Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

[42!]

Did I stutter?

If you don't trust them with a gun, don't let them out of prison on probation.

I think you know the situation is more complex than just that one line, and I can see the benefits of the "make prison so bad they never want to come back" approach. Certainly there are better ways than how they are doing things today. But for those that don't get it that this is a complex issue, consider the following, which is based on how things are, not how they should be in an ideal world.

Prison is not just a punishment but also a means to rehabilitate the person and reintegrate them into society. Taking them from a controlled, restricted environment of many years and dumping them straight into society with no easy means to put them back, is not a good way to see if they have rehabilitated and are no longer a threat.
Probation allows that the person is incrementally returned, in theory, with oversight, and having the ability to put them back in prison quickly and easily if it turns out they are still a problem. And certainly there is a cost component to all this. Probation is cheaper than prison.
Now we could just do away with probation, so a crime might have 5 years in prison and then release, instead of 3 years in prison and 2 years probation. They would still , not have access to firearms, but they would also be less prepaired to return to society, we'd be less able to predict their behavior, and the cost would be greater.

So to me. no guns while on probation is a reasonable compromise to keeping them locked up for the full term. And I have no problem with this and the make it so bad approach. I've often said, my idea for a prison is a large walled off area in the north. Lock in the prisoners in the spring with building supplies and tell them they have 6 months to learn to cooperate and build their housing, or get used to sleeping outside in the winter.

 

[xtry51]

I don't agree prison is for rehabilitation and I personally believe this idea has contributed to destroying our society and made our jails what they are today.

If jail is a brutal place to be, or a rehabilitation camp, which do you think is likely to have more people in it?

We put too many people in prison. Partly because we got rid of mental institutions and partly because we allowed government to make too many laws.

 

[42!]

I don't agree prison is for rehabilitation and I personally believe this idea has contributed to destroying our society and made our jails what they are today.

If jail is a brutal place to be, or a rehabilitation camp, which do you think is likely to have more people in it?

We put too many people in prison. Partly because we got rid of mental institutions and partly because we allowed government to make too many laws.

please note that everything I posted was AFTER this line "based on how things are, not how they should be in an ideal world."

And I certainly never meant to imply you believed in the rehabilitation idea, I even referenced your idea that it was not "make prison so bad they never want to come back".

 

[xtry51]

Yeah I got what you were saying. I was just expounding on the topic.

 

[MaverickNH]

I think you know the situation is more complex than just that one line, and I can see the benefits of the "make prison so bad they never want to come back" approach. Certainly there are better ways than how they are doing things today. But for those that don't get it that this is a complex issue, consider the following, which is based on how things are, not how they should be in an ideal world.

Prison is not just a punishment but also a means to rehabilitate the person and reintegrate them into society. Taking them from a controlled, restricted environment of many years and dumping them straight into society with no easy means to put them back, is not a good way to see if they have rehabilitated and are no longer a threat.
Probation allows that the person is incrementally returned, in theory, with oversight, and having the ability to put them back in prison quickly and easily if it turns out they are still a problem. And certainly there is a cost component to all this. Probation is cheaper than prison.
Now we could just do away with probation, so a crime might have 5 years in prison and then release, instead of 3 years in prison and 2 years probation. They would still , not have access to firearms, but they would also be less prepaired to return to society, we'd be less able to predict their behavior, and the cost would be greater.

So to me. no guns while on probation is a reasonable compromise to keeping them locked up for the full term. And I have no problem with this and the make it so bad approach. I've often said, my idea for a prison is a large walled off area in the north. Lock in the prisoners in the spring with building supplies and tell them they have 6 months to learn to cooperate and build their housing, or get used to sleeping outside in the winter.

The Recidivism rate in 2023 is ~38% by national average - data are mediocre given TX, CA & GA data are unavailable. So, at least 1 in 3 prisoners end up back in prison. Regaining RKBA is a moot point for this 1/3rd - felon in possession was likely an add-on charge. Given only 20% of homicides end with a conviction and < 10% of violent assaults result in a felony conviction, how many of that remaining 2/3rd have just not been caught due to the Don’t Snitch culture, depolicing, etc?

That said, our civil rights are often defined by less shining examples of meritorious citizens. Permitting ex-felons to possess guns by law would probably arm very few more felons than find arms otherwise.

 

[T-Unit]

If you're not in prison you should be allowed to own a firearm.

On one hand the right of self defense extends even to criminals, but someone who's out after 25 years for aggravated murder I would want a delay of something like 5 years from release before 2A rights are restored.

 

[xtry51]

On one hand the right of self defense extends even to criminals, but someone who's out after 25 years for aggravated murder I would want a delay of something like 5 years from release before 2A rights are restored.

Just keep them innprison for 30 years instead?

 

[42!]

Just keep them innprison for 30 years instead?

It's better to put them back into society incrementally with observation, than to dump them at the curb and hope for the best. Once you've proven that you are a threat to society it's reasonable that you need to show you no longer are. I'm against the idea of a forever ban, if you're not locked up, but I have no issue with a delay in restoring rights as long as it's kept reasonable.

 

[xtry51]

It's better to put them back into society incrementally with observation, than to dump them at the curb and hope for the best. Once you've proven that you are a threat to society it's reasonable that you need to show you no longer are. I'm against the idea of a forever ban, if you're not locked up, but I have no issue with a delay in restoring rights as long as it's kept reasonable.

My point is someone's fear (feelings) should have zero to do with your natural rights being restored when your prison sentence is over. Being afraid of recidivism is not a valid argument to construct law (state sanctioned violence) around.

 

[Coyote33]

Back to "nysrpa-v-bruen"?

Where are things at with this? Is this in court for appeal right now, or what is going on in NY?

 

[Mesatchornug]

Back to "nysrpa-v-bruen"?

Where are things at with this? Is this in court for appeal right now, or what is going on in NY?

What appeal?

NYSRPA v Bruen has run its course. It was decided by SCOTUS.

Future cases, including those WRT "response laws" like NY's, will continue to take their time and run their course.

 

[Picton]

Back to "nysrpa-v-bruen"?

Where are things at with this? Is this in court for appeal right now, or what is going on in NY?

NYSRPA v Bruen was the appeal. It's decided. That case is closed. Its function now is to serve as precedent for other cases.

 

[dans]

NYSRPA v Bruen was the appeal. It's decided. That case is closed. Its function now is to serve as precedent for other cases.

Weren’t there multiple cases that were GVR after the SCOTUS decision!

 

[Picton]

Weren’t there multiple cases that were GVR after the SCOTUS decision!

Yep.

Those are now on their own schedules, set by the individual judges in those cases. But they'll be expected to rule in accordance with Bruen.

 

[Joeldiaz]

But they'll be expected to rule in accordance with Bruen.

Expected, but not likely in anti-gun circuits. They’ll just delay and delay before inevitably ruling against us, hoping that the composition of SCOTUS changes in the next few years before any of these cases get to them. That’s actually a very strong possibility, as it’s looking more and more likely that we’ll lose the next election. Thomas and Alito won’t be on the court forever after all.

 

[Joeldiaz]

Weren’t there multiple cases that were GVR after the SCOTUS decision!

Yes, and those are all still percolating through the inferior courts:

Duncan v. Bonta (CA mag ban) - remanded by SCOTUS and then CA9, decision pending at the District Court.

Bianchi v. Frosh (MD AWB) - remanded by SCOTUS, decision pending at CA4 3 judge panel. Likely to be a 2-1 victory in favor of striking down MD’s AWB, however it will most likely go en banc and the entire CA4 will remand the case back down to the district court.

Morin v. Lyver (MA ban on gun ownership for gun law violation) - remanded by SCOTUS and CA1, defendants agreed to issue plaintiff PTP.

ANJRPC v. Bruck (NJ mag ban) - Remanded by SCOTUS and CA3, awaiting action at the district court.

 

[Picton]

Expected, but not likely in anti-gun circuits. They’ll just delay and delay before inevitably ruling against us, hoping that the composition of SCOTUS changes in the next few years before any of these cases get to them. That’s actually a very strong possibility, as it’s looking more and more likely that we’ll lose the next election. Thomas and Alito won’t be on the court forever after all.

Time will tell. Some anti-gun judges have already ruled in accordance with Bruen, reluctantly. And if lower court judges don't use Bruen as precedent, well, that's grounds for appeal. And then? Back to SCOTUS. That's how it works. Just ask the civil rights movement: it's why it took 20 years to desegregate schools.

But then, I've posted all that before. Several times.

 

[Joeldiaz]

Time will tell. Some anti-gun judges have already ruled in accordance with Bruen, reluctantly. And if lower court judges don't use Bruen as precedent, well, that's grounds for appeal. And then? Back to SCOTUS. That's how it works. Just ask the civil rights movement: it's why it took 20 years to desegregate schools.

But then, I've posted all that before. Several times.

You’re assuming SCOTUS agrees to hear the cases, which isn’t a guarantee. SCOTUS only typically hears less than 100 cases a year, and they can’t possibly hear every single 2A case that comes before them. SCOTUS is more pro-2A now, however that could change in the next few years. If there’s a shift in the court and it starts to lean left, we could be looking at another decade of SCOTUS not reviewing 2A cases (or worse, overturning Bruen). Like I said, we’re probably going to lose the next election and if that happens, who knows what could happen.

 

[Picton]

You’re assuming SCOTUS agrees to hear the cases, which isn’t a guarantee. SCOTUS only typically hears less than 100 cases a year, and they can’t possibly hear every single 2A case that comes before them. SCOTUS is more pro-2A now, however that could change in the next few years. If there’s a shift in the court and it starts to lean left, we could be looking at another decade of SCOTUS not reviewing 2A cases (or worse, overturning Bruen). Like I said, we’re probably going to lose the next election and if that happens, who knows what could happen.

Yes. These same sentiments have been posted many, many times in this thread already. My response would be the same as it has been for the other 6,100 posts.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Yep.

Those are now on their own schedules, set by the individual judges in those cases. But they'll be expected to rule in accordance with Bruen.

"they'll be expected" is not the same as "are expected to".

In some cases, it will be a horridly contorted interpretation of Bruen, so example a failure to recognize the quasi-public nature of much "private property".

 

[vicorjh]

quasi-public nature of much "private property"

As your private property can be viewed from the public street, the property is therefore entangled between two unique quantum states.

It is neither public nor private while neither state is more likely than the other state until observed.

The state of the property, therefore, can only be revealed upon interrogation by this court.

 

[42!]

My point is someone's fear (feelings) should have zero to do with your natural rights being restored when your prison sentence is over. Being afraid of recidivism is not a valid argument to construct law (state sanctioned violence) around.

I can see you point about fear and feelings, I just don't use those as the reason to restrict after initial release. I'm not afraid or applying my feelings, the simple fact is some people will get the message after confinement and other won't. The issue is finding a way to separate those people. In no way does this assume a person will repeat. They have been convicted, they worked at proving to others that they can not be trusted. Like everyone else, they started out as trusted (innocent until proven guilty). All I'm suggesting is that they now have the burden of showing they can be trusted. And even with that, I don't think it should hang over them for a lifetime. A small number of years just to keep an eye on them seems reasonable.

 

[MaverickNH]

It's better to put them back into society incrementally with observation, than to dump them at the curb and hope for the best. Once you've proven that you are a threat to society it's reasonable that you need to show you no longer are. I'm against the idea of a forever ban, if you're not locked up, but I have no issue with a delay in restoring rights as long as it's kept reasonable.

A reasonable sentiment. I wouldn’t say "in a perfect world" and hesitate to say "in a reasonable world", as people are jailed, paroled, given "half-way house" supervision or dumped in front of a shelter. Fifty states and fifty post-incarceration processes that vary with the budget, administration, political climate, etc.

Getting out of prison has little to do with having ‘paid your debt to society" and more with the politics of when you were sentenced and parole policies. We can all come up with a "gut feel" for how long a convict might be out before proven "honest" - at some point, if you’re not caught, you either an honest man or from Chicago.

 

[Dadstoys]

A reasonable sentiment. I wouldn’t say "in a perfect world" and hesitate to say "in a reasonable world", as people are jailed, paroled, given "half-way house" supervision or dumped in front of a shelter. Fifty states and fifty post-incarceration processes that vary with the budget, administration, political climate, etc.

Getting out of prison has little to do with having ‘paid your debt to society" and more with the politics of when you were sentenced and parole policies. We can all come up with a "gut feel" for how long a convict might be out before proven "honest" - at some point, if you’re not caught, you either an honest man or from Chicago.

While I agree in theory that a free man should have their rights restored , the cold hard reality is that there are people walking the streets I know personally that have done time over and over and to be frank if I saw them coming up my front walk I would put a bullet between their eyes before they made the front door.
That's reality.
Being locked up for a set amount of days, weeks, years does not make a psycho any less a psycho , just a psycho marking time.

 

[Coyote33]

What appeal?
NYSRPA v Bruen has run its course. It was decided by SCOTUS.

NYSRPA v Bruen was the appeal. It's decided. That case is closed.

So, should this thread just be closed also then, if it is all cut and dry?

Weren’t there multiple cases that were GVR after the SCOTUS decision!

That is what I was getting at.

Yes, and those are all still percolating through the inferior courts:
Duncan v. Bonta (CA mag ban) - remanded by SCOTUS and then CA9, decision pending at the District Court.
Bianchi v. Frosh (MD AWB) - remanded by SCOTUS, decision pending at CA4 3 judge panel. Likely to be a 2-1 victory in favor of striking down MD’s AWB, however it will most likely go en banc and the entire CA4 will remand the case back down to the district court.
Morin v. Lyver (MA ban on gun ownership for gun law violation) - remanded by SCOTUS and CA1, defendants agreed to issue plaintiff PTP.
ANJRPC v. Bruck (NJ mag ban) - Remanded by SCOTUS and CA3, awaiting action at the district court.

I thought Morin v. Lyver was also all done.

 

[Picton]

So, should this thread just be closed also then, if it is all cut and dry?

No?

There are still aspects of the case that are well worth discussing, I think?

Who's saying it's "cut and dry?" There are a million aspects to the decision. We're just answering your specific question: there is no court of appeal higher than SCOTUS. And you asked about an appeal.

 

[free]

So, should this thread just be closed also then, if it is all cut and dry?



That is what I was getting at.



I thought Morin v. Lyver was also all done.

You ask too many questions.

 

[amb]

School desegregation happened under active-duty army troops and federalized National Guardsmen in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957.

That was the precedent for JFK to forcibly desegregate schools in Mississippi in 1962, again using federalized Guardsmen.

And yet, when 1974 rolled around and Boston finally got called on its own segregated schools and had a court-ordered busing plan that resulted in death, destruction, and years of rioting, Gerald Ford said "yeah, that was a bad idea" and refused to lend federal law enforcement support.

OK actually he said "I have consistently opposed forced busing to achieve racial balance as a solution to quality education" but that's way too many words. To get back to enforcement of Bruen, I could easily see a "John Roberts has made his decision; now let him enforce it" moment from Biden. What happens then?

 

[Chevy 2 65]

thread

 

[Picton]

And yet, when 1974 rolled around and Boston finally got called on its own segregated schools and had a court-ordered busing plan that resulted in death, destruction, and years of rioting, Gerald Ford said "yeah, that was a bad idea" and refused to lend federal law enforcement support.

OK actually he said "I have consistently opposed forced busing to achieve racial balance as a solution to quality education" but that's way too many words. To get back to enforcement of Bruen, I could easily see a "John Roberts has made his decision; now let him enforce it" moment from Biden. What happens then?

I don't think anyone really expects Biden to have to "enforce" this. As I pointed out just above, I'm not sure I see a way for federal LE to do that unless he (or some other president) is willing to indict an elected state official on federal civil-rights charges, which doesn't match with the precedent. I don't think any president would stick their neck out that far.

The courts have this in their systems already. It's a long process, but it's in the works. The crunch will come when some level of the federal judiciary orders Newsom or Healy or Hochul to C&D their state laws, and the governors refuse. We'll see what goes down in that case, but so far only CA and NY have doubled down in a significant way, with NY being the more radical state. We'll see what the future holds.