicitor general of Hawaii on his request for remand to further develop the factual record of historical analogues to Hawaii’s butterfly knife ban. Judge Bea seemed unconvinced that developing the historical record was a factual inquiry worthy of remand. Instead, he suggested that remand would be inappropriate because the state had already enjoyed an adequate opportunity to collect historical statutes and because the history of legislation is question of law, not fact. Notably, the factual record in this case does not include statistics or information regarding the number of butterfly knives in private possession or how frequently they are used in crimes.”

 

[VetteGirlMA]

I'm glad to see the light shining on this:

 

[CatSnoutSoup]

This is not good. Benitez, the judge that folks are relying on to bring the hurt to the anti gun crowd in CA, has put himself in an awkward public position by ordering what sounds like an ill advised scared straight routine be imposed on a teenage girl.

 

[KBCraig]

This is not good. Benitez, the judge that folks are relying on to bring the hurt to the anti gun crowd in CA, has put himself in an awkward public position by ordering what sounds like an ill advised scared straight routine be imposed on a teenage girl.

That was a goofy stunt, but he won't be impeached for it. Impeachment is the only way to remove a federal judge from the bench short of death or retirement.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

Another interesting case coming out of IL that can have an impact on us in MA, dealing with banning suppressors.

 

[paul73]

dealing with banning suppressors

so the good gaavenah will double ban suppressors now? or triple ban? triple is probably more safe and effective than double.

 

[Coyote33]

Another interesting case coming out of IL that can have an impact on us in MA, dealing with banning suppressors.

Not holding my breath. The old stuff hasn't done anything in MA, and this new stuff is even further out. I'll be a geriatric before any of this is even close to happening here.

 

[Garys]

I doubt he'll be impeached because the Republicans control the House. Even if he is, he won't be convicted by the Senate.

That was a goofy stunt, but he won't be impeached for it. Impeachment is the only way to remove a federal judge from the bench short of death or retirement.

 

[Waher]

View: https://twitter.com/2Aupdates/status/1633207287115382786?cxt=HHwWhIC8kfzXqKotAAAA

 

[MaverickNH]

The Second Amendment's 'People' Problem

The second amendment has a “people” problem. In 2008, Heller v. District of Columbia expanded the scope of the second amendment, grounding it in an individualiz

papers.ssrn.com

"This Article is the first to examine the relationship between “the people,” immigration status, and the right to keep and bear arms, in the wake of both Heller and Bruen. My analysis argues that courts undertheorize the systemic effects of constricting “the people” to citizens, or more recently, countenance historical inquiries that yield incoherent results. Intratextual comparison of “the people” of the second amendment with “the people” of the first and fourth amendments fares no better. That appraisal also commands broader inclusiveness for the second amendment’s rightsholders than current jurisprudence permits. This Article concludes that a more coherent theory of second amendment rightsholders would necessarily include most noncitizens, at least when the right is grounded in self-defense from interpersonal violence. This conclusion casts doubt on current federal law that categorically criminalizes possession by certain groups of noncitizens, as well as deportation rules that banish all noncitizens for firearms violations. More capacious interpretations of the second amendment’s “the people” in turn, helps ensure noncitizens’ inclusion under other core constitutional protections."

Deal - all persons present within US borders can have any guns, anywhere, anytime. Some just might get shot…

 

[Coyote33]

So, this whole "Bruen thing". Long story short, what did we get in Massachusetts out of this? Removal of restrictions, but remaining "suitability". Is that it?

What tangible other things have actually happened legally in MA?

 

[JoseyWales]

What tangible other things have actually happened legally in MA?

The joy of watching Healey squirm as she knows it's inevitable that the MA AWB, the Glock prohibition, and "the list" are all going to be thrown out (fingers crossed).

 

[Picton]

So, this whole "Bruen thing". Long story short, what did we get in Massachusetts out of this? Removal of restrictions, but remaining "suitability". Is that it?

What tangible other things have actually happened legally in MA?

You ask this monthly.

We are now shall-issue, and a number of lawsuits are going forward challenging things like the roster, under the new Bruen scrutiny. And, as has been explained to you before, "suitability" no longer has any meaning because it needs a reason. It cannot be arbitrary.

The bottom line is that no one CLEO can now determine your constitutional rights. That's a tectonic shift.

 

[Coyote33]

You ask this monthly.

Yes, and not much change since the initial great news.

We are now shall-issue, ...

Yes, and no restrictions.

"suitability" no longer has any meaning because it needs a reason. It cannot be arbitrary.

No shortage of reasons though, so suitability is certainly still "a thing".

The bottom line is that no one CLEO can now determine your constitutional rights. That's a tectonic shift.

If they want to deny someone on suitability, they will, and do.

 

[Picton]

Yes, and not much change since the initial great news.

Okay, so again: once big stuff goes down? It WILL show up on the site, both on this thread and in many dupes (no doubt). You won't need to keep asking about it.

If they want to deny someone on suitability, they will, and do.

okay.

I'm less certain about the "and do" part, but even if so? There is now recourse at law, and the standard is quite a bit stricter.

 

[Coyote33]

Okay, so again: once big stuff goes down? It WILL show up on the site, both on this thread and in many dupes (no doubt). You won't need to keep asking about it.

Possible future anything doesn't change the here and now.

 

[42!]

Okay, so again: once big stuff goes down? It WILL show up on the site, both on this thread and in many dupes (no doubt). You won't need to keep asking about it.



okay.

I'm less certain about the "and do" part, but even if so? There is now recourse at law, and the standard is quite a bit stricter.

The standard hasn't changed at all. The law has been the same sin 2015, when they added to what was a ok reason, of course the judges still apply the old standard, even kept quoting the old standard after the 2015 change. And no one has come out and said otherwise. In fact when it was mentioned by Healey, it was that it was still applicable. And the recourse and process remain unchanged. Go ahead, tell me exactly how the recourse or process has changed.

 

[Picton]

Go ahead, tell me exactly how the recourse or process has changed.

The process will not change. SCOTUS is okay with licensing, so it makes sense that MA would just keep that same process in place.

As for recourse? I can't tell you exactly how it's changed. I don't think anybody has had to use it yet. Perhaps because the state is being careful not to cause a lawsuit.

When someone does have to challenge a suitability denial in court? Like I posted above, we will surely read about it here first.

 

[Garys]

As far as the time it takes, just remember that Justice delayed is justice denied!

The process will not change. SCOTUS is okay with licensing, so it makes sense that MA would just keep that same process in place.

As for recourse? I can't tell you exactly how it's changed. I don't think anybody has had to use it yet. Perhaps because the state is being careful not to cause a lawsuit.

When someone does have to challenge a suitability denial in court? Like I posted above, we will surely read about it here first.

 

[Picton]

As far as the time it takes, just remember that Justice delayed is justice denied!

Well, sure, but court rulings require test cases. And if the state is careful NOT to enforce suitability, then nobody will ever become that test case.

 

[42!]

The process will not change. SCOTUS is okay with licensing, so it makes sense that MA would just keep that same process in place.

As for recourse? I can't tell you exactly how it's changed. I don't think anybody has had to use it yet. Perhaps because the state is being careful not to cause a lawsuit.

When someone does have to challenge a suitability denial in court? Like I posted above, we will surely read about it here first.

No you won't. Not unless the person is wealthy enough to take it to SCOTUS, and if they were that would probably get them special treatment.

The process is spelled out in the law, it doesn't magically change because you want it to. It's still an administrative hearing with no witnesses and hearsay being permissible. No cross and no challenging of the "facts".

Your dreams aside, nothing has changed.

 

[Picton]

No you won't. Not unless the person is wealthy enough to take it to SCOTUS, and if they were that would probably get them special treatment.

The process is spelled out in the law, it doesn't magically change because you want it to. It's still an administrative hearing with no witnesses and hearsay being permissible. No cross and no challenging of the "facts".

Your dreams aside, nothing has changed.

okay.

 

[KBCraig]

The Second Amendment's 'People' Problem

The second amendment has a “people” problem. In 2008, Heller v. District of Columbia expanded the scope of the second amendment, grounding it in an individualiz

papers.ssrn.com

"This Article is the first to examine the relationship between “the people,” immigration status, and the right to keep and bear arms, in the wake of both Heller and Bruen. My analysis argues that courts undertheorize the systemic effects of constricting “the people” to citizens, or more recently, countenance historical inquiries that yield incoherent results. Intratextual comparison of “the people” of the second amendment with “the people” of the first and fourth amendments fares no better. That appraisal also commands broader inclusiveness for the second amendment’s rightsholders than current jurisprudence permits. This Article concludes that a more coherent theory of second amendment rightsholders would necessarily include most noncitizens, at least when the right is grounded in self-defense from interpersonal violence. This conclusion casts doubt on current federal law that categorically criminalizes possession by certain groups of noncitizens, as well as deportation rules that banish all noncitizens for firearms violations. More capacious interpretations of the second amendment’s “the people” in turn, helps ensure noncitizens’ inclusion under other core constitutional protections."

Deal - all persons present within US borders can have any guns, anywhere, anytime. Some just might get shot…

Our modern concept of "citizenship" is not based in historical tradition. Cue Bruen...

Traditionally, someone became a "citizen" by moving, becoming a member of the community, and if any formal declaration was needed, they just applied to the local judge.