"3 Min Ago: Supreme Court JUST ANNOUNCED To Eliminate Concealed Carry Laws"
What?
What?
-
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
Mesatchornug
NES Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2011
- Messages
- 13,244
- Likes
- 27,594
Mea culpa. I confused them with Georgetown. Thanks for catching me on that.Looks like she’s never actually been a real lawyer. She went from law school straight to being a professor of law. Graduated Harvard Law and the only job she could get was teaching at the University of Miami.
Oh man, watch out everyone, we got a badass over here:
View attachment 788936
Thankfully I don’t think George Washington is a Tier 1 school. It’s a move up from her Miami days, but it’s ranked still only 35th. Bottom of Tier 2?
Too many Georges. I thought of Georgetown when I first saw it too.
I got about half way through, there is so much BS, misinformation and outright lies, that the little grains of truth in it are lost. This kind of click bait BS hurts the whole 2a community but making us look like a bunch of idiots. And the idiots who believe it all and act on it will be held high inthe news as examples of the gun nuts.
Ron Jablonski
NES Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2020
- Messages
- 2,080
- Likes
- 5,144
Ya, it's a minor victory which should be celebrated. But it's certainly not the mic drop ruling that these content creators are making it seem to be. Wake me up when SCOTUS rules that an individual states AWB is unconstitutional and all other states must fall in line. There's either a federal ban or there's nothing.
But it might be a good time for some civil disobedience. If there is an organization that can put it together. Get a few hundred out of staters to carry in MA, in a city/town that is covered by the Lowell District Court. If they really have thrown out 50 cases it would be hard for them to actually charge, or at least it would also get thrown out. This would get national attention, might even force SCOTUS to weigh in on it, cut years off the timeline to SCOTUS.
The problem is, who would lead something like this. I'm an Idea man, not the leader type.
VetteGirlMA
NES Member
You're missing the big picture here. Youtube isn't like regular TV it's thousands of content creators competing with each other. A bunch of psychological studies were completed a couple of years and they found that people are more likely to click on video if they have catch titles so a lot of content creators do that. In fact a couple of content creators tested it out with videos. They took 2 videos that are identical, one with a normal title and one with a flashy title and the flashy title always gets more clicks. The best way to stay informed is by using multiple channels and just remember that the title might not have the facts you want at that moment.
CatSnoutSoup
NES Member
Consolation is that fifty case makes for a broad pool that FPC, 2AF, GOA, can select a "quality" defendant from for a future appeal. Would you agree?
FPC, GOA & SAF have long since given up on MA. FPC is currently challenging the handgun roster. A few months back when CA1 remanded the roster case back down to the district court in light of Bruen, they themselves admitted on Twitter that litigating in MA is a waste of time. Doesn’t matter the defendant, all 2A challenges are guaranteed to fail here because the entire 1st Circuit is vehemently anti-gun. You can bet your bottom dollar that they regret suing in the first place when they’ve got a slightly more successful roster case in CA. National groups won’t help us, we have to get local and support Comm2A.Consolation is that fifty case makes for a broad pool that FPC, 2AF, GOA, can select a "quality" defendant from for a future appeal. Would you agree?
I'm well aware of the dumbing down of society and the people who feed it and feed off of it. That in no way makes it OK for the outright lies that further damage society and in this case, actually damage the 2a cause. Eventually, some poor slob will believe the BS and end up in prison. At the same time providing a poster child for the anti crowd.
CatSnoutSoup
NES Member
General note, I misspoke and meant to say suit not appeal, but no matter.
Thanks for the explanation of the nature of the 1st circuit. Having just fell off the turnip truck and landed here in MA with a bag of guns these thing are all new and confusing to me. I would have even thought these MA District Court dismissals would be contested in the the MA Appeals Court and then perhaps MA SJC.
I asked and was interested in the opinion of @nstassel with regard to the number of possible qualified/sympathetic plaintiffs for future action, something I have read that attorneys sometimes have to struggle with when deciding to enter into a suit, and how an abundance of choice might be a positive in this situation.
We wouldn’t fare any better in those courts either. The MA SJC is the same court that said Heller only protects arms in common use at the time of the founding (aka muskets) before they got slapped down by SCOTUS in Caetano. No matter whether the courts are state or federal, here in MA we’re doomed.I would have even thought these MA District Court dismissals would be contested in the the MA Appeals Court and then perhaps MA SJC.
pastera
NES Member
You say this but until we see what they actually do with bruen we don't really know what the outcome will be.
CatSnoutSoup
NES Member
We saw what CA1 did with Bruen already in Granata v. Campbell. They remanded the case to delay things as much as possible. The judges aren’t stupid, they know exactly what outcome Bruen forces them to make, but they refuse to make it because they hate 2A that much. Their only choice was to remand or rule against us and get reversed by SCOTUS (btw, that’s FPC saying that, not me).
Yes, but that's not this.
We've already seen a MA district court judge rule against MA state law on out-of-state licensure, and he seems willing to force the state into a confrontation on the matter. He used Bruen as a cite, an acknowledgement that he understands the legal climate has changed even here. Eighteen months ago, nobody on NES would have predicted that in their wildest imaginings.
Who knows how many other District court judges are now willing to do likewise on 2A issues? We don't know. We have to wait and see. But we might be pleasantly surprised.
pastera
NES Member
So by your own words you admit the inevitable outcome
We don't care if our enemy is converted to our side or convinced of our argument. The only point is that they lose.
And the current "breaking news" from the Lowell district Court shows that Bruen forces a specific outcome.
My point was that it doesn’t matter what the inevitable or right outcome is. You said yourself that we don’t know what these anti-gun courts will do in light of Bruen. I’m saying that we absolutely do, they will ignore Bruen until they can’t and then they will still refuse to apply Bruen correctly because it’s in their very nature to hate guns, and they’ll hope that SCOTUS either doesn’t agree to hear the case or that the composition of the court is changed by the time it gets to them to be more anti-gun.
EJFudd
NES Member
Do you realize the contradictions in this post? FPC has "given up on MA" but FPC is challenging our roster? MA is a lost cause so don't give anything to the national pro-2A groups... but still give to the local pro-2A groups? WTF??? That doesn't make sense.
I am getting ready today to send out my pro-2A contributions for this month and next. I do it anonymously via money orders to prevent tons of crap junk mail from filling my mailbox. There is no way I'm not going to contribute to BOTH national and local pro-2A groups. We need all the help we can get regardless of the supposed hopelessness of Massachusetts.
FPC filed their lawsuit challenging the roster before they realized how badly the courts were stacked against them here. Now that they know, they fully admit that MA is hopeless.
CatSnoutSoup
NES Member
Rob Boudrie
NES Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 48,958
- Likes
- 36,431
If the charges were dropped without prejudice the charges can be re-files if the state win's its appeal of the ruling.
MaverickNH
NES Member
SCOTUS Gun Watch - Week of 8/28/23 | Duke Center for Firearms Law
US vs Rahimi - Issue: Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment on its face.
I didn’t see NRA, GOA, FPC on the amicus brief list - not the hill to die on, I guess…other than to limit the damage on other “character”-related prohibitions that appear in some state CCW laws.
”In Rahimi, a total of 39 amicus briefs were filed between August 17 and August 22—all but one in support of the government. The briefs were filed by organizations ranging from a group of state chief judges and justices, to the American Medical Association, to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
We’ll have a more detailed summary of the amicus briefs on the blog in the coming weeks, but in general the arguments fall into two main categories: (1) arguments about the practical impact of the Fifth Circuit’s holding if it is allowed to stand, including on public safety, family violence, and so on, and (2) arguments about legal and historical errors that amici urge the Fifth Circuit made in applying Bruen. I think it’s generally fair to say that the former arguments make room for the latter: in other words, if the Court determines that the Fifth Circuit construed historical tradition too narrowly, then more of the evidence in number 1 becomes potentially relevant to the analogical inquiry (or vice versa).”[/i}
You can expect the pro-2A amicus briefs to start rolling in once Rahimi has submitted his brief in response to the government’s arguments.SCOTUS Gun Watch - Week of 8/28/23 | Duke Center for Firearms Law
firearmslaw.duke.edu
US vs Rahimi - Issue: Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment on its face.
I didn’t see NRA, GOA, FPC on the amicus brief list - not the hill to die on, I guess…other than to limit the damage on other “character”-related prohibitions that appear in some state CCW laws.
”In Rahimi, a total of 39 amicus briefs were filed between August 17 and August 22—all but one in support of the government. The briefs were filed by organizations ranging from a group of state chief judges and justices, to the American Medical Association, to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
We’ll have a more detailed summary of the amicus briefs on the blog in the coming weeks, but in general the arguments fall into two main categories: (1) arguments about the practical impact of the Fifth Circuit’s holding if it is allowed to stand, including on public safety, family violence, and so on, and (2) arguments about legal and historical errors that amici urge the Fifth Circuit made in applying Bruen. I think it’s generally fair to say that the former arguments make room for the latter: in other words, if the Court determines that the Fifth Circuit construed historical tradition too narrowly, then more of the evidence in number 1 becomes potentially relevant to the analogical inquiry (or vice versa).”[/i}
VetteGirlMA
NES Member
I just want to warn people, read the anti gun briefs. Understand the people who want to disarm us all. You will be shocked. It's almost as if there is a 1st amendment, a third amendment and maybe once upon a time a long time there was a number between 1 and 3 but it's long forgotten and nobody knows any more. All of them are appeals to emotion with the sole exception being perhaps the ACLU brief.
It's so mind blowing that we have such an unbelievable disconnect in our society.
It's so mind blowing that we have such an unbelievable disconnect in our society.
KBCraig
NES Member
One other possible option not discussed in this update video: SCOTUS could hold off on hearing all 3 bump stock cases until they decide LBE v. Raimondo and overturn Chevron. Then they could remand all of the bump stock cases back down to the lower courts in light of their Raimondo decision.
MaverickNH
NES Member
Was There a “Hearing” on the Protective Order in Rahimi?
firearmslaw.duke.edu
More on US vs Rahimi - a lot of Due Process stuff wrt whether Rahimi got the “hearing” he was entitled to, even if it appears he waived that in an agreement. At best, the case could be sent back to the lower court by SCOTUS on the matter without addressing the main question. That might be a strategy if 2ndA advocates engage in his defense, given the case sucks…
”18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) bars gun possession by those subject to DVROs which, among other requirements, were “issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate” (emphasis added). …one basic factual question about the case remains elusive: did a “hearing” take place…? The answer depends on what one means by “hearing.”
…While the Fifth Circuit’s revised opinion in the case quotes the statutory language in full, the panel also writes that “it bears emphasis that the order at issue here was entered by agreement, in a civil proceeding, after Rahimi apparently waived hearing (the order states no formal hearing was held, and no record was created)” (emphasis added).
