Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

Good cert. Then two years of nothing. The. It's time hits and we get a bump out of the line due to a stomach ache since someone had too many onion burritos at lunch or something. Win.
 
NewGuyRay said:
Your prediction is predicated on what -- your trick knee started acting up this morning?
Click to expand...

Wasn't Gorsuch supposed to be a "friendly", so to speak? For him to bow out now for whatever reason isn't great, and kind of makes the NRA look foolish for their spend if he isn't even going to weigh in on gun matters.

But I'm kind of out of the loop. I'm assuming this "stomach bug" coincides with this case, but if not, then I'm off base.
 
ReluctantDecoy said:
Wasn't Gorsuch supposed to be a "friendly", so to speak? For him to bow out now for whatever reason isn't great, and kind of makes the NRA look foolish for their spend if he isn't even going to weigh in on gun matters.

But I'm kind of out of the loop. I'm assuming this "stomach bug" coincides with this case, but if not, then I'm off base.
Click to expand...
He was "Supposed " to be.
Keep in mind that Charlie Faker had his fidget sidekick going around to gun clubs lying about how pro 2A he was.
What they say to get the job isn't what you always get.
 
NewGuyRay said:
n1bsbri said:
This whole case is lining up to be a huge disappointment. I guess we will have to wait another decade.
Click to expand...
Your prediction is predicated on what -- your trick knee started acting up this morning?
Click to expand...
Ut oh - The Bride's knee nearly went out twice walking down stairs yesterday.
[shocked]
 
n1bsbri said:
Read this for an idea of how the justices have already gutted the original case by limiting the question to be considered. This is sure to produce a lukewarm piss-poor narrowly focused decision that will not help us much, if at all.

Op-Ed: Did the Supreme Court tip its hand on the blockbuster gun case it’s hearing Wednesday?
Click to expand...
This was posted in another thread and I responded. Changing up the QP is not as unusual as the LA Times would have you believe. Don't read so much into it.
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
This was posted in another thread and I responded. Changing up the QP is not as unusual as the LA Times would have you believe. Don't read so much into it.
Click to expand...
This smells like the influence of the Chief Justice, who is much more concerned with how the court is viewed by the liberal media, than actually making substantive decisions. The move watered down, the better for him.
 
If anyone thought this case was going to be a sweeping abolition of licensing nationwide, I'm afraid you've been deluding yourself. I'd love if it were, but the most we can hope for is nationwide shall-issue. I would take that as a win, even though we all know states would keep right on stepping.

Consider that if we get a pro-2A decision here, and if Roberts doesn't vote with the majority, then the writing of the majority opinion would fall to the senior justice in the majority: Thomas. I would love to finally see a pro-2A majority opinion written by Thomas. Goosebumps. THAT could be a real game changer. As it is we may get Roberts voting for the pro-2A side just so he could write the opinion instead of Thomas. Also a win, practically speaking.
 
Last edited:
Dadstoys said:
He was "Supposed " to be.
Keep in mind that Charlie Faker had his fidget sidekick going around to gun clubs lying about how pro 2A he was.
What they say to get the job isn't what you always get.
Click to expand...

True, but the NRA dropped like $1M in advertising ads for him. That would imply a level of confidence in future performance, as well as a bit of an unspoken obligation on his part. In not performing, he runs the risk of diluting his credibility for future fund raising efforts. And not just for 2A, but for all causes. Why waste the money if he bows out when it counts?
 
I may be in the minority, but what is more important than "Shall issue" is the concept of treating everyone equally. History has shown that "need based" criteria are never applied solely on need, and the people chosen for reasons like wealth, fame, connectedness, etc. have a different standard of "need" applied to them.
 
ReluctantDecoy said:
True, but the NRA dropped like $1M in advertising ads for him. That would imply a level of confidence in future performance, as well as a bit of an unspoken obligation on his part. In not performing, he runs the risk of diluting his credibility for future fund raising efforts. And not just for 2A, but for all causes. Why waste the money if he bows out when it counts?
Click to expand...
The regrettable truth is he only needs to be "less bad" to merit NRA funding.
 
Goliathan said:
If anyone thought this case was going to be a sweeping abolition of licensing nationwide, I'm afraid you've been deluding yourself. I'd love if it were, but the most we can hope for is nationwide shall-issue. I would take that as a win, even though we all know states would keep right on stepping.

Consider that if we get a pro-2A decision here, and if Roberts doesn't vote with the majority, then the writing of the majority opinion would fall to the senior justice in the majority: Thomas. I would love to finally see a pro-2A majority opinion written by Thomas. Goosebumps. THAT could be a real game changer. As it is we may get Roberts voting for the pro-2A side just so he could write the opinion instead of Thomas. Also a win, practically speaking.
Click to expand...

Is anyone in their right mind really thinking hte SC is going to go Con-Carry nation-wide? LOL

I'm more focused on applying federal-style restrictions to the state level. Like magazine capacity and foldamaroos and such.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
I may be in the minority, but what is more important than "Shall issue" is the concept of treating everyone equally. History has shown that "need based" criteria are never applied solely on need, and the people chosen for reasons like wealth, fame, connectedness, etc. have a different standard of "need" applied to them.
Click to expand...

I agree SCOTUS will tailor this decision to states not being able to pick who gets a license. Effectively they will dance around some weak ass outlay of "states need to be shall issue" and then of course states will ignore the decision and pass a whole bunch of new laws that violate the decision by putting insane blanket disqualifies like "if you have ever been pulled over, you can't have a gun". Then just like Heller/MacDonald it'll take a decade for a single case to Mayne clarify what that means.

One of the biggest misses IMO for the power of SCOTUS is they have to wait for a case. SCOTUS should have had the ability to stay laws that limit freedoms and force gov to either present a case to defend it or it effectively is struck down within a short timeframe. Basically the power to step in and pause a law.
 
xtry51 said:
I agree SCOTUS will tailor this decision to states not being able to pick who gets a license.
......
One of the biggest misses IMO for the power of SCOTUS is they have to wait for a case. SCOTUS should have had the ability to stay laws that limit freedoms and force gov to either present a case to defend it or it effectively is struck down within a short timeframe. Basically the power to step in and pause a law.
Click to expand...
1. That would be a miracle in and of itself

2. That cuts both ways, and is only attractive when the court is on our side. MA has something that comes close - Sua Sponte - the SJC (or SMC if you prefer) can hijack any lower court case of it's own initiative. It did this back in 76 just before the handgun ban referendum and grabbed a case it used to establish there is no right to possess guns in MA, so that the "against the MA constitution" argument could not effectively be used by our side.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
I may be in the minority, but what is more important than "Shall issue" is the concept of treating everyone equally. History has shown that "need based" criteria are never applied solely on need, and the people chosen for reasons like wealth, fame, connectedness, etc. have a different standard of "need" applied to them.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Imagine having to “demonstrate” or prove your “need” for free speech. Or liberty. Or travel. Or life itself.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
1. That would be a miracle in and of itself

2. That cuts both ways, and is only attractive when the court is on our side. MA has something that comes close - Sua Sponte - the SJC (or SMC if you prefer) can hijack any lower court case of it's own initiative. It did this back in 76 just before the handgun ban referendum and grabbed a case it used to establish there is no right to possess guns in MA, so that the "against the MA constitution" argument could not effectively be used by our side.
Click to expand...

The key is not allowing them to take up any case. They can only stay a law that restricts citizens (not laws that restrict gov). This would allow more roadblocks and faster responses by imposing fixed time deadlines for gov to present argument. You don't present argument after XX days? The law becomes void.

We need more mechanisms for laws to sunset or be removed.
 
We also need a mechanism for a "binding contract campaign promise".

If a candidate offers a "binding contract promise not to sign any bill raising taxes", any action contrary to the promise would be void. The result would be politicians being very careful about which promises they agreed to be "binding".
 
Hoover said:
Paul clement is an excellent lawyer. I feel confident in a strong opinion, not a tepid one. I think it’s telling NY suggests remand, they know they have no chance of a SCOTUS opinion in their favor
Click to expand...
They're clearly asking for remand to buy time and to avoid a decision they won't like. I'm happy with the way Clement carried himself. Underwood felt badly prepared and stumbled over her words a lot. Maybe it's my bias.

Not that any of this actually changes the decision much... the justices already know their own decisions, I'm sure.
 
Goliathan said:
They're clearly asking for remand to buy time and to avoid a decision they won't like. I'm happy with the way Clement carried himself. Underwood felt badly prepared and stumbled over her words a lot. Maybe it's my bias.

Not that any of this actually changes the decision much... the justices already know their own decisions, I'm sure.
Click to expand...

It's not your bias......she stumbled on her words like she was falling down ten flights of stairs.

I think the final statement made by Clement nailed her to the cross.
 
I did not listed in, but I would have loved to hear how the NY attorney would respond to: "Are NY carry licenses issued without regard to race, social stature, wealth, fame or personal/business connections to the political or police system?".
 
Any thoughts on Roberts raising the issue with Fletcher of permitting for constitutional rights and 2A being the only one requiring a permit to exercise? Is Roberts being critical of treating 2A differently than other rights? Given our assumptions that he has become somewhat hostile to 2A, is he further developing his own belief that 2A is unique which justifies treating differently -- as in deserves less protection from the court?
 
LittleCalm said:
Would be nice if Roberts is sidelined on this regardless of how he votes. Need ACB, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to step up and give the 2A the teeth it is supposed to have on its face.
Click to expand...
ACB, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have been a serious disappointment.
 

Similar threads

Garland v. VanDerStok
Replies
0
Views
113
lutstribe
L
Supreme Court decision on rifle bans
Replies
9
Views
738
Tartakovsky
Tartakovsky
Supreme Court ending permits
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
Worcester State Court Gun Policy
Replies
12
Views
453
Mark from ?
M
Is it time yet for a "Why is there even a dealer classifieds" Megathread?
Replies
12
Views
266
Individualist
Individualist
Back
Top Bottom