Second Circuit to Hear First Comprehensive Post-Bruen Firearms Statute Challenge
Challenge to NY laws enacted in wake of Bruen to be heard by 2nd Circuit.
Challenge to NY laws enacted in wake of Bruen to be heard by 2nd Circuit.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/Pioneer Valley Arms February Giveaway ***Smith & Wesson SD9VE 9MM***
Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread
- Thread starter soloman02
- Start date
Garys
NES Member
Kathy Hochul looks like a deranged Chipmunk.
ETA a serious comment.
Difficult how? The opinion was pretty straightforward in my opinion.
ETA a serious comment.
Difficult how? The opinion was pretty straightforward in my opinion.
SFC13557
NES Member
So, how many LTC's has Mayor Adams/NYC issued since the Bruen Decision?
What about the $100 licensing fee every 5 years to practice a constitutional right?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).
Will they pass the voting card fee next?
None of those things you mentioned are on the distant horizon, let alone the immediate one. These things we read about here aren't in MA yet either. People just keep saying "It's coming". It's been almost 9 months now.
mikeboston
NES Member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2009
- Messages
- 440
- Likes
- 396
No because it will make ballot harvesting more expensive
MaverickNH
NES Member
"In the aftermath of the Bruen decision, some courts have struck down legislative initiatives passed in recent decades specifically designed to combat domestic violence. (Andrew Willinger and Jake Charles summarized one such recent decision, United States v. Rahimi, here and here.) These federal, state, local and tribal initiatives share one overarching goal: to protect domestic violence victims from harm and fatal injury."
Some consider the intention to diminish domestic violence justification to take any action that might be perceived as useful. We know many gun control advocates will seize onto any cause to increase gun restrictions, whether effective or not in addressing any social ill. Their "victory" for victims of domestic violence in passing ineffective laws is a farce.
"That in over 50% mass shootings the perpetrator targeted an intimate partner or family member?" [Everytown]
"...in more than two-thirds (68.2%) of mass shootings analyzed, the perpetrator either killed family or intimate partners or the shooter had a history of domestic violence..." {EFSVG}
I can't help but be skeptical when two anti-gun organizations can't come close in their statistics. If we accept the gun control advocates claims that mass shootings were on the rise before Bruen, why didn't these domestic violence laws actually reduce mass shootings? Because they targeted guns, not the interruption and treatment of causes of domestic violence and mass shootings.
Garys
NES Member
That's because essentially, they just make them up.
"In the aftermath of the Bruen decision, some courts have struck down legislative initiatives passed in recent decades specifically designed to combat domestic violence. (Andrew Willinger and Jake Charles summarized one such recent decision, United States v. Rahimi, here and here.) These federal, state, local and tribal initiatives share one overarching goal: to protect domestic violence victims from harm and fatal injury."
Some consider the intention to diminish domestic violence justification to take any action that might be perceived as useful. We know many gun control advocates will seize onto any cause to increase gun restrictions, whether effective or not in addressing any social ill. Their "victory" for victims of domestic violence in passing ineffective laws is a farce.
"That in over 50% mass shootings the perpetrator targeted an intimate partner or family member?" [Everytown]
"...in more than two-thirds (68.2%) of mass shootings analyzed, the perpetrator either killed family or intimate partners or the shooter had a history of domestic violence..." {EFSVG}
I can't help but be skeptical when two anti-gun organizations can't come close in their statistics. If we accept the gun control advocates claims that mass shootings were on the rise before Bruen, why didn't these domestic violence laws actually reduce mass shootings? Because they targeted guns, not the interruption and treatment of causes of domestic violence and mass shootings.
View: https://twitter.com/Nunyabidness2a/status/1638183825204232198
Illinois went venue shopping, didn't like the card they drew, and managed to piss off the judge.
View: https://twitter.com/2Aupdates/status/1637888874180386840
Value of Gen3 Glocks and older are about to drop in CA. Could make for an influx into the MA market.
Last edited:
rep308
NES Member
Waaaaa….
www.huffpost.com
How A 'Completely Crazy Standard' Is Strangling Gun Reform Across The Country
A 2022 Supreme Court decision turbocharged a gun rights movement that has already racked up game-changing court victories over the last 15 years.
mikeboston
NES Member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2009
- Messages
- 440
- Likes
- 396
“This new historical test demands that those defending gun restrictions prove to a court that Americans in the 18th and 19th centuries approved similar restrictions and that such restrictions were widespread and long-lasting enough to be considered a tradition. If those long-ago Americans did not consider something a problem, neither can Americans today.”
Did they have a features test in the 18th and 18th century?
Did they have a features test in the 18th and 18th century?
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2013
- Messages
- 1,696
- Likes
- 1,106
Dont forget about the 18th century
KBCraig
NES Member
Granata immediately jumped in on the Boland ruling out of California.
If it stopped the fraud by mail voting, I'd be down for that.
MaverickNH
NES Member
By the Numbers: How Disruptive Has Bruen Been?
firearmslaw.duke.edu
One pro gun control legal academic's look at post-Bruen cases. His Table 3 categorizes "success rate" by Claim Types to find a 14.6% success rate overall thus far. As defense lawyers will try anything and everything to get their scumbag, guilty-as-hell clients off, the Federal Possession Probation claim type skews the success rate down, as do other client-specific cases. Success/Failure is not "firm" yet as many cases are still working through appeals.
The RKBA may be losing battles but remains well positioned to win the war, even if not by unconditional surrender. Usually, the winners get to set the reparations demands - a lesson the Left hasn't quite figured out yet...
Table 3: Claim Categories & Success Rates Post-Bruen (6/23/2022 – 2/23/2023)
| Claim Types | Number of Claims | Success Rate |
| Age Restriction | 2 | 50% |
| Carry Licensing | 3 | 100% |
| Ghost Gun | 4 | 50% |
| Bail Conditions | 5 | 0% |
| Obliterated Serial Number | 5 | 20% |
| Private Property Default Switch | 5 | 100% |
| Sentence Enhancement | 5 | 0% |
| Assault Weapon/LCM | 6 | 33.3% |
| National Firearms Act | 8 | 0% |
| Unlawful Gun Use | 9 | 0% |
| Felony Indictment Prohibition | 11 | 36.4% |
| Miscellaneous | 12 | 16.7% |
| Sensitive Place | 13 | 53.8% |
| Commercial Regulations | 14 | 0% |
| Federal Possession Prohibition | 110 | 3.6% |
| TOTAL | 212 | 14.6% |
From @2Aupdates on Twitter: Granata v. Campbell (1st Circuit, MA handgun roster): The panel is Barron, Selya, and Thompson https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/calendar.pdf
Two Obama appointees and a Reagan appointee.
Two Obama appointees and a Reagan appointee.
Keeper
NES Member
Not chasing sources but those statements are different.
1st one: Targeted family/intimate
2nd one: 1st one OR history of domestic violence.
i.e., apparently 18% of mass shootings that didn't target family/intimate were done by somebody with a history of domestic violence.
MaverickNH
NES Member
Good catch, thanks. Either way, laws are passed and mass shooting go up? Either the laws are not very effective or mass killing will skyrocket if the laws are rescinded. I'm thinking the former.
MaverickNH
NES Member
"Scholars who argue that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights against the states with the exact same scope and substance as in 1791 claim that the right “was understood the same way in 1868 as in 1791.” ...[But]There is also an originalist case for the proposition that those who drafted, debated, and enacted the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend simply to apply the provisions in the first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights against state governments mechanically, with their pre-existing scope unaltered. "
Trying to build the case that Reconstruction Era gun laws can take precedence over Founding Era gun laws, so they can find some gun laws to reference as historical analogies. Lawyers dancing on the head of a pin typically fall off.
CatSnoutSoup
NES Member
Unless the right (Leftist) court says, "May I have this dance?" and joins them.
Perhaps it is just my personal anxiety, but I cannot help but feel we are in a race for time to get some major cases closed before the makeup of SCOTUS is once again in flux.
You can bet that a couple more Sotomayor types would happily sign on to pronouncing every racist reconstruction era restriction that involved guns to be just fine now and established precedence for future law making.
Parker Schreiber
NES Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2020
- Messages
- 2,248
- Likes
- 3,235
The text version: U.S. District Judge Stephen P. McGlynn granted an injunction prohibiting Illinois from enforcing the ban.
Federal judge blocks Illinois assault weapons ban
U.S. District Judge Stephen P. McGlynn granted an injunction prohibiting Illinois from enforcing the ban statewide.
www.cbsnews.com
Note that the 7th Circuit could reverse this, and given that it denied a similar motion 10 days ago will likely do so quite quickly.
In the meantime, Palmetto is shipping items to the state while it's in place.The text version: U.S. District Judge Stephen P. McGlynn granted an injunction prohibiting Illinois from enforcing the ban.
Federal judge blocks Illinois assault weapons ban
U.S. District Judge Stephen P. McGlynn granted an injunction prohibiting Illinois from enforcing the ban statewide.
Note that the 7th Circuit could reverse this, and given that it denied a similar motion 10 days ago will likely do so quite quickly.
![[offtopic]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/038.gif "Off Topic [offtopic]")
pastera
NES Member
Another chink in the anti's amorWhat does this have to do with NYSRPA vs. Bruen?
Supreme Court 2A Decision Brings An End To "Assault Weapon" And Magazine Ban In Illinois. (not quite as amazing)
Fixed it so it makes more sense to those of us NOT in Illinois.
The Illinois AWB will very likely get struck and they will appeal. The district court decision would only be instructional to Mass courts so they would ignore it.
If the district Court is upheld in appeal then that is persuasive to Mass courts. At the appellate level Mass courts would need to address the decision but they would simply reframe the arguments to something absurd and dismiss it.
If Illinois is dumb enough to appeal to SCOTUS and gets certiorari then AWB fall across all states.
The process moves slowly but it is moving in the right direction.
On the Circuits appealing to SCOTUS, if the 9th, 7th, 1st, 2nd, 4th, and any others all struck down AWB and magazine laws and the states didn't appeal because SCOTUS isn't favorable, is there some sort of time limit to where the states can appeal when there's a more favorable court in say 10 years?
CatSnoutSoup
NES Member
Mark Smith points out at the end of this video that the IL district federal judge directly referenced Caetano v. Massachusetts in his ruling. That case that some folks didn’t think much about because it just involved “stun guns” is proving to be far more impactful than might have been imagined.
MaverickNH
NES Member
How Have State Gun Laws Changed Since Bruen? | Duke Center for Firearms Law
The point being, Bruen motivated new anti-gun pushback in as many places as it motivated pro-gun action. The author’s position on post-Bruen “constitutionality” doubt appears to reflect the justification on both sides in up/down-regulating guns - challenge the judicial system to develop some case law based on Bruen before giving up the cause.
“… one thing that does not seem to have changed with Bruen is that mass shooting events continue to spur some level of bipartisan agreement on certain regulations.
Several states have recently enacted (or are considering) “assault weapons” bans, an interesting trend given that no new state laws prohibiting assault weapons were enacted in more than two decades preceding Bruen. In fact, no state had banned assault weapons since the expiration of the federal assault weapons ban in 2004 until Delaware did so shortly after the Bruen decision, on June 30, 2022… mass shootings—like the recent tragic shootings at Michigan State and a parochial school in Nashville—still generate support for certain new regulatory measures no matter where they occur…
… there’s an important distinction between observing that a law is likely to be challenged in court and that taxpayers will have to foot the bill for a costly legal defense—which is certainly a legitimate factor to consider during legislative debate—and asserting that a law is unconstitutional when there is, as yet, no judicial consensus.”
pastera
NES Member
Mark Smith points out at the end of this video that the IL district federal judge directly referenced Caetano v. Massachusetts in his ruling. That case that some folks didn’t think much about because it just involved “stun guns” is proving to be far more impactful than might have been imagined.
I have very vocal about placing Caetano as being at the same level of Heller and McDonald.
Most people don't realize how important that relatively obscure opinion actually is to modern arms.
