Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

pastera said:
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.
Click to expand...

Art III, S2, clause 1 doesn't prevent them from tossing the other laws in Bruen. Their conclusion for historical requirements of preexisting laws de facto nullifies ALL laws not preexisting the signing of the constitution. It's a clear, logical extension

I argue they are in violation of the constitution and our rights for not striking down all laws that don't meet their new standard in the ruling.
 
pastera said:
So while it would be great to have tossed out the NFA and GCA, it simply wasn't before the court.
Click to expand...
Let’s also be honest with ourselves here: even if the NFA & GCA were before SCOTUS, they wouldn’t toss them out wholesale. At least, not this SCOTUS as it is currently comprised. The best we can hope for with the current composition of SCOTUS is to remove silencers and SBRs from the NFA registration.
 
Joeldiaz said:
Let’s also be honest with ourselves here: even if the NFA & GCA were before SCOTUS, they wouldn’t toss them out wholesale. At least, not this SCOTUS as it is currently comprised. The best we can hope for with the current composition of SCOTUS is to remove silencers and SBRs from the NFA registration.
Click to expand...

And it’s worth repeating that several members of the court are getting up there so this next election cycle will very likely have an effect on the makeup of the court going forward.
 
Joeldiaz said:
Let’s also be honest with ourselves here: even if the NFA & GCA were before SCOTUS, they wouldn’t toss them out wholesale. At least, not this SCOTUS as it is currently comprised. The best we can hope for with the current composition of SCOTUS is to remove silencers and SBRs from the NFA registration.
Click to expand...
From the oral arguments, I agree that they would affirm the NFA and likely most of the GCA.
It would end up 7:2 and they would allow Sotomayor to write the opinion.
 
HorizontalHunter said:
And it’s worth repeating that several members of the court are getting up there so this next election cycle will very likely have an effect on the makeup of the court going forward.
Click to expand...
Thomas and Alito - their replacement could reverse the court and plunge the country into a permanent socialist hell hole.
 
Joeldiaz said:
Let’s also be honest with ourselves here: even if the NFA & GCA were before SCOTUS, they wouldn’t toss them out wholesale. At least, not this SCOTUS as it is currently comprised. The best we can hope for with the current composition of SCOTUS is to remove silencers and SBRs from the NFA registration.
Click to expand...

I rest my case that SCOTUS continues to commit sedition.
 
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 ("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).
Click to expand...
Quoting my own post -

Armed Scholar probably has the worst clickbait titles and nails on the chalkboard pacing but does get some good info out

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvSeI_BzkdA


His take is similar to mine - that the cases being serially relisted is unusual and if one looks at their actions right before Bruen's release this is similar
However, he links it to Rahimi instead of Garland.
 
pastera said:
Quoting my own post -

Armed Scholar probably has the worst clickbait titles and nails on the chalkboard pacing but does get some good info out

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvSeI_BzkdA


His take is similar to mine - that the cases being serially relisted is unusual and if one looks at their actions right before Bruen's release this is similar
However, he links it to Rahimi instead of Garland.
Click to expand...

I refuse to watch Armed Scholar after 5 out 5 that I did watch were all clickbait and gave NO information relative to the title or the content was "what if."
 
Coyote33 said:
I attempted to skim through, and found no "Breaking News!".
Click to expand...
As I said - title is click bait.
Skimming doesn't work on these types of video and its only 10 minutes.
The topic is how the cases on petition were relisted several times but not relisted nor denied - which leads him to believe they are waiting for the opinion in another case (Rahimi) drops at which time the cases will be relisted again.

Between armed scholars, four boxes diner, and Tom Greives it is like having an ongoing 2a law class. And listening to the videos needs the same cognitive attention as a class.
 
pastera said:
Skimming doesn't work on these types of video and its only 10 minutes.
Click to expand...
Sure it does. I found ads for stuff I didn't want, and a bunch of non-news items.

pastera said:
The topic is how the cases on petition were relisted several times but not relisted nor denied - which leads him to believe they are waiting for the opinion in another case (Rahimi) drops at which time the cases will be relisted again.
Click to expand...
These were the non-news. Certainly not "Breaking News!".


pastera said:
Between armed scholars, four boxes diner, and Tom Greives it is like having an ongoing "hopeful diarrhea". I think actual diarrhea is less obnoxious than these guys.
Click to expand...
FIFY
 
Last edited:
pastera said:
As I said - title is click bait.
Skimming doesn't work on these types of video and its only 10 minutes.
The topic is how the cases on petition were relisted several times but not relisted nor denied - which leads him to believe they are waiting for the opinion in another case (Rahimi) drops at which time the cases will be relisted again.

Between armed scholars, four boxes diner, and Tom Greives it is like having an ongoing 2a law class. And listening to the videos needs the same cognitive attention as a class.
Click to expand...
At this point, honestly, I've entirely given up on everybody but Fudd Busters and Four Boxes Diner.
 
Davidk said:
I refuse to watch Armed Scholar after 5 out 5 that I did watch were all clickbait and gave NO information relative to the title or the content was "what if."
Click to expand...

Concur that he can be a long winded pain
However in the legal field just about everything is a what if.

And you are on NES - what's the hit percentage on on topic posts that contain useful info? Yet you are still here
 
pastera said:
Between armed scholars, four boxes diner, and Tom Greives it is like having an ongoing 2a law class. And listening to the videos needs the same cognitive attention as a class.
Click to expand...
Hard disagree with Armed Scholar being on that list personally, but to each their own.
 
Joeldiaz said:
Hard disagree with Armed Scholar being on that list personally, but to each their own.
Click to expand...
His content has gone way down hill with all of the clickbait but he still does put out something with information every once in a while.
He'd have 10x the views if he put reasonable titles and dropped the length to the 4 minutes needed to convey concisely.
But foe free...
 
pastera said:
As I said - title is click bait.
Skimming doesn't work on these types of video and its only 10 minutes.
The topic is how the cases on petition were relisted several times but not relisted nor denied - which leads him to believe they are waiting for the opinion in another case (Rahimi) drops at which time the cases will be relisted again.

Between armed scholars, four boxes diner, and Tom Greives it is like having an ongoing 2a law class. And listening to the videos needs the same cognitive attention as a class.
Click to expand...
There is good information in a lot of it but after a bit it's like...
 

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