Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

JoseyWales said:
So how long do the lawyers here think the 4th circuit will drag their feet?
Click to expand...
Now that SCOTUS denied cert - a lot longer...

The question is if the en banc tries to split the baby to muddy the waters extending things out even further - something like you can't ban but can license and tax (think NFA)

The anti side knows they are one or two losses at SCOTUS away from clear case law doing away with licensing and AW and capacity bans altogether - they need to keep things in the courts long enough to change the makeup of SCOTUS so they can "settle" the case law away from Bruen.
 
VTski4x4 said:
FPC still has their Illinois AWB case too. That brief is being heard on Thursday. It will likely face the same fate, but who knows.
Click to expand...
Chances are that the reason it wasn’t denied cert today is because one or more SCOTUS Justices are writing a dissent from the denial of cert, attacking the reasoning used by the 7th Circuit to uphold the AWB & mag bans.
 
pastera said:
Understand that Bruen was a massive disruption in jurisprudence, likely more so than Heller once the landscape settles.
Heller only seemed to attack restrictions in the home where even the anti-states knew they had little constitutional foothold.
Bruen brought the argument to their own doorsteps along with reinforcing a particular judicial review method and standard - that standard was in Heller but was buried in the Dicta. Bruen made Text and Historical Tradition (a more accurate description than what I had been using) the only method of review.
This caused tidal waves of change in 200 years of case law and the legislatures revolted at the perceived theft of power they had assumed and considered safe.
It will likely be a decade before we see cases settle down even if SCOTUS takes licensing and AWB cases to settle the two major areas in contention at this time.
Click to expand...

This is why the correct action for SCOTUS was to explicitly strike every law passed after the constitution was ratified on the spot. Anything less is just handing the warfare victory to Dems. They will just keep passing laws because SCOTUS never blanket strikes them or removes prosecutor/cop/judge immunity to hold them personally responsible.
 
HorizontalHunter said:
With the number of states essentially telling SOCTUS to FO they will eventually will have to take a stand or they will become irrelevant and useless.
Click to expand...
Isn't that kind of where they are right now?


xtry51 said:
SCOTUS never blanket strikes them or removes prosecutor/cop/judge immunity to hold them personally responsible
Click to expand...
Ha ha. Can't say that with a straight face I bet.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
The USPS offers a free service called "Informed Delivery" where they email you an image of mail expected later that day. Not perfect, but gets just about everything. This is the minimum the goverment can see, and a "mail cover" (looking at the outside of your snail mail) does not require a search warrant.
Click to expand...
I’m only getting about 60% of the letters that are in my ID emails, when I complain my mail stops coming altogether. If I cared I’d do something about it.
 
From CT's Grant v. Lamont. Plaintiff (Grant) files response brief.
www.ccdl.us

Grant v. Lamont: Response Brief Filed - Connecticut Citizens Defense League

RESPONSE BRIEF FILEDThursday, 5/23/24 Connecticut Citizens Defense League filed a Response Brief in the Grant v. Lamont case. This brief is asking the court to reconsider our preliminary injunction that was denied by Judge Arterton prior to her retirement. If successful, injunctive relief could...
www.ccdl.us

RESPONSE BRIEF FILED

Thursday, 5/23/24 Connecticut Citizens Defense League filed a Response Brief in the Grant v. Lamont case. This brief is asking the court to reconsider our preliminary injunction that was denied by Judge Arterton prior to her retirement. If successful, injunctive relief could halt the CT Assault Weapons Ban while the case is in court. The Connecticut Assault Weapons Ban is an unjust restriction of our 2A rights under the scrutiny of the Bruen decision, we will keep on fighting until we reclaim what is ours.

Carry On!
Click to expand...

Link to brief PDF: https://www.ccdl.us/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/108-2024-05-23-Appellants-Reply-Brief.pdf
 
NRA wins the 1A case against NY at SCOTUS.
NRA vs Vullo

Last paragraph
"(d) The NRA’s allegations, if true, highlight the constitutional concerns with the kind of strategy that Vullo purportedly adopted. Although the NRA was not the directly regulated party here, Vullo allegedly used the power of her office to target gun promotion by going after the NRA’s business partners. Nothing in this case immunizes the NRA from regulation nor prevents government officials from condemning disfavored views. The takeaway is that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from wielding their power selectively to punish or suppress speech, directly or (as alleged here) through private intermediaries."
 
Last edited:
Cap'n Mike said:
Probably till the results of Novembers Presidential Election are decided.

If anyone thinks Trump is as bad on 2A as Biden, think again.
Click to expand...
Trump sucks on 2A. But he will nominate more pro-2A judges. Which as we have seen is YUGE. . His greatest (and only??) legacy. And it's a big one.
 
doxdsgn said:
NRA wins the 1A case against NY at SCOTUS.
NRA vs Vullo

Last paragraph
"(d) The NRA’s allegations, if true, highlight the constitutional concerns with the kind of strategy that Vullo purportedly adopted. Although the NRA was not the directly regulated party here, Vullo allegedly used the power of her office to target gun promotion by going after the NRA’s business partners. Nothing in this case immunizes the NRA from regulation nor prevents government officials from condemning disfavored views. The takeaway is that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from wielding their power selectively to punish or suppress speech, directly or (as alleged here) through private intermediaries."
Click to expand...
This is great news. Thanks for sharing it!

It's a shame you've buried it in a 200+ page thread about a different case.
 
Waher said:
bearingarms.com

Trump Conviction Raises the Stakes for Supreme Court's Decision in Rahimi

bearingarms.com bearingarms.com
Click to expand...
From that article:
"While his felony conviction may or may not have an impact on his electoral chances (and quite possibly end up working to his advantage), it's now officially resulted in Trump losing his Second Amendment rights. In fact, for the first time in U.S. history there's a very good chance that the next commander-in-chief will be in charge of the military while prohibited from touching a firearm or a round of ammunition."
Click to expand...
Wasn't there just a case in California that said felons are no longer prohibited? Or is that only for California?
 
Coyote33 said:
From that article:

Wasn't there just a case in California that said felons are no longer prohibited? Or is that only for California?
Click to expand...

Yes. It applies (for now) to the entire 9th circuit for those convicted of non-violent felonies. The 3rd circuit reached the same conclusion, while four other circuits came to the opposite result. This is a pretty good summary of the current state of things, and it's one we've already paid for.

 
SCotUS may take the case not on 2A grounds, but to set precedent how felons are and how or are not restored their rights upon completing their sentences. Could result in not only 2A rights being restored, but voting and other rights denied to felons by various states and the feds.
 

Supreme Court Petitions - ScotusBlog

Comprehensive list of U.S. Supreme Court Petitions including issues, docket, opinions, proceedings, orders, and more.
www.scotusblog.com www.scotusblog.com

SCOTUS still relisting a bunch of 2A cases - Why? they did this before Bruen was released then GVR'd them back to the lower courts

United States v. Rahimi - SCOTUSblog

Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court
www.scotusblog.com www.scotusblog.com
Not likely a candidate for the impetus behind a GVR for the multiple feature and capacity ban cases in petition

Garland v. Cargill - SCOTUSblog

Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court
www.scotusblog.com www.scotusblog.com
As the only other gun case not decided so far this is likely why the petitions are being serially relisted AND it fits within the question of what constitutes a protected arm.
In order to decide this case SCOTUS must clarify the line between their opinion definition of arms are anything that can be used for defense or offense from their dicta that some arms can be regulated ("m-16 and the like"). This will likely be done by looking at clarifying "dangerous and unusual" further than what was done in Caetano (modern and over 200k in use).
 
Last edited:
pastera said:

Supreme Court Petitions - ScotusBlog

Comprehensive list of U.S. Supreme Court Petitions including issues, docket, opinions, proceedings, orders, and more.
www.scotusblog.com www.scotusblog.com

SCOTUS still relisting a bunch of 2A cases - Why? they did this before Bruen was released then GVR'd them back to the lower courts

United States v. Rahimi - SCOTUSblog

Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court
www.scotusblog.com www.scotusblog.com
Not likely a candidate for the impetus behind a GVR for the multiple feature and capacity ban cases in petition

Garland v. Cargill - SCOTUSblog

Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court
www.scotusblog.com www.scotusblog.com
As the only other gun case not decided so far this is likely why the petitions are being serially relisted AND it fits within the question of what constitutes a protected arm.
In order to decide this case SCOTUS must clarify the line between their opinion definition of arms are anything that can be used for defense or offense from their dicta that some arms can be regulated. This will likely be done by looking at clarifying "dangerous and unusual" further than what was done in Caetano (modern and over 200k in use).
Click to expand...

I'm speculating now, but if they clarify that anything modern and over 200k in use is protected, a consequence could easily be that all "assault weapons" bans are unconstitutional. Hope they clarify that accessories to protected arms, like standard magazines, are also protected. Yes, I'm getting my hopes up!
 
Beretta92FS said:
I'm speculating now, but if they clarify that anything modern and over 200k in use is protected, a consequence could easily be that all "assault weapons" bans are unconstitutional. Hope they clarify that accessories to protected arms, like standard magazines, are also protected. Yes, I'm getting my hopes up!
Click to expand...

The danger with specifying a number for "in common use" is that it makes it trivial to ban anything new, because there isn't (yet) more than the minimum to be "in common use"
 
Beretta92FS said:
I'm speculating now, but if they clarify that anything modern and over 200k in use is protected, a consequence could easily be that all "assault weapons" bans are unconstitutional. Hope they clarify that accessories to protected arms, like standard magazines, are also protected. Yes, I'm getting my hopes up!
Click to expand...
Setting a number held cannot be a true threshold because then the states can simply ban any gun not in common use and not allow new weapons to attain the required sales.
The truth is that the standard is actually "commonly held for lawful purposes" therefore even a handful of a certain weapon would place it under protect unless those weapons were used for nefarious purposes more often than not.

From Heller:
"Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons."
"We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939."

So, Scalia indicates that if one holds to Miller, then machine guns are very likely protected - which the court doesn't want.

It goes on to say:
"United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i. e., those in common use for lawful purposes."

But this again opens up machine guns to protected status since the vast majority held in private hands are held by law abiding citizens for lawful purpose. Even if the news promotes stories of inner cities being inundated with glock switches, those events don't come close to eclipsing the number of legally held NFA items (both FFL and transferable)

Where does this take us - Cargill is key and keeping the court for the next decade is of utmost importance if we are to keep and restore our 2a rights
 
pastera said:
SCOTUS still relisting a bunch of 2A cases - Why? they did this before Bruen was released then GVR'd them back to the lower courts
Click to expand...
Yes but I doubt it’s because of the same reason they did in Bruen. If you look at their actual workload this session, they have had much more on their plates than previous sessions. Chances are the other 2A cases are simply being relisted to give one or two Justices time to write a dissent from the denial of cert.
pastera said:

United States v. Rahimi - SCOTUSblog

Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court
www.scotusblog.com www.scotusblog.com
Not likely a candidate for the impetus behind a GVR for the multiple feature and capacity ban cases in petition
Click to expand...
Agreed, Rahimi has nothing to do with arms ban cases.
pastera said:

Garland v. Cargill - SCOTUSblog

Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court
www.scotusblog.com www.scotusblog.com
As the only other gun case not decided so far this is likely why the petitions are being serially relisted AND it fits within the question of what constitutes a protected arm.
Click to expand...
Hard disagree there. Cargill may be a gun case, but it’s not a 2A case and thus has nothing to do with what constitutes a protected arm. The whole point of the Cargill case is that if bump stocks need to be banned, then Congress needs to ban them, not the ATF. It’s not about whether bump stocks themselves are protected by the 2A
pastera said:
In order to decide this case SCOTUS must clarify the line between their opinion definition of arms are anything that can be used for defense or offense from their dicta that some arms can be regulated ("m-16 and the like").
Click to expand...
No they don’t, again, Cargill has nothing to do with Heller, McDonald, Bruen, etc.
pastera said:
This will likely be done by looking at clarifying "dangerous and unusual" further than what was done in Caetano (modern and over 200k in use).
Click to expand...
Caetano doesn’t actually say that 200k is the number. That was just from Justice Alito’s concurrence, which only 1 other Justice joined him with and is not binding on the rest of the court.
 
Joeldiaz said:
Yes but I doubt it’s because of the same reason they did in Bruen. If you look at their actual workload this session, they have had much more on their plates than previous sessions. Chances are the other 2A cases are simply being relisted to give one or two Justices time to write a dissent from the denial of cert.

Agreed, Rahimi has nothing to do with arms ban cases.
Click to expand...
A dissent is entirely possible but since none of those cases are decided so a dissent could be simply that the court won't take interlocutory cases but would consider once ripe.
No need for a dissertation so why delay further?


Joeldiaz said:
Hard disagree there. Cargill may be a gun case, but it’s not a 2A case and thus has nothing to do with what constitutes a protected arm. The whole point of the Cargill case is that if bump stocks need to be banned, then Congress needs to ban them, not the ATF. It’s not about whether bump stocks themselves are protected by the 2A

No they don’t, again, Cargill has nothing to do with Heller, McDonald, Bruen, etc.
Click to expand...
In order for the ATF or congress to ban an arm, that arm must fall outside the protection of the 2nd ammendment.
The case while centering on the minutae of the machinegun definition will likely have at least some level of dicta on a historical review of why Miller was rightly held. Especially since this court has shown that they have no issue with revisiting cases that were poorly or improperly argued.

Joeldiaz said:
Caetano doesn’t actually say that 200k is the number. That was just from Justice Alito’s concurrence, which only 1 other Justice joined him with and is not binding on the rest of the court.
Click to expand...
Agree the number isn't binding but lower courts will use it if it helps their case
 
Garys said:
Cargill seems more in line with WV v. EPA, but that's just my non lawyer understanding. Cargill did my TX LTC class a few days after he came back from DC. He said that the Justices spent a couple of hour asking questions about how triggers worked.
Click to expand...
At its base it is a question of regulatory authority bounds and limits.
However it touches a subject that the court has commented that was likely poorly decided (Miller) and later cases have opened up the topic to further review.
This court has set in stone a foundational methodology for review in Bruen. Miller, by the courts admission, failed that standard of review in its holdings.
Now the government asks to expand the definition of machinegun to include not only trigger systems that that automatically fire a round once the gun is in battery without a distinct input from the operator but to also include a technical contrivence that assists/allows a semiautomatic trigger to simulate and automatic trigger.
However in doing so it effectively enacts a ban on those arms that has not been properly reviewed using this court's own standard of review.

So the bottom line is would the court say that the government can add items to a banned class of arms even though the government's ability to ban that class in the first place is subject to review? Under Thomas and Alito I would say no and believe that Gorsuch, Kavanagh and Barrett would agree.
The problem is I also believe that they will find machine guns unusually dangerous 😕 and therefore outside the 2nd's umbrella of protection.

Edit: changed to assist/allow on the function of a bump stock since it only assists simulation whereas a forced reset trigger allows one to simulate.
 
Last edited:
xtry51 said:
If SCOTUS was serious about incorporating 2A, they would have struck down '34 and '68 in Bruen.

It's all theater. They don't care about your rights.
Click to expand...
SCOTUS can only act on it's own constitutional authority under Art III, S2, clause 1.
Therefore there needs to be an actual case or controversy before the court.
Under Bruen that controversy was the specific question:
Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.

So while it would be great to have tossed out the NFA and GCA, it simply wasn't before the court.
 

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