Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

[42!]

Just saw this on YouTube. I smell a lot of appeals being filed for people who’ve been jammed up for the same.

Its not any kind of binding ruling so someone convicted in the past, and past when the normally can appeal is SOL
And the state appealing the ruling is risky, right now it only applies to the one defendant, run it up the courts and they could end up with something binding. More likely the state lets it go.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

No shot this doesn’t get appealed. I’m certain the appeals court will reverse this. If not them, the SJC most certainly will.

I figure 2 things are likely:

1). MA tries to appeal and hopes for a big win and no slap down later by scotus, law stays in place.

2). MA senses that they are about to lose big time and drops the charges in hopes to null out the controversy, law stays in place.

What I hope for:

3). MA realizes that they are going to set a national precedent, screws up with no historical analog to back up on and then gets slapped down really hard. There is no reason why the second amendment ends at a state line.

4). MA fights tooth and nail and relies on racist 18th century gun laws. When they do I will tweet it out every...single...day. Day after day after day on their twitter feeds and social media. I want every single minority voter in this state to know what white liberals actually think about them behind closed doors. Already I am seeing the left is starting to pull back on invoking racism in defense of gun control. I think some people are starting to realize that if they sign onto to it as a defense what will future generations think of them? What kind of legacy are they going to send? That were the racists all along despite what they claim? If they do end up prevailing using racism I'll make sure that the price that they pay for a stack of cash from Bloomberg isn't worth the negative legacy that they're politics gives them.

 

[steve8140]

Regardless if the state lets it go or if they appeal it, this will set precedence that it’s been done and that same standard would apply.

 

[crispnipz]

Gun rights shouldn’t end at arbitrary lines (state) drawn on a map. No other right does. Hopefully, this is a big step in the right direction.

They shouldn't have stopped at town lines (like they did here) either. I am heartened that after 5 years of being denied this right, it was restored. Hopefully it does get expanded. I'd love to carry in upstate NY as I have friends there I like to visit but NY doesn't issue non-res permits.

4). MA fights tooth and nail and relies on racist 18th century gun laws. When they do I will tweet it out every...single...day. Day after day after day on their twitter feeds and social media. I want every single minority voter in this state to know what white liberals actually think about them behind closed doors. Already I am seeing the left is starting to pull back on invoking racism in defense of gun control. I think some people are starting to realize that if they sign onto to it as a defense what will future generations think of them? What kind of legacy are they going to send? That were the racists all along despite what they claim? If they do end up prevailing using racism I'll make sure that the price that they pay for a stack of cash from Bloomberg isn't worth the negative legacy that they're politics gives them.

I see where you're going but I decided a long time ago to stop caring if people said I'm "racist" primarily because it is Marxist Frankfurt School framework of thought, but also because everything to the left is racist to the point that the word no longer has meaning.

 

[Picton]

2). MA senses that they are about to lose big time and drops the charges in hopes to null out the controversy, law stays in place.

As someone else pointed out above, they've got this particular guy on other charges. They can (and will) let this one go and still get their pound of flesh.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

As someone else pointed out above, they've got this particular guy on other charges. They can (and will) let this one go and still get their pound of flesh.

I suspect this is why MA so often drops gun charges. In fact almost universally dropped. They also did the same thing with Caetano but obviously there was still a controversy to consider.

 

[PappyM3]

I suspect this is why MA so often drops gun charges. In fact almost universally dropped. They also did the same thing with Caetano but obviously there was still a controversy to consider.

They drop gun charges for gang bangers all the time. It’s usually the otherwise law abiding citizen who gets the shaft with MA gun charges.

 

[LittleCalm]

I never understood how this stuff passes muster under the full faith and credit clause. Heck even drivers licenses have reciprocity. How can a constitutional right - not a privilege mind you - not have it?

 

[42!]

Regardless if the state lets it go or if they appeal it, this will set precedence that it’s been done and that same standard would apply.

Sorry, nope. If they leave it as is there is no precedence. It was a district court and the ruling was written to apply only to the specific defendant. That's why the won't appeal it, if they lose in a higher court it could set a precedence.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

I never understood how this stuff passes muster under the full faith and credit clause. Heck even drivers licenses have reciprocity. How can a constitutional right - not a privilege mind you - not have it?

I have been saying that for years. No other RIGHT is lost over a man made line.
It's done completely blatant, by the police, courts, DA's, AG's. After a SCOTUS ruling they still pass laws that violate those rulings.
The SCOTUS needs to put an end to all this bullshit. They f***ed up with permits are OK. I hope that gets challenged one day.

In Bruen they ruled "Outside the home" Does that mean anywhere in any state?

Really simple for me, and I am no Einstein.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[pastera]

I suspect this is why MA so often drops gun charges. In fact almost universally dropped. They also did the same thing with Caetano but obviously there was still a controversy to consider.

In Cataeno they dropped the charges AFTER SCOTUS rendered a per curiam and remanded in order to try to moot the case as much as possible.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

In Cataeno they dropped the charges AFTER SCOTUS rendered a per curiam and remanded in order to try to moot the case as much as possible.

English for us in the back, please.

 

[Joeldiaz]

They f***ed up with permits are OK.

They never said permits are OK. They simply declined to strike permits down because they weren’t at issue in Bruen. Justice Kavanaugh even asked the plaintiffs at oral arguments whether they were challenging shall-issue licensing, and the plaintiffs said they weren’t. SCOTUS can’t rule on issues not presented to them.

I hope that gets challenged one day.

It most certainly will, but not anytime soon. SCOTUS explicitly said that shall-issue licensing can also be problematic due to things like exorbitant fees and long wait times. However, the dicta in Bruen seems to indicate that they believe there’s much bigger fish to fry when it comes to 2A issues (AWBs, sensitive place restrictions, prohibited persons, etc).

 

[Joeldiaz]

English for us in the back, please.

A per curiam decision is a court opinion issued in the name of the Court in unanimous agreement rather than specific judges.

 

[pastera]

English for us in the back, please.

SCOTUS issued an opinion without hearing arguments because the Mass SJC had its head so far up its ass it was about to create a singularity.
As part of the opinion and by normal practice, SCOTUS tossed out the SJC decision and told them to follow the law on a new decision.
Instead of admitting they were wrong in issuing a guilty verdict, they simply dropped the charges - Cataeno made out because it cleared a bunch of stuff off her record and Mass didn't have to admit it was wrong.

If you haven't read Cataeno, do so.
It's a condensed version of heller and really shits on the SJC and the arguments presented by the state (for which they should have been disbarred they were that bad)

 

[Chevy 2 65]

They never said permits are OK. They simply declined to strike permits down because they weren’t at issue in Bruen. Justice Kavanaugh even asked the plaintiffs at oral arguments whether they were challenging shall-issue licensing, and the plaintiffs said they weren’t. SCOTUS can’t rule on issues not presented to them.


It most certainly will, but not anytime soon. SCOTUS explicitly said that shall-issue licensing can also be problematic due to things like exorbitant fees and long wait times. However, the dicta in Bruen seems to indicate that they believe there’s much bigger fish to fry when it comes to 2A issues (AWBs, sensitive place restrictions, prohibited persons, etc).

Maybe I am wrong but I can swear they mentioned something about permits being ok.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

SCOTUS issued an opinion without hearing arguments because the Mass SJC had its head so far up its ass it was about to create a singularity.
As part of the opinion and by normal practice, SCOTUS tossed out the SJC decision and told them to follow the law on a new decision.
Instead of admitting they were wrong in issuing a guilty verdict, they simply dropped the charges - Cataeno made out because it cleared a bunch of stuff off her record and Mass didn't have to admit it was wrong.

If you haven't read Cataeno, do so.
It's a condensed version of heller and really shits on the SJC and the arguments presented by the state (for which they should have been disbarred they were that bad)

Thank You ! Thats gold. The State supreme court is for sure.


View: https://youtu.be/civuoU_NE38

 

[pastera]

Maybe I am wrong but I can swear they mentioned something about permits being ok.

SCOTUS doesn't usually give an opinion on anything other than the very particular and narrow question before them.
Licensing was not the particular question so they worked from the point of view of assuming it is constitutional unless it is blatantly unconstitutional

So they didn't actually say a lot about permits in general other than if they exist then the state must allow equal access to them

 

[Parker Schreiber]

Maybe I am wrong but I can swear they mentioned something about permits being ok.

Footnote 9:
To be clear, nothing in our analysis should be interpreted to suggest the unconstitutionality of the 43 States’ “shall-issue” licensing regimes, under which “a general desire for self-defense is sufficient to obtain a [permit].” Drake v. Filko, 724 F. 3d 426, 442 (CA3 2013) (Hardiman, J., dissenting). Because these licensing regimes do not require applicants to show an atypical need for armed self-defense, they do not necessarily prevent “law-abiding, responsible citizens” from exercising their Second Amendment right to public carry. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 635 (2008). Rather, it appears that these shall-issue regimes, which often require applicants to undergo a background check or pass a firearms safety course, are designed to ensure only that those bearing arms in the jurisdiction are, in fact, “law-abiding, responsible citizens.” Ibid. And they likewise appear to contain only “narrow, objective, and definite standards” guiding licensing officials, Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U. S. 147, 151 (1969), rather than requiring the “appraisal of facts, the exercise of judgment, and the formation of an opinion,” Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 305 (1940)—features that typify proper-cause standards like New York’s. That said, because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.

This doesn't outright say that "shall issue" permits are constitutional, but it goes further than typical dicta in hinting they can be.

 

[LittleCalm]

Footnote 9:
To be clear, nothing in our analysis should be interpreted to suggest the unconstitutionality of the 43 States’ “shall-issue” licensing regimes, under which “a general desire for self-defense is sufficient to obtain a [permit].” Drake v. Filko, 724 F. 3d 426, 442 (CA3 2013) (Hardiman, J., dissenting). Because these licensing regimes do not require applicants to show an atypical need for armed self-defense, they do not necessarily prevent “law-abiding, responsible citizens” from exercising their Second Amendment right to public carry. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 635 (2008). Rather, it appears that these shall-issue regimes, which often require applicants to undergo a background check or pass a firearms safety course, are designed to ensure only that those bearing arms in the jurisdiction are, in fact, “law-abiding, responsible citizens.” Ibid. And they likewise appear to contain only “narrow, objective, and definite standards” guiding licensing officials, Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U. S. 147, 151 (1969), rather than requiring the “appraisal of facts, the exercise of judgment, and the formation of an opinion,” Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 305 (1940)—features that typify proper-cause standards like New York’s. That said, because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.

This doesn't outright say that "shall issue" permits are constitutional, but it goes further than typical dicta in hinting they can be.

Yeah, this is typical judicial equivocation. It doesn’t mean much either way, though does suggest bare bones shall issue is ok. Unfortunate, since there should be constitutional carry.

 

[knucklehead]

They drop gun charges for gang bangers all the time. It’s usually the otherwise law abiding citizen who gets the shaft with MA gun charges.

From what I've seen at work the gun charge is just an icing on the cake charge. Like someone getting robbed for their sneakers and they arrest the guy at home they find cocaine and he's got a pistol and ammo. You're right that most gun charges are just thrown away for a probation/parole agreement without the mandatory minimum.

 

[KBCraig]

Gun rights shouldn’t end at arbitrary lines (state) drawn on a map. No other right does. Hopefully, this is a big step in the right direction.

No rights end at lines on a map.

They just get infringed upon depending on which side of that line you stand.

You have all the same rights in Pyongyang or Tehran or Paris that you have in America. You have the same rights in Mass as you have in NH.

Those rights just get infringed upon, but they're still rights.

 

[KBCraig]

I never understood how this stuff passes muster under the full faith and credit clause. Heck even drivers licenses have reciprocity. How can a constitutional right - not a privilege mind you - not have it?

There is no federal law or court ruling that says drivers licenses must be reciprocal. They are reciprocal because of interstate compacts, exactly like carry licenses are reciprocal. South Dakota didn't even have drivers licenses until 1954 (Massachusetts and Missouri started requiring license in 1901).

Also: driving is a right and not a privilege. Arguing otherwise is just begging permission from the government.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1694058992702472315

 

[VetteGirlMA]

So I promised I would start capturing the overt racism of the left and how they are attempting to use racist laws as a means of justifying gun control. So today I managed to capture 3 examples of this in amicus briefs submitted to the court. The interesting thing is the ACLU is telling the left "don't base decisions on repugnant laws. it's a very dangerous place to go" but the left went there anyways:

Here's 3 examples i captured:



and this


(list of professors who worked on this included)

and this



They went there. They actually went there. Amazing.

 

[MaverickNH]

So I promised I would start capturing the overt racism of the left and how they are attempting to use racist laws as a means of justifying gun control. So today I managed to capture 3 examples of this in amicus briefs submitted to the court. The interesting thing is the ACLU is telling the left "don't base decisions on repugnant laws. it's a very dangerous place to go" but the left went there anyways:

Here's 3 examples i captured:



and this


(list of professors who worked on this included)

and this



They went there. They actually went there. Amazing.

Out of spaghetti and little or nothing stuck to the wall, so they have to throw Jim Crow and hope he sticks.…

Not a chance.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

Out of spaghetti and little or nothing stuck to the wall, so they have to throw Jim Crow and hope he sticks.…

Not a chance.

View attachment 788551

And.....They are using things that were 'proposed' as laws but not actual laws. "Well So and So believed that he or she could do this so it must have beenb okay to do this in 1791" Even though there are no laws, it was just an 'idea'.

So if ideas are all it takes then here's my idea 'let's repeal all gun control in its entirety'.

Also they using 20th century laws even though scotus said do not do this.

 

[Coyote33]

Also they using 20th century laws even though scotus said do not do this.

1. Where was this "said"?
2. What's to stop them?

 

[Mesatchornug]

1. Where was this "said"?

Bruen.

2. What's to stop them?

The weight of the federal government. Eventually.

Edit to add:
Once again, here's the relevant quote, from pages 25-27 of the decision around which this entire thread revolves (at least, in name).

We categorize these historical sources because, when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, not all history is created equal. “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 634–635 (emphasis added). The Second Amendment was adopted in 1791; the Fourteenth in 1868.
[...]
Similarly, we must also guard against giving postenactment history more weight than it can rightly bear. It is true that in Heller we reiterated that evidence of “how the Second Amendment was interpreted from immediately after its ratification through the end of the 19th century” represented a “critical tool of constitutional interpretation.” 554 U. S., at 605. We therefore examined “a variety of legal and other sources to determine the public understanding of [the Second Amendment] after its . . . ratification.” Ibid. And, in other contexts, we have explained that “‘a regular course of practice’ can ‘liquidate & settle the meaning of’ disputed or indeterminate ‘terms & phrases’” in the Constitution.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Regardless if the state lets it go or if they appeal it, this will set precedence that it’s been done and that same standard would apply.

Yes, but just in the area that falls in the jurisdiction of the court in which the state would appeal to.