Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

[xtry51]

Litigation Highlight: Federal Judge Upholds D.C. Law Banning Large-Capacity Magazines | Duke Center for Firearms Law

firearmslaw.duke.edu

“On April 20, a federal judge in the District of Columbia denied a motion for a preliminary injunction of a Washington, D.C. law banning the possession, sale, and transfer of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition in Hanson v. D.C. The decision continues a trend of federal courts upholding large-capacity magazine, or LCM, bans under Bruen (we previously covered decisions from Oregon and Rhode Island reaching the same result). These courts have, for the most part, applied Bruen at a relatively high level of generality and determined that historical laws regulating “dangerous” weapons more broadly evince a historical tradition supporting a modern ban on large-capacity magazines…

Hanson is also notable for relying primarily on 20th century laws at the second, historical-tradition, step of the Bruen analysis. If one accepts that a more nuanced inquiry should be used in challenges to LCMs or assault weapons bans because these weapons represent “dramatic technological changes” or implicate “unprecedented societal concerns” (I think that’s likely correct, but certainly debatable), Bruen is best understood as requiring a more flexible historical-analogical inquiry rather than an inquiry that relies on laws enacted closer in time to the present day.”

A doomed decision. By using convoluted logic, historical analogs that are poor (dirks, bBowie knives, etc.) or outside the Founding era, and maintaining a scrutiny test, this decision will fall. But it may take a while.

It’s almost like Qualified Immunity for gun laws - unless an exactly equivalent law has been rejected by SCOTUS, most gun laws will withstand review by liberal courts.

This is why judges, prosecutors and politicians must have their immunity revoked and be subject to personal civil lawsuits anytime laws are overturned by SCOTUS. The people who upheld the law must have personal loss afterwards. I'd also prefer they all get removed from their positions and banned from all public service for life.

 

[CatSnoutSoup]

Today the 7th Circuit Count of Appeals instituted an expedited briefing schedule in the combined AWB cases in an attempt to avoid SCOTUS stepping in over the circuit”s staying of a previous injunction in favor of plaintiffs.

 

[T-Unit]

Litigation Highlight: Federal Judge Upholds D.C. Law Banning Large-Capacity Magazines | Duke Center for Firearms Law

firearmslaw.duke.edu

“On April 20, a federal judge in the District of Columbia denied a motion for a preliminary injunction of a Washington, D.C. law banning the possession, sale, and transfer of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition in Hanson v. D.C. The decision continues a trend of federal courts upholding large-capacity magazine, or LCM, bans under Bruen (we previously covered decisions from Oregon and Rhode Island reaching the same result). These courts have, for the most part, applied Bruen at a relatively high level of generality and determined that historical laws regulating “dangerous” weapons more broadly evince a historical tradition supporting a modern ban on large-capacity magazines…

Hanson is also notable for relying primarily on 20th century laws at the second, historical-tradition, step of the Bruen analysis. If one accepts that a more nuanced inquiry should be used in challenges to LCMs or assault weapons bans because these weapons represent “dramatic technological changes” or implicate “unprecedented societal concerns” (I think that’s likely correct, but certainly debatable), Bruen is best understood as requiring a more flexible historical-analogical inquiry rather than an inquiry that relies on laws enacted closer in time to the present day.”

A doomed decision. By using convoluted logic, historical analogs that are poor (dirks, bBowie knives, etc.) or outside the Founding era, and maintaining a scrutiny test, this decision will fall. But it may take a while.

It’s almost like Qualified Immunity for gun laws - unless an exactly equivalent law has been rejected by SCOTUS, most gun laws will withstand review by liberal courts.

The District Courts in Deep Blue states I expect nothing but ignorance of Bruen, it's the Appellate courts that matter and we'll see how they rule as I don't believe we've had an AWB or mag capacity case have a decision rendered by a full circuit court yet.

That's where I'm hoping for a split because it would be very bad if every single circuit upholds those laws as it gives SCOTUS a way to weasel out of granting cert given there'd be no split between circuits.

 

[MaverickNH]

The District Courts in Deep Blue states I expect nothing but ignorance of Bruen, it's the Appellate courts that matter and we'll see how they rule as I don't believe we've had an AWB or mag capacity case have a decision rendered by a full circuit court yet.

That's where I'm hoping for a split because it would be very bad if every single circuit upholds those laws as it gives SCOTUS a way to weasel out of granting cert given there'd be no split between circuits.

It might be Purple states, that drift back toward Red as Election Day 2024 approaches, where we’d see the most action on AWB/LCM bans/limits. Red states, by and large, don’t have AWB/LCM bans/limits to be challenged.

Biden still has 18mo to appoint judges, so a lot can change before Inauguration Day 2025. And the Dems will do ANYTHING to distract the population from their progressive-left leaning these last few years in the run up to November 2024 - they can’t lose the far-left vote but CAN alienate the Independent vote. Slow Joe just can’t keep on-topic, so we can hope for unscheduled anti-gun outbursts and White-bashing at the expense of White Hispanic votes.

 

[MaverickNH]

The Founders were well aware of continuing advances in arms technology

During the 19th century, firearms improved more than in any other century. As of 1800, most firearms were single-shot muzzleloading blackpowder

reason.com

“The Founders never anticipated the tremendous lethality of the AR15-type assault weapons” say the gun control advocates, often cited by liberal courts flaunting the Bruen decision.

David Kopel continues to come out with research to be used in the next rounds of adjudicating the 2nd Amenedment right to keep and bear arms.

”During the 19th century, firearms improved more than in any other century. As of 1800, most firearms were single-shot muzzleloading blackpowder flintlocks. By end of the century, semiautomatic pistols using detachable magazines with modern gunpowder and metallic cartridges were available. Would the Founders be surprised by the improvements in ability to exercise Second Amendment rights? Perhaps not, given the tremendous advances in firearms that had taken place before 1791. And certainly not, given that James Madison, author of the Second Amendment, initiated a federal government industrial with the specific aim of vastly improving the quality and quantity of firearms manufacture.”

 

[pinefd]

The Founders were well aware of continuing advances in arms technology

During the 19th century, firearms improved more than in any other century. As of 1800, most firearms were single-shot muzzleloading blackpowder

reason.com

“The Founders never anticipated the tremendous lethality of the AR15-type assault weapons” say the gun control advocates, often cited by liberal courts flaunting the Bruen decision.

David Kopel continues to come out with research to be used in the next rounds of adjudicating the 2nd Amenedment right to keep and bear arms.

”During the 19th century, firearms improved more than in any other century. As of 1800, most firearms were single-shot muzzleloading blackpowder flintlocks. By end of the century, semiautomatic pistols using detachable magazines with modern gunpowder and metallic cartridges were available. Would the Founders be surprised by the improvements in ability to exercise Second Amendment rights? Perhaps not, given the tremendous advances in firearms that had taken place before 1791. And certainly not, given that James Madison, author of the Second Amendment, initiated a federal government industrial with the specific aim of vastly improving the quality and quantity of firearms manufacture.”

I thought this was a very good article addressing the same argument...that the Founding Fathers who drafted the Constitution likely knew a lot more about the future of firearms than they're given credit for: FoundingFathers on the AR-15


Frank

 

[paul73]

District Courts in Deep Blue states I expect nothing but ignorance of Bruen, it's the Appellate courts that matter

so, we have now the end of May - have anything at all actually happened, anywhere, based on that bruen ruling?

 

[MaverickNH]

I thought this was a very good article addressing the same argument...that the Founding Fathers who drafted the Constitution likely knew a lot more about the future of firearms than they're given credit for: FoundingFathers on the AR-15


Frank

Crazy comments from those on Volokh Conspiracy (many, presumably lawyers) going down the path of Davy Crockett tactical nuclear weapons systems as 2ndA-protected sidearms

I’m going to revise the “All layers are liars, i’m a lawyer" thing to "All lawyers are idiots, I’m a lawyer."

 

[KBCraig]

The Founders were well aware of continuing advances in arms technology

During the 19th century, firearms improved more than in any other century. As of 1800, most firearms were single-shot muzzleloading blackpowder

reason.com

“The Founders never anticipated the tremendous lethality of the AR15-type assault weapons” say the gun control advocates, often cited by liberal courts flaunting the Bruen decision.

David Kopel continues to come out with research to be used in the next rounds of adjudicating the 2nd Amenedment right to keep and bear arms.

”During the 19th century, firearms improved more than in any other century. As of 1800, most firearms were single-shot muzzleloading blackpowder flintlocks. By end of the century, semiautomatic pistols using detachable magazines with modern gunpowder and metallic cartridges were available. Would the Founders be surprised by the improvements in ability to exercise Second Amendment rights? Perhaps not, given the tremendous advances in firearms that had taken place before 1791. And certainly not, given that James Madison, author of the Second Amendment, initiated a federal government industrial with the specific aim of vastly improving the quality and quantity of firearms manufacture.”

I'm a little disappointed that Kopel left out the Maxim gun, a machine gun invented in 1884.

 

[KBCraig]

Crazy comments from those on Volokh Conspiracy (many, presumably lawyers) going down the path of Davy Crockett tactical nuclear weapons systems as 2ndA-protected sidearms

I’m going to revise the “All layers are liars, i’m a lawyer" thing to "All lawyers are idiots, I’m a lawyer."

It's posted on Reason.

Never, ever, read the comments on Reason.

If you can't resist reading, then please don't engage.

It's troll central, and has almost no bearing on the articles actually posted.

 

[CatSnoutSoup]

Miller v. Bonta was to be the first born child of the Bruen decision so what’s Judge Benitez waiting for, crib death?

 

[xtry51]

Benitez knows this case is going to SCOTUS eventually and I'm sure he's going to want his decision to be iron clad. He has a very clear ability here to do substantial damage to a circuit court, backing them into a corner and influencing an avalanche of cases behind this one.

I f***ing hate how inefficient our court systems are, but Benitez is not a judge I would ever believe is dragging his feet to kick the can.

 

[Mesatchornug]

Benitez knows this case is going to SCOTUS eventually and I'm sure he's going to want his decision to be iron clad. He has a very clear ability here to do substantial damage to a circuit court, backing them into a corner and influencing an avalanche of cases behind this one.

I f***ing hate how inefficient our court systems are, but Benitez is not a judge I would ever believe is dragging his feet to kick the can.

Especially since he just decided against the state on something else...firearms advertising case, maybe? It's late and I'm on my phone

 

[Joeldiaz]

Miller v. Bonta was to be the first born child of the Bruen decision so what’s Judge Benitez waiting for, crib death?

Miller v. Bonta isn’t the only 2A case he’s working on btw, he’s got 3 more to deal with (Duncan, Fouts, Rhode). As such, he’ll be crafting no less than 4 extensive legal opinions, each spanning 100 pages or more and containing hundreds of footnotes. All of this will be in addition to his regular duties. It's certainly an enormous undertaking, but he’s committed to ensuring that every detail is impeccable and that the opinions will hold up to any potential appeal.

He’s also not just working on 2A cases. Judges have dozens if not hundreds of cases they have to deal with every year on all kinds of subject matters (1A, 2A, 5A, criminal cases, contract cases, etc.).

 

[SFC13557]

so, we have now the end of May - have anything at all actually happened, anywhere, based on that bruen ruling?

Has NYC issued ONE LTC since Bruen?

 

[CatSnoutSoup]

Miller v. Bonta isn’t the only 2A case he’s working on btw, he’s got 3 more to deal with (Duncan, Fouts, Rhode). As such, he’ll be crafting no less than 4 extensive legal opinions, each spanning 100 pages or more and containing hundreds of footnotes. All of this will be in addition to his regular duties. It's certainly an enormous undertaking, but he’s committed to ensuring that every detail is impeccable and that the opinions will hold up to any potential appeal.

He’s also not just working on 2A cases. Judges have dozens if not hundreds of cases they have to deal with every year on all kinds of subject matters (1A, 2A, 5A, criminal cases, contract cases, etc.).

 

[Picton]

Has NYC issued ONE LTC since Bruen?

This is an excellent question.

 

[SFC13557]

This is an excellent question.

After the Floyd NYC riots Gutfeld on Fox booked a firearms training weekend for him and his Russian wife in upstate NY. His Russian anti-gun wife picked up a Glock, put 5 rds downrange and said I want one. Gutfeld said he couldn't get a handgun permit in NYC so he bought a Benelli shotgun and stated if and when NYC issued LTC's he'd be first in line with his application. A year ago he and Jesse stated they would apply but Waters moved to Jersey and no update on Gutfeld's situation. I'm thinking not one LTC has been issued.

 

[MaverickNH]

After the Floyd NYC riots Gutfeld on Fox booked a firearms training weekend for him and his Russian wife in upstate NY. His Russian anti-gun wife picked up a Glock, put 5 rds downrange and said I want one. Gutfeld said he couldn't get a handgun permit in NYC so he bought a Benelli shotgun and stated if and when NYC issued LTC's he'd be first in line with his application. A year ago he and Jesse stated they would apply but Waters moved to Jersey and no update on Gutfeld's situation. I'm thinking not one LTC has been issued.

That doesn’t mean more people are not carrying guns in NY than before Bruen. We all hear about high rates of non-compliance to new laws by formerly honest, legal gun owners wrt ARs, magazines, braces, etc., but the criminals that never complied are still not complying, with new criminals joining the ranks every day.

 

[MaverickNH]

A fascinating filing on Rahmi, wrt SCOTUS Cert, that recounts that how USG got involved in regulating mere possession of firearms by citizens “was a “last-minute” amendment to the 1968 crime bill, “hastily passed, with little discussion, no hearings and no report.” How easily Congress slipped out the back door with our rights, with nobody to blame…

” The first federal law banning large swaths of the population from possessing firearms appeared in 1968. Pub. L. 90-951, tit. VII, § 1202(a), 82 Stat. 236 (1968). One might think that such a momentous shift in the federal government’s understanding of its own power would be marked by hearings, debate, and study. One would be wrong…

Senator Russell Long conceived of possession ban in reaction to the assassinations of President Kennedy in 1963 and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in 1968. 114 Cong. Rec. 14773 (1968). Long recognized that his contemporaries and predecessors in Congress harbored “a constitutional doubt that the Federal Government could outlaw the mere possession of weapons.” Id. at 13868. But Long thought there was an easy way around that problem: Congress could “simply (find) that the possession of these weapons by the wrong kind of people is either a burden on commerce or a threat that affects the free flow of commerce.” Id. at 13869.
After he proposed the amendment, his colleagues agreed to add it to the Senate’s version of the crime bill for the sole purpose of studying it further while in conference with the House. Some were openly skeptical. Senator John McClellan asked, “Can we, under the Constitution, deny a man the right to keep a gun in his home?” 114 Cong. Rec. 14774. He worried that the possession prohibition “may go too far.” Id. Senator Peter Dominick agreed: “I believe there are a number of instances in which it would be going too far to say that a man could no longer participate in duck shooting or pheasant shooting. . . . I have a feeling that perhaps we have gone too far, but perhaps this matter can be worked out in conference.” Id. at 14774–75. Senator Thomas Dodd was “a little uneasy about” the federal government banning mere possession: “[W]e will study it. I do not believe it would do any harm.” Id. at 14774. On May 23, 1968, the Senate agreed to Long’s amendment on a voice vote.”

SCOTUS Gun Watch – Week of 6/5/23

firearmslaw.duke.edu

 

[Dennis in MA]

Ah yes, the old "well that guy who committed a crime. . . . if we made the gun illegal. . . . would not commit the crime of having the gun in the first place."

Speed limits, bicycle locks and gun laws are only for those who would have already complied.

 

[MaverickNH]

Ah yes, the old "well that guy who committed a crime. . . . if we made the gun illegal. . . . would not commit the crime of having the gun in the first place."

Speed limits, bicycle locks and gun laws are only for those who would have already complied.

And for “pile on” charges back when Government prosecuted real criminals and pursued hard-ass plea agreements. Nowadays, it’s the prosecutors that play Identity Bingo Card, which has identifiers for sentencing enhancement/discounts or “Get Out of Jail Free” offers:

Race/Color (BIPOC/White)
Protestor at Civil Unrest Event (BLM & Antifa/Proud Boy & III%er)
Gender-Identity (M & F/LGBTQAI+)
Etc.

 

[SFC13557]

Has NYC issued ONE LTC since Bruen?

Bueller? Bueller?

 

[HorizontalHunter]

Has NYC issued ONE LTC since Bruen?

Nope. Same old same old.

Gun owners suing the NYPD say the agency is making it 'impossible' to qualify for a handgun​

A group of gun owners in New York and New Jersey is suing the NYPD division that reviews applications for firearm permits and licenses, arguing that the NYPD’s application requirements are “impossible to meet.”

The class-action lawsuit, filed in federal court last month, argues that a lengthy backlog in the licensing division “paralyzes” people who want to legally exercise their Second Amendment rights. The gun owners want the courts to appoint a federal monitor to oversee the gun licensing team.

“They [license division staff] have shown time and again that they will infringe on the rights of gun owners and this court has a duty to stop this infringement,” the suit states.

The NYPD declined to comment on pending litigation.

The plaintiffs include a former prosecutor, a National Rifle Association-certified firearms instructor, a gun store employee and a truck driver. All of them have successfully obtained gun licenses in other states but have struggled to complete the process in New York City.

After the U.S. Supreme Court overturned New York’s strict concealed carry laws last year, ruling that the Second Amendment is not a “second-class” right, many gun owners celebrated what they hoped would be a loosening of the state requirements to own and carry a gun. Instead, the state legislature quickly passed a package of laws that created even more requirements for legal gun ownership, prompting a flood of lawsuits.

Even as New York’s gun laws are litigated in court, gun permit and license applications have continued to flood in following the Supreme Court decision. The NYPD received more than 7,400 applications last year — 6,066 for handguns — compared to about 4,700 applications in 2021. The department did not provide data on how many of those applications has been approved.

The number of New York City applications was even higher during a surge at the height of the 2020 pandemic, when the license division received nearly 9,300 applications, according to NYPD data. Gun sales also surged nationwide in the early days of the pandemic, the political unrest surrounding the murder of George Floyd and the contentious 2020 election.

Gun violence also spiked in New York City and in many other places across the country during that time. The number of shootings and murders has dropped in the last year, while police took about 7,000 firearms off the streets and gun arrests hit a nearly 30-year high in 2022, according to the NYPD.

Read the rest if so inclined:
Gun owners suing the NYPD say the agency is making it 'impossible' to qualify for a handgun
Stuart Meissner bought his first two guns during the pandemic, when he began to feel like he needed a way to defend himself. At the time, he was living in New Jersey, where he said it was easy to obtain residence licenses for his rifle and pistol.

When Meissner decided to move to New York City, he said, he applied for a license through the NYPD. That was in September 2021, according to his lawsuit, which was filed last month.

State law requires licensing officers to approve or deny applications within six months, unless they provide written notice for a “good cause” delay. But about a year-and-a-half after Meissner submitted his applications, only the one for his rifle had been approved.

 

[SFC13557]

"Nope. Same old same old."

That's what I figured, filthy Dems.

 

[Dennis in MA]

Let them. At some point, they're going to push to hard, prove to the SC that they can't be trusted and you get Con-Carry in all 50. License??? No. Prove they are prohibited.

Sadly, I've got to renew my mASS lic this year. I guess I'll start in August for a Jan renewal. My wife is a September and just had her appt last week. Because CHEOPS, Egyptian God of Delay is running SO MUCH FURTHER BEHIND. Now even SUMMER renewals are taking 3+ months. Wow.

 

[Garys]

I'm putting this here since it seems to have been decided under Bruen.

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicyfoundation/pages/3970/attachments/original/1686067448/Range_v_Garland_En_Banc_Opinion.pdf?1686067448

The case involves a PA man who plead to guilty to what was a misdemeanor under PA state law, but had a potential sentence up to five years. Which made him a prohibited person under federal law. I'd call it another "Misdefelony" like a first time OUI conviction in MA.

This was an en banc decision by the 3rd Circuit, so doesn't directly apply in MA. The decision itself was 22 pages, but there is a concurring opinion and two dissents, so the entire document is 107 pages.

As impressive as these authorities may seem at first blush,they fail to persuade. First, the circuit court opinions were all decided before Bruen. Second, the district courts are bound to follow their circuits’ precedent. Third, the Government’s contention that “Bruen does not meaningfully affect this Court’s precedent,” Gov’t Supp. Br. at 9, is mistaken for the reasons we explained in Section III, supra. For the reasons stated, we hold that the Government has not shown that the Nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation supports depriving Range of his Second Amendment right to possess a firearm. See Bruen, 142 S. Ct.at 2126.* * *

Our decision today is a narrow one. Bryan Range challenged the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) only as applied to him given his violation of 62 Pa. Stat. Ann.§ 481(a). Range remains one of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment, and his eligibility to lawfully purchase a rifle and a shotgun is protected by his right to keep and bear arms. Because the Government has not shown that our Republic has a longstanding history and tradition of depriving people like Range of their firearms, § 922(g)(1) cannot constitutionally strip him of his Second Amendment rights. We will reverse the judgment of the District Court and remand so the Court can enter a declaratory judgment in favor of Range,enjoin enforcement of § 922(g)(1) against him, and conduct any further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

 

[CatSnoutSoup]

I'm putting this here since it seems to have been decided under Bruen.

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicyfoundation/pages/3970/attachments/original/1686067448/Range_v_Garland_En_Banc_Opinion.pdf?1686067448

The case involves a PA man who plead to guilty to what was a misdemeanor under PA state law, but had a potential sentence up to five years. Which made him a prohibited person under federal law. I'd call it another "Misdefelony" like a first time OUI conviction in MA.

This was an en banc decision by the 3rd Circuit, so doesn't directly apply in MA. The decision itself was 22 pages, but there is a concurring opinion and two dissents, so the entire document is 107 pages.

You win one, you lose one.

Though the loss here is from a judge particularly ignorant of how firearms have worked for over a century.

 

[Coyote33]

Yup, IL had their own version of Freedom Week. That’s all over now

Thanks.

... after Bruen, at least some judges feel their hands have been tied by the historical analysis now required in Second Amendment cases. The practical effect of Bruen’s test is that judges are unable to consider state interests in promoting public safety or empirical data about the present-day effectiveness of state gun regulations.“
That’s a feature (the intent of Bruen), not a bug.

Interesting if true.

Another ruling for the good guys ——https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.524643/gov.uscourts.vaed.524643.47.0_1.pdf
Out of Virginia - cannot prohibit 18-20 from purchasing handguns.

Nice. But this is only for Virginia, right?

Today the 7th Circuit Count of Appeals instituted an expedited briefing schedule in the combined AWB cases in an attempt to avoid SCOTUS stepping in over the circuit”s staying of a previous injunction in favor of plaintiffs.

Is this good or bad for 2A?

Bueller? Bueller?

(still waiting?)

Nope. Same old same old.

Gun owners suing the NYPD say the agency is making it 'impossible' to qualify for a handgun​

"Nope. Same old same old."
That's what I figured, filthy Dems.

Still?

 

[HorizontalHunter]

Still?

Yes, the article is dated April 6, 2023. Did we really think that they would abide by Bruen?