Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

PeterC said:
He's getting hammered in the comments. One of the best:

"So if you need a constitutional amendment for your laws to exist, that means your laws are unconstitutional."
Click to expand...
Well, sort of - you’re at least admitting that COTUS isn’t clear on relevant matters. A right to vote for all citizens is still not definitive, while some states are allowing non-citizens to vote.

”…a Constitutional Amendment to protect our kids and end the gun violence epidemic in America.”

Newsom remains vague on the contents of said amendment - it can’t be any of the CA laws, as more of the same can’t work.
 
1sern said:
Under the judge’s order, Maryland is enjoined from enforcing laws restricting the carrying of firearms in locations selling alcohol, private buildings or property without the owner’s consent, and within 1,000 feet of a public demonstration. However, he left intact the prohibitions on carry in health care facilities, school grounds, government buildings, museums, state parks and state forests, casinos, mass transit facilities, stadiums, racetracks, and amusement parks.
Click to expand...
I really don't understand why the love for banning at the bolded places. Actually none of them are good, but the bold ones? Most hospitals I've been to are in pretty sucky places. Museums, who cares? State parks and state forests can sometimes be pretty remote and also have animals to be concerned about. Mass transit would affect a lot of people who use that to travel.
 
Coyote33 said:
I really don't understand why the love for banning at the bolded places. Actually none of them are good, but the bold ones? Most hospitals I've been to are in pretty sucky places. Museums, who cares? State parks and state forests can sometimes be pretty remote and also have animals to be concerned about. Mass transit would affect a lot of people who use that to travel.
Click to expand...

You misread that I think. The bolded ones are the ones where continuing the ban is worse. (as I understood it)
 
milktree said:
Exactly. The intact prohibitions included the whole list, the bolded ones were the most offensive.
Click to expand...
Correct, to me. The bolding wasn't there. I added the bold. To ME, those were the most offensive. Not sure, but now I think you are just agreeing with me, right?
 
NRA was awarded legal fees from the state of NY for the Bruen case.

The NRA was a party in that case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, and last week a New York judge ordered the state to pay $447,700.82 in legal fees.
Click to expand...

www.foxnews.com

Judge orders New York to dole out nearly half a million in legal fees to NRA after Supreme Court victory

A New York judge told the state to cough up nearly half a million dollars in legal fees to the National Rifle Association following a Supreme Court victory for gun rights advocates.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com
 
firearmslaw.duke.edu

First Amendment Analogies and Second-Class Rights under Bruen: Is it Time for a Government-Arms Doctrine? | Duke Center for Firearms Law

firearmslaw.duke.edu firearmslaw.duke.edu

Digging into Breyer’s dissent, to suggest a parallel between the 1stA government-speech right to suggest a government-arms right.

”…it claims that the government must also own firearms to govern effectively. Although private citizens may feel that the policy burdens their rights, this new statute ultimately derives from the government’s need to secure firearms for its law enforcement officials, which in turn flows from its broad police power.

Suppose a state encounters a gun shortage that makes it impossible to arm its police adequately, perhaps due to supply chain issues. The state enacts a statute preventing anyone within its jurisdiction from acquiring certain firearms until it deems the police adequately equipped with the enumerated makes and models.”

In particular, when supply-chain issues limit arms available to the government, the government can limit arms availability to citizens? LOL 😅

Of course, if government can figure out out to limit industry’s ability to respond to demand for arms, they can outbuy individual citizens to limit supply.
 
MaverickNH said:
firearmslaw.duke.edu

First Amendment Analogies and Second-Class Rights under Bruen: Is it Time for a Government-Arms Doctrine? | Duke Center for Firearms Law

firearmslaw.duke.edu firearmslaw.duke.edu

Digging into Breyer’s dissent, to suggest a parallel between the 1stA government-speech right to suggest a government-arms right.

”…it claims that the government must also own firearms to govern effectively. Although private citizens may feel that the policy burdens their rights, this new statute ultimately derives from the government’s need to secure firearms for its law enforcement officials, which in turn flows from its broad police power.

Suppose a state encounters a gun shortage that makes it impossible to arm its police adequately, perhaps due to supply chain issues. The state enacts a statute preventing anyone within its jurisdiction from acquiring certain firearms until it deems the police adequately equipped with the enumerated makes and models.”

In particular, when supply-chain issues limit arms available to the government, the government can limit arms availability to citizens? LOL 😅

Of course, if government can figure out out to limit industry’s ability to respond to demand for arms, they can outbuy individual citizens to limit supply.
Click to expand...
That statement [rofl2] [rofl2] [rofl2] [rofl2] [rofl2]
 
Guy is conflating a doctrine where the government is endowed with its own enjoyment of free speech where it can regulate the speech of those speaking on behalf of the government with supply of a physical item.
If there is a limited supply of an item then the market forces of supply and demand pricing acts to determine who gains access to that commodity.

When speaking one doesn't pull from a finite pool of words.
The government, and anyone for that matter, can enjoy and abuse their rights to free speech without risk of limiting any other's access to speech unless the government mandates its own access to a limited speech medium over the owner of that medium's wishes.
By mandating a third party carry government speech they government is infringing on both the media owner's speech (compelling their speech) and that of those who would otherwise use the medium (censoring their speech)

And just like the government cannot commandeer the mechanisms of free speech (commercial platforms) for its own use, it cannot do the same for the mechanisms of the Second (commercial supply of arms)
 
pastera said:
Guy is conflating a doctrine where the government is endowed with its own enjoyment of free speech where it can regulate the speech of those speaking on behalf of the government with supply of a physical item.
If there is a limited supply of an item then the market forces of supply and demand pricing acts to determine who gains access to that commodity.

When speaking one doesn't pull from a finite pool of words.
The government, and anyone for that matter, can enjoy and abuse their rights to free speech without risk of limiting any other's access to speech unless the government mandates its own access to a limited speech medium over the owner of that medium's wishes.
By mandating a third party carry government speech they government is infringing on both the media owner's speech (compelling their speech) and that of those who would otherwise use the medium (censoring their speech)

And just like the government cannot commandeer the mechanisms of free speech (commercial platforms) for its own use, it cannot do the same for the mechanisms of the Second (commercial supply of arms)
Click to expand...
Yes - but the Govt has in the past has tried to manipulate market access to goods (WW2 ration books and the resulting black market). Although small arms ammunition / components were not rationed, I wonder what the actual commercial availability to citizens was during the war years.
 
Hoover said:
The case which gives me a headache now is the defense distributed vs NJ. NJ is fighting in fed court in NJ to hear the case there, DD is in the 5th circuit and Texas district court to get the case heard there. Various courts are ruling and it’s hard to understand what’s going on. And all this is just over jurisdiction, they haven’t even started with the case yet.
Click to expand...

"A federal judge in New Jersey ruled that computer code that lets someone produce firearms is not protected speech under the First Amendment."

www.ammoland.com

Federal Judge Rules Gun CAD Files are Not Protected Speech

A federal judge in New Jersey ruled that computer code that lets someone produce firearms is not protected speech under the First Amendment.
www.ammoland.com www.ammoland.com
 
1sern said:
"A federal judge in New Jersey ruled that computer code that lets someone produce firearms is not protected speech under the First Amendment."

www.ammoland.com

Federal Judge Rules Gun CAD Files are Not Protected Speech

A federal judge in New Jersey ruled that computer code that lets someone produce firearms is not protected speech under the First Amendment.
www.ammoland.com www.ammoland.com
Click to expand...
Too late, this has been decided. I'm sure Cody will go all the way to SCOTUS, and continue leaning on Bernstein v. the U.S. Department of State
 
1sern said:
"A federal judge in New Jersey ruled that computer code that lets someone produce firearms is not protected speech under the First Amendment."

www.ammoland.com

Federal Judge Rules Gun CAD Files are Not Protected Speech

A federal judge in New Jersey ruled that computer code that lets someone produce firearms is not protected speech under the First Amendment.
www.ammoland.com www.ammoland.com
Click to expand...
I dont understand the first thing about computers but the first thing that popped into my head was A.I.. Reading the comments below the article someone brought up exactly that. Said if the judge was correct then A.I. wouldn't be protected and would require a license to use and reproduce.
 
Roadglide said:
I dont understand the first thing about computers but the first thing that popped into my head was A.I.. Reading the comments below the article someone brought up exactly that. Said if the judge was correct then A.I. wouldn't be protected and would require a license to use and reproduce.
Click to expand...
This case doesn't have anything to do with AI. It is just geometry.
 
reason.com

Old gun controls that were constitutionally repealed are not precedents for modern gun control

Amicus brief in Supreme Court's Second Amendment Rahimi case
reason.com reason.com

Kopel piling on for Rahimi with an amicus brief. Case law based on gun restrictions against religion, race, ethnicity, etc., might take a back seat to case law based on morally reprehensible behavior. One can say "bad guy" without saying Catholic, Black, Italian, etc.

"However, several amici in support of the Solicitor General, as well as the Department of Justice in cases in lower courts, also rely on old laws based on invidious discrimination–such as against Catholics, slaves, free people of color, and so on. The modern attorneys who cite old discriminatory statutes as precedents in favor of gun control always make a disclaimer that they don't agree with the old laws, but the attorneys then claim that these laws still guide the current meaning of the right to keep and bear arms.

The amicus brief explains the error of such thinking."
 
1sern said:
www.ammoland.com

Domestic Murder Rates Unaffected by Gun Bans Linked to Restraining Orders

A rigorous paper by John Lott and Carlisle E. Moody shows the ban on people under a domestic violence restraining order has no statistically significant effect on domestic murder.
www.ammoland.com www.ammoland.com

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE CRIME PREVENTION RESEARCH CENTER IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT
Click to expand...

While Bruen would dismiss “balancing tests”, suggesting ROs have little utility can’t hurt.

Joeldiaz said:
Mark Smith of the Four Boxes Diner thinks we’re going to lose Rahimi and the best way to avoid that outcome would be to moot the case by giving Rahimi a plea deal.


View: https://youtu.be/dS8Rh4brYRU
Click to expand...


Does the plaintif *want* to give Rahimi A plea deal and moot the case?
 

Similar threads

The Supreme Court upholds a gun control law
4 5 6
Replies
174
Views
4K
sbhaven
S
Second Amendment Activism @ the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court
Replies
2
Views
376
Spartan65
Spartan65
Nevada Supreme Court Upholds Ban on So-Called ‘Ghost Guns’
Replies
4
Views
261
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
The NRA Is About to Notch Another Legal Victory at the Supreme Court
2
Replies
31
Views
1K
Garys
Garys
New York's Radical Gun Restrictions Headed To Supreme Court
Replies
1
Views
332
Rob Boudrie
Rob Boudrie
Back
Top Bottom