That line coming from Roberts of all people was hilarious.How many muggings take place in the forest?
View: https://twitter.com/listen_fat/status/1455925769612500996
View: https://twitter.com/fedjudges/status/1455904939197308928
-
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
View: https://twitter.com/listen_fat/status/1455925769612500996
View: https://twitter.com/fedjudges/status/1455904939197308928
LittleCalm
NES Member
From the blog:
Alito is now pressing Underwood on the same issue. He invokes a hypothetical late-night worker in Manhattan who must commute through a high-crime area on the bus or the subway after midnight. That's not enough for the worker to receive a concealed-carry permit? Alito asks.
Underwood confirms that merely working or commuting in a high-crime neighborhood is not a "special need" that entitles someone to have a permit. Alito responds, "How is that consistent with the core right to self-defense that is protected by the Second Amendment?"
More from Alito: "All these people with illegal guns -- they’re on the subway, they’re walking around the streets. But the ordinary hardworking people, no, they can’t be armed."
Mic drop.
Alito is now pressing Underwood on the same issue. He invokes a hypothetical late-night worker in Manhattan who must commute through a high-crime area on the bus or the subway after midnight. That's not enough for the worker to receive a concealed-carry permit? Alito asks.
Underwood confirms that merely working or commuting in a high-crime neighborhood is not a "special need" that entitles someone to have a permit. Alito responds, "How is that consistent with the core right to self-defense that is protected by the Second Amendment?"
More from Alito: "All these people with illegal guns -- they’re on the subway, they’re walking around the streets. But the ordinary hardworking people, no, they can’t be armed."
Mic drop.
LittleCalm
NES Member
As to Robert's line about muggings in the forest, I think he was making light of the fact that NY was suggesting that it was ok for more rural areas to be more lenient on licensing, and yet the likelihood of becoming a victim of crime is obviously much greater in the urban setting. I do worry that the court is going to create a loophole for "sensitive" places, which will prompt NY to label every place sensitive -- hospitals, parks, playgrounds, schools, govt offices of any type, subway, places of worship, gyms/fitness clubs, etc. etc. The back and forth about the subway was troubling, and Clement responded poorly to that by saying his clients were not asking about carrying on the subway. Cripes, the subway is probably the most important place to be able to carry. Otherwise, I do agree that Clement seemed to carry himself better than Underwood and Fletcher.
clement has been in front of SCOTUS a lot, the woman from NY has little experience at this level
alito does see it right, but, will that move anywhere? what was the outcome of today? not gonna watch youtubers.
StevieP
NES Member
Read all about it:
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen - SCOTUSblog
Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court
www.scotusblog.com
Read about today, specifically:
Majority of court appears dubious of New York gun-control law, but justices mull narrow ruling - SCOTUSblog
This article was updated on Nov. 3 at 5:15 p.m. When Wednesday’s oral argument in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen drew to a close after roughly two hours of debate, it seemed likely that New York’s 108-year-old handgun-licensing law is in jeopardy. But the justices’ eventua
www.scotusblog.com
No 'outcome' today. we won't see a decision till next summer (?)
LittleCalm
NES Member
Unfortunately, likely not. There will be an exception (sensitive places) that the gun control crowd will exploit, as they did in Heller. And Clement didn't do us a favor with his subway comment. He should have blasted back by saying that the subway is perhaps one of the most important places that a firearm might be needed for self defense. Like, do the judges watch the damn news? See my post #382 above.
CatSnoutSoup
NES Member
There is a lot of purposeful disinformation about this case from the left, but it doesn't help when journalists on the right are apparently clueless about the process or worse just parrot the left's disinformation talking points.
Dadstoys
NES Member
He has the job for life.
He can tell the NRA to take a flying f*ck on a rolling doughnut.
It's not like he's running for re-election.
Or is it baker you are referring to ?
In his case , he was a Dem Trojan Horse.
The Dems will keep him in office till he decides not to run again.
Last edited:
DependsHow many muggings take place in the forest?
Yes. It is highly unlikely that he'd leave the position in favor of other government role, but it isn't against any current laws for a federal justice to run for other office. Admittedly, it is something more common for state justices though. But you're right, he can burn all the bridges he wants now that he's on lock. Still not a great look to go against the fundraising standards that lubricate the political machine, and people will remember that about him.
Rob Boudrie
NES Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 48,955
- Likes
- 36,423
Fine by me .... as long as "sensitive places" restriction includes all the connected and important people who have the "Special Full Carry" banner in the red bar at the top of their NYC licenses. Give them a touch of the medicine they have been forcing on the little people for years and they will do the lobbying for us.
GA rolled back quite a few of the "carry permit not valid" locations a few years ago.
VetteGirlMA
NES Member
I've always said that what conservatives need to do is pass a law or better yet a constitutional amendment that says in essence, no state shall grant the right to vote unless it follows the same procedure for securing a gun permit. That means in Massachusetts, all citizens must pay a $100 fee for the right to vote, submit their application with the police, be fingerprinted, mug shots, back ground check, mental health check and in the end the towns police chief can decide arbitrarily who can vote and what election they can vote in. We can call that restrictions. Those with no restrictions can vote in all elections, those who are deemed untrustworthy may be limited to voting in local elections only and some people get no right to vote at all. I will bet anything that within 24 hours every blue state will be repealing all of their gun laws by the boat load.
LittleCalm
NES Member
Sorry Rob, we know that won't happen. The special elite will get an exception to the exception. You can see this coming a mile away unfortunately. If everything depended on Roberts, you know the decision would get watered down to nothing. Need to hold out hope that ACB, Kav and Gorsuch won't do that b/c you know Thomas/Alito are itching to write this opinion in a much more decisive and un-equivocating manner.
Pretty interesting comments by Roberts. Still don't trust him one bit.Read all about it:
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen - SCOTUSblog
Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court
Read about today, specifically:
Majority of court appears dubious of New York gun-control law, but justices mull narrow ruling - SCOTUSblog
This article was updated on Nov. 3 at 5:15 p.m. When Wednesday’s oral argument in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen drew to a close after roughly two hours of debate, it seemed likely that New York’s 108-year-old handgun-licensing law is in jeopardy. But the justices’ eventua
No 'outcome' today. we won't see a decision till next summer (?)
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
Good.
Underwood’s response – that an applicant’s claims “are examined by a licensing officer,” who can presumably consider an applicant’s entire situation – prompted Kavanaugh to voice another concern. If the official who determines whether to issue the license has discretion in making that decision, Kavanaugh suggested, “that seems inconsistent with an objective constitutional right.”
Not good.
When Underwood responded that New York wanted to protect the right to self-defense but also protect public safety, Roberts pushed back again. He said he can understand a regulation prohibiting guns in a football stadium, but the right to protect oneself would be greater in a high-crime area. “How many muggings take place in the forest?” Roberts asked.
Underwood’s response – that an applicant’s claims “are examined by a licensing officer,” who can presumably consider an applicant’s entire situation – prompted Kavanaugh to voice another concern. If the official who determines whether to issue the license has discretion in making that decision, Kavanaugh suggested, “that seems inconsistent with an objective constitutional right.”
Not good.
When Underwood responded that New York wanted to protect the right to self-defense but also protect public safety, Roberts pushed back again. He said he can understand a regulation prohibiting guns in a football stadium, but the right to protect oneself would be greater in a high-crime area. “How many muggings take place in the forest?” Roberts asked.
Rob Boudrie
NES Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 48,955
- Likes
- 36,423
History suggests otherwise. There is no "special elite exception" for non-LEO connected important people to carry on school grounds or buildings, except for LEO status.
When Michigan went from may to shall issue, several "ccw not valid zones" were added - but the connected people who were able to get the "may issue" flavor before the law were not given a carve out or "super carry" status without these limitations applied to commoners.
Last edited:
Rob Boudrie
NES Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 48,955
- Likes
- 36,423
I had an interesting converstion with a retired NYPD who was put in the licensing duty. He was given a quote - it was 20%ish - he was allowed to approve (for anything, not just full carry) and was told all of the applications he processed would be reviewed if he exceeded that limit. This was 30+ years ago, but I doubt the attitude has changed.
PLease please please let me see that line in the ruling
LittleCalm
NES Member
Roberts' views about "sensitive places" is why we need to hope that Thomas, Alito, ACB, Kav and Gorsuch shut that down. Not holding my breath though. You watch -- there will be an "out" just like in Heller, and the infringement cycle will keep chugging along.
exempt from MA and US laws
I was just wondering what laws the MA police are exempt from that the rest of us are subject to. Anyone have any of these they could help out with? AG's rules will also do. I also know that they are not listed in town/city clerk's listings of residents, nor assessor's records.
www.northeastshooters.com
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,488
- Likes
- 6,401
A really interesting argument session. The justices were engaged and mostly asked good questions (except for Breyer, he's outlived his usefulness on the court and I agree with progressive court watchers - he should step down). I'm happy that they didn't beat the Statute of Northampton to death.
Clement was excellent, but you have to expect that. He's a former SG and seems to be in front of the court a couple of times in each sitting. The amount of preparation he must do is astounding - probably has a photographic memory.
Underwood, NY's SG, was underwhelming. Even setting aside my own obvious bias, she just seemed overwhelmed and under prepared. Fletcher from the SG's office was very well prepared and very good. NY really needed the SG's help on this one. I also did a double-take when the chief asked him about licensing the exercise of the right. Preloger, the SG, didn't argue this one herself. Not sure if that's because Monday's SB8 argument was deemed more important or the SG's office figured that there wasn't much upside to NYSRPA.
The rest of my week will be spend listening to and reading all the inevitable Monday-morning quarterbacking.
Clement was excellent, but you have to expect that. He's a former SG and seems to be in front of the court a couple of times in each sitting. The amount of preparation he must do is astounding - probably has a photographic memory.
Underwood, NY's SG, was underwhelming. Even setting aside my own obvious bias, she just seemed overwhelmed and under prepared. Fletcher from the SG's office was very well prepared and very good. NY really needed the SG's help on this one. I also did a double-take when the chief asked him about licensing the exercise of the right. Preloger, the SG, didn't argue this one herself. Not sure if that's because Monday's SB8 argument was deemed more important or the SG's office figured that there wasn't much upside to NYSRPA.
The rest of my week will be spend listening to and reading all the inevitable Monday-morning quarterbacking.
I think there's also a long running pay-to-play scandal at the NYPD's licensing unit.
BigGreen2000
NES Member
Just getting around to this now. I’m upset at how partisan the liberal wing of the court is: Sotomayor, Kagan, and RBG skewer poor Clement for 30 minutes, then turn around and throw life-lines to the NYC council. Overall, I thought Clement was way more prepared and very well spoken compared to NYC. I thought NYC council was a little weasily—he kept trying to constain 2A to the home, and nothing beyond. I thought it was brilliant that Clement basically turned NYC’s argument around and said: by virtue of issuing permits to transit from home to practice range, NYC affirms that there is a 2A right outside of the home. Although, it does torque me off that NYC has the audacity to say that “text, history, and tradition” indicate restricting the 2A is permissible. Total baloney.
BigGreen2000
NES Member
And again, getting back to the genius of Paul Clement. NYC and the liberal justices made a HUGE deal out of the fact that NYSRPA was not seeking damages, was not accepting monetary relief from the court, etc. NYC and liberal justices kept saying, in effect: there were some monetary damages (plaintiffs having to pay out of state range fees), settle or moot the case, and move on. But Clemente et al. didn’t take the bait, because it’s not about the damages. It’s about the freedom of the 2A. Clemente et al. refused the award of damages to prove the point that individual freedom is the point of this whole excercize. It’s a classic state vs individual argument, and in this case, Clemente et al. refused to let the individual be bought-off by the state.
dixidawg
NES Member
RBG?? Weekend at Bernie’s?
Do you want to take a Mulligan on RBG?
AHM
NES Member
Rob Boudrie
NES Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 48,955
- Likes
- 36,423
There was also "awe to play" - the mere presence of a household name on the applicant's side of the table boosted the odds. Sean Penn, despite a criminal record, was described as an "outstanding applicant" and at least one music group (Aerosmith, I think) was met backstage by the NYPD for fingerprinting for their approved applications. "I am famous/rich so that places me in danger" seems to work. Even The Donald had a full carry permit before he went into politics.
Last edited:
