Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

This ruling seems to clearly defend FRTs as well. The majority decision is a two part test.

Unfortunately this is another lost opportunity. They vouod have struck 34 entirely here but saying, due to Bruen not only is this ATF rule unconstitutional, but so is the foundational law on which it was based as there was no such historical equivalent at the time of ratification.

SCOTUS is just letting the ATF and government at large continue to destroy people's lives because they won't make a f***ing real decision to strike all the laws and actually protect people.

They didn't even revoke immunity here to open the ATF agents directly and individually to being sued by those whose property they stole and rights they violated.

This tiny bite ruling shit needs to stop because for every one decision like this anti-gunners are prosecuting THOUSANDS of people.
 
xtry51 said:
This ruling seems to clearly defend FRTs as well. The majority decision is a two part test.

Unfortunately this is another lost opportunity. They vouod have struck 34 entirely here but saying, due to Bruen not only is this ATF rule unconstitutional, but so is the foundational law on which it was based as there was no such historical equivalent at the time of ratification.
Click to expand...

Striking down NFA34 isn't going to happen.

However, they could easily have struck down the Hughes amendment.
 
xtry51 said:
This ruling seems to clearly defend FRTs as well. The majority decision is a two part test.

Unfortunately this is another lost opportunity. They vouod have struck 34 entirely here but saying, due to Bruen not only is this ATF rule unconstitutional, but so is the foundational law on which it was based as there was no such historical equivalent at the time of ratification.

SCOTUS is just letting the ATF and government at large continue to destroy people's lives because they won't make a f***ing real decision to strike all the laws and actually protect people.

They didn't even revoke immunity here to open the ATF agents directly and individually to being sued by those whose property they stole and rights they violated.

This tiny bite ruling shit needs to stop because for every one decision like this anti-gunners are prosecuting THOUSANDS of people.
Click to expand...
Come on, you know better than this.

The constitutionality of banning bump stocks wasn't before the court, this was never a 2a case, and it will have no affect on FRTs.
The issue before the court was the process by which the definition of machine gun was changed. Since MG was defined in the law, it can only be changed by changing the law, which the ATF can't do. It's been left wide open that states can ban bump stocks and a bill banning bump stocks can, and likely will, be brought to Congress.

We need to live in reality so we can prepare for the court battle that will come. There has yet to be a ruling on the constitutionality of bump stocks. Get your donations into FPC and GOA, the fight is just beginning.
 
xtry51 said:
This ruling seems to clearly defend FRTs as well. The majority decision is a two part test.

Unfortunately this is another lost opportunity. They vouod have struck 34 entirely here but saying, due to Bruen not only is this ATF rule unconstitutional, but so is the foundational law on which it was based as there was no such historical equivalent at the time of ratification.

SCOTUS is just letting the ATF and government at large continue to destroy people's lives because they won't make a f***ing real decision to strike all the laws and actually protect people.

They didn't even revoke immunity here to open the ATF agents directly and individually to being sued by those whose property they stole and rights they violated.

This tiny bite ruling shit needs to stop because for every one decision like this anti-gunners are prosecuting THOUSANDS of people.
Click to expand...
SCOTUS only answers actual cases and controversies before it, period.
When arguing you have limited word counts and time during colloquy.
Therfore the question presented to the court must necessarily be very narrow and clear.
Broad, sweeping attacks lead to regret, loss and further tyranny while other cases make it through the system to fix the damage from a single overly broad, bad case
 
milktree said:
Striking down NFA34 isn't going to happen.

However, they could easily have struck down the Hughes amendment.
Click to expand...
If congress adds firing rate accelerators to the NFA that would have a chance of overturning Hughes.
Or we could just as easily get control and just kill Hughes and the NFA (you do Hughes first to lock in some level of win)
 
milktree said:
Striking down NFA34 isn't going to happen.

However, they could easily have struck down the Hughes amendment.
Click to expand...
No they likely wouldn't. Generally SCOTUS addresses the question before the court that was submitted in the granted petition for writ of certiorari.

The question before the court in Garland v. Cargill was the following:
The question presented is as follows:
Whether a bump stock device is a “machinegun” as defined in 26 U.S.C. 5845(b) because it is designed and intended for use in converting a rifle into a machinegun, i.e., into a weapon that fires “automatically more than one shot * * * by a single function of the trigger.”
Click to expand...
 
pastera said:
If congress adds firing rate accelerators to the NFA that would have a chance of overturning Hughes.
Or we could just as easily get control and just kill Hughes and the NFA (you do Hughes first to lock in some level of win)
Click to expand...
Better off getting Congress to classify bump stocks as MG's, but in the same law have Hughes repealed.

And ya know, maybe remove suppressors and short barrel guns off the NFA while at it.

That would take a Republican party that isn't full of and run by Congressional faggots, so I don't expect it to happen.
 
www.nytimes.com

The Mysterious Gun Study That’s Advancing Gun Rights

Seemingly independent academic work deployed in landmark court cases has undisclosed ties to pro-gun interests.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

In this NYT Podcast, the journalists ‘investigate’ an academic whose study is quoted in support of Bruen and several post-Bruen cases on firearms and magazine ‘in common use". They’ve been unsuccessful in contacting the author, going as far as visiting his office and banging on his home door. Digging about, they find he’s been an expert witness for pro-gun cases in the past, being paid by said pro-gun testimony.

NYT journalists do a great job inferring and insinuating guilt without say so. In effect, they’ve said they could not find compelling evidence to doubt his research isn’t flawed and that he was biased by pro-gun funding, but don’t actually say they could find no direct evidence of bias or research flaws. No dead body, no murder weapon, no missing person, no crime, no arrest, no charges - but they indict their suspect in the press.

Expect more of this - they are ripping apart any records of academics whose work supports pro-gun outcomes, looking for anything to question. When they find nothing, they just leave many "unanswered questions’ as an insinuation of guilt.

When the House and donors forced Claudine Gray from her Harvard Presidency over plagiarism and the pro-Palestinian debacle, the Left took that as a challenge. There will be payback.
 
sbhaven said:
No they likely wouldn't. Generally SCOTUS addresses the question before the court that was submitted in the granted petition for writ of certiorari.

The question before the court in Garland v. Cargill was the following:
Click to expand...

The fact that ANY Justice could find that a bump stock meets the definition of a machine gun in the statute is mind boggling and flat a$$ed wrong.
 
Chevy 2 65 said:
They need to step up WAY more, 99% more !
Click to expand...

Not according to the Left. To hear those people tell it, the NRA is 550% effective. They are the left-wing Soros: extremists over there blame the NRA for everything.

In other words, "they're the ones taking all the incoming fire." They're living rent-free in the heads of the left. Thus, they are a significant factor in RKBA above and beyond the real-world shit they do (or don't do).
 
milktree said:
Striking down NFA34 isn't going to happen.

However, they could easily have struck down the Hughes amendment.
Click to expand...
You know what cracks me up more than anything? The fact that republicans can hold both houses of congress and the white house, they'll promise second amendment freedom till the cows come home just to get a vote, and when they finally have power the tell gun owners to get lost. They could simply wipe out the hughes amendment, bingo, bango bongo but no they won't lift a finger or make the effort to repeal it. That's why they suck.
 
HorizontalHunter said:
The fact that ANY Justice could find that a bump stock meets the definition of a machine gun in the statute is mind boggling and flat a$$ed wrong.
Click to expand...
It's easy to find it if you believe words mean what you feel they should mean.

They don't believe in textualism nor the rule of law, they believe in rule BY law.
 
VetteGirlMA said:
You know what cracks me up more than anything? The fact that republicans can hold both houses of congress and the white house, they'll promise second amendment freedom till the cows come home just to get a vote, and when they finally have power the tell gun owners to get lost. They could simply wipe out the hughes amendment, bingo, bango bongo but no they won't lift a finger or make the effort to repeal it. That's why they suck.
Click to expand...
Two sides of the same coin.
 
Picton said:
Not according to the Left. To hear those people tell it, the NRA is 550% effective. They are the left-wing Soros: extremists over there blame the NRA for everything.

In other words, "they're the ones taking all the incoming fire." They're living rent-free in the heads of the left. Thus, they are a significant factor in RKBA above and beyond the real-world shit they do (or don't do).
Click to expand...
Let them fodder, f*** them. mismanaged garbage
 
Picton said:
Not according to the Left. To hear those people tell it, the NRA is 550% effective. They are the left-wing Soros: extremists over there blame the NRA for everything.

In other words, "they're the ones taking all the incoming fire." They're living rent-free in the heads of the left. Thus, they are a significant factor in RKBA above and beyond the real-world shit they do (or don't do).
Click to expand...
Exactly !

The piddly few $$ it takes for an NRA Membership is well worth it so that they stand way over there taking all the arrows, and occasionally funding local state efforts like they did recently with GOAL (to the tune of, what, $30 million ?), while other organizations like FPC and SAF are standing way over here quietly getting the real work done.

Forest for the trees people, forest for the trees.....
 
PeterC said:
Exactly !

The piddly few $$ it takes for an NRA Membership is well worth it so that they stand way over there taking all the arrows, and occasionally funding local state efforts like they did recently with GOAL (to the tune of, what, $30 million ?), while other organizations like FPC and SAF are standing way over here quietly getting the real work done.

Forest for the trees people, forest for the trees.....
Click to expand...
Oh boy......now you did it......you are triggering the NRADS folks...................:)
 
I mean, it's no biggie; I don't get the vitriol, personally. People can donate to whomever they want to donate to, and there's no need to get disagreeable about it.

I said the NRA's not perfect. I know it's not. I don't give them much (nothing at all, in fact; I'm a Life Member, and don't add to that) compared to what I send to GOAL. But I do read what some of the lefties write online, and it truly does sound exactly like NES if you took every instance of "Soros" or "WEF" on here and swapped in "NRA" over there. It's really interesting to see.

I don't believe Soros does all that much... but people on our side THINK he does. There's value there for other lefty organizations, and the NRA does the same for us. Plus, they still send out a paper magazine every month, which is cool beans.
 
Palladin said:
this. the guy certainly isn't a poster child for 2A. But when does the cloud of a restraining order get lifted from over your head??
Click to expand...
Hopefully when it expires with no convictions for violating while in effect.

But, there was a pre-bruen MA court decision that a RO represents a "finding of danger" by the court, and the expiration of the RO does not erase the fact that a court found the target dangerous and thus that finding may be used to deny the LTC.
 

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