What about NJ? They also passed a Bruen response bill similar to NY’s. Heck, CA’s Bruen response bill didn’t even pass last year.
-
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
Ah. Forgot about them.
I have trouble admitting to myself that New Jersey is a part of my country.
Mesatchornug
NES Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2011
- Messages
- 13,244
- Likes
- 27,594
Just look at the enumerated powers of Congress. Letters of Marque and Reprisal could only be issued to well armed private vessels.
The founders intended for us to have military level arms.
Not that big. We’re probably going to lose the next election, and Alito and Thomas need to be replaced sooner or later.
Mesatchornug
NES Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2011
- Messages
- 13,244
- Likes
- 27,594
That's my favorite, because it doesn't hinge on an amendment. A government cannot hire private mercenary companies with their own fully outfitted warships if they don't exist.
Maybe NES needs to incorporate a company of privateers? Have we tied ourselves to the mast on the wrong word?
Last edited:
I teach about this every year, and my students are dumbfounded. Some of them have families with boats. I tell them Markey or Warren or whoever their rep is can introduce legislation turning them into legalized pirates and they can't believe it. But it's fully constitutional.
Mesatchornug
NES Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2011
- Messages
- 13,244
- Likes
- 27,594
You're doing G-d's own work
Massachusetts says "Hold my beer!".
P.S. There's a thread on that.
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
Another FU to the SCOTUS
INDIANA
Published July 11, 2023 3:00am EDT
INDIANA
Published July 11, 2023 3:00am EDT
Indianapolis city council votes in favor of banning 'assault' rifles, removing concealed carry
So much for constitutional carry
CatSnoutSoup
NES Member
Indiana has a preemption law. This is just meaningless showboating by Indianapolis' asshat mayor.
MaverickNH
NES Member
New York Governor Submits Amicus Brief To Justice Kavanaugh In Rahimi
For a generation, Justice Kennedy was the Court's swing vote. Erwin Chemerinsky used to joke that if he could, he...
reason.com
NY Gov Hochul appears desperate to gain at least a pinky-hold on some - any - Pre-Bruen limits on RKBA. Rahimi, the low-life dreg of society claiming the RKBA in the latest 2ndA case SCOTUS took, will be her post-child for the dark side of the 2ndA.
”Today's [11 July 2023] New York Times includes a guest essay by Kathy Hochul. The Governor of New York wrote about Rahimi. But in practice, the essay functions as an amicus brief aimed at Justice Kavanaugh. She extolled his Bruen concurrence, and said there was a "split" with the majority:
MaverickNH
NES Member
Weapons and the Peace
firearmslaw.duke.edu
One Historian who would get her ass handed to her if she babbled her tripe in court as an expert on Weapons and the Peace.
”Local officials assessed the threat level of specific peace-threatening behavior, based on what they knew of those involved. But weapons were, by definition, threatening to the public order. People with weapons were more dangerous than people without them. Brandishing or even just displaying weapons for no obvious reason was a threat. Bringing weapons to any kind of social interaction was a threat. The presence of weapons at an incident raised the seriousness of the offense when violence or even just threatening behavior was involved. Unknown people carrying weapons were most definitely threatening. At this time, weapons were more likely to be knives and clubs, which were more available and more reliable than guns. But the legal principles that regulated all threats to the public order could and did extend to guns, when they were present. In the legal logic of the peace, the right of any individual to own, carry, and use guns could never take priority over the peace of the community.”
MaverickNH
NES Member
In Search of Repeating Firearms in Eighteenth-Century America
firearmslaw.duke.edu
Well, there you go - no historical precedent from the Founders Era for semi-automatic firearms.
"In eighteenth-century America, repeating firearms were not in common use. The fact that some types of repeating firearms had been produced in Europe for four centuries by 1800 does not necessarily support the conclusion that Americans in the late 1700s would have assumed that such weapons would become reliable, safe, and widely available. At the time, it was still not possible to manufacture with precision and in any quantity firearms with closely fitting parts that could contain the destructive potential associated with the use of black powder as a propellant. The improvements needed to fabricate dependable repeaters in large numbers only resulted from a series of revolutionary technological changes during the 1800s. Calling these early repeating weapons “eighteenth-century assault rifles” is an example of twenty-first-century rhetoric, not evidence of inevitable developments in firearms technology and production."
That said, I’d put my money on Hallbrook’s scholarship
America’s Rifle
stephenhalbrook.com
Argument destroyed with "Does 1A cover the ball point pen?"
chris_1001
NES Member
Internet, telephone, fax, telegraph, radio, tv, podcast, printer, etc.
MaverickNH
NES Member
Saul Cornell, a historian at Fordham U, frets that numerous jurists and scholars have ignored his revelations regarding the true history of the 2nd Amendment, culminating in Heller, McDonald and ultimately Bruen.
Three strikes and Cornell still thinks he’s at bat?
”The errors that have crept into Second Amendment scholarship and the Supreme Court’s trio of gun rights decisions have left lower courts scrambling to apply rules derived from a version of the past that never existed. The current chaos in Second Amendment jurisprudence is a direct result of the Supreme Court’s inability to distinguish between historical fact and fantasy. The time has come to correct these errors and fashion a coherent Second Amendment jurisprudence, one rooted in the real text, history, and tradition, but not bound to the past in an unthinking fashion. Binding modern Americans to a version of the past that never existed has no foundation in history, text, or tradition.”
KBCraig
NES Member
Wow, speaking of having a fantasy version of history...
Saul Cornell, a historian at Fordham U, frets that numerous jurists and scholars have ignored his revelations regarding the true history of the 2nd Amendment, culminating in Heller, McDonald and ultimately Bruen.
Three strikes and Cornell still thinks he’s at bat?
”The errors that have crept into Second Amendment scholarship and the Supreme Court’s trio of gun rights decisions have left lower courts scrambling to apply rules derived from a version of the past that never existed. The current chaos in Second Amendment jurisprudence is a direct result of the Supreme Court’s inability to distinguish between historical fact and fantasy. The time has come to correct these errors and fashion a coherent Second Amendment jurisprudence, one rooted in the real text, history, and tradition, but not bound to the past in an unthinking fashion. Binding modern Americans to a version of the past that never existed has no foundation in history, text, or tradition.”
Whutmeworry
NES Member
Except that much of the Marxist left has already conceded that they never really valued 1A either...
Like I have pointed out before, it is clear that the framers of the Constitution expected us general citizens to have significant arms if we chose to.
Look to the enumerated powers of Congress, among them, the authority to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal. This would allow for private vessels to conduct what would otherwise be considered piracy - attacking and capturing enemy vessels.
How would this have ever been possible unless private people had arms? How would a private vessel, crewed by private individuals, otherwise have been able to capture hostile ships without the arms to carry out their raids?
Garys
NES Member
I didn't see a Pistol Brace thread so I'm going to drop this in the Bruen Mega Thread,
5CA remanded case back to the federal district for reconsideration of the FPC motion for an injunction.
Judge Willett concurs, but adds that he thinks it's likely that the pistol brace rule violates the Second Amendment.
5CA remanded case back to the federal district for reconsideration of the FPC motion for an injunction.
Judge Willett concurs, but adds that he thinks it's likely that the pistol brace rule violates the Second Amendment.
CatSnoutSoup
NES Member
ATF issues rule change proposal regarding pistol braces
I understand their reasoning. Their logic is non-existent. Rate of fire is not in the law, they’re just trying to create new law when it’s not their job. Agree 100%, but they feel their reasoning is logical
www.northeastshooters.com
MaverickNH
NES Member
"The CCIA also fortifies the state’s requirement that applicants for carry licenses prove good moral character, defined in the new statute as “having the essential character, temperament and judgement necessary to be entrusted with a weapon and to use it only in a manner that does not endanger oneself or others.” One federal judge speculated that this standard may be impossible to satisfy for those seeking to use a gun in self-defense because it does not carve out an exemption for endangering others during a case of justified self-defense....Additionally, consider the default rule banning firearms on private property. Its academic defenders argue that the law doesn’t implicate the Second Amendment because it only shapes a default rule consistent with a property owner’s common law right to exclude, allowing property owners to choose to allow or prohibit firearms on their property."
The CCIA mandates property owners express choice to include concealed carry. Yet most states have codes that mandate posting to exclude hunting, trapping or fishing. If the default is to exclude without posting, the list would be crazy long.
"The CCIA also fortifies the state’s requirement that applicants for carry licenses prove good moral character, defined in the new statute as “having the essential character, temperament and judgement necessary to be entrusted with a weapon and to use it only in a manner that does not endanger oneself or others.”
Ha ha ha!
Cool. Now apply that to cops.
Here is a ruling from the 9th Circuit ruling Hawaii's ban on butterfly knives is unconstitutional under the 2A.
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/08/07/20-15948.pdf
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/08/07/20-15948.pdf
Last edited:
Parker Schreiber
NES Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2020
- Messages
- 2,250
- Likes
- 3,239
Put this one in the win column, but don't celebrate too much. Here's my prediction on what happens next:
- Hawaii petitions for a rehearing en banc. My guess is this will be denied.
- Hawaii doesn't appeal to the Supreme Court. This is not the hill for them to die on.
- Instead, they pass an (idiotic) "knife licensing" law, make it as obnoxious as possible to get licensed, and require NICS background checks to make it as obnoxious as possible to purchase legally.
chris_1001
NES Member
They can be more dangerous to the user than the victim lol
Plus they take a while to employ as you have to impress/scare/hypnotize your victim.
Why would en banc be denied? CA9 is a traditionally vehemently anti-2A circuit with a big history of taking pro-2A cases and reversing them.
