Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

yanici said:
Rahimi is a punk. Very bad case to bring to SCOTUS. Gotta pick good ones.
Click to expand...

This logic is what corrupted our system. The entire idea of our system at creation was more bad men go free to protect the few innocent ones. This law is bullshit and the fact SCOTUS supports it is all you need to know to conclude our country will implode because they won't enforce the constitution.
 
MaverickNH said:
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.
Click to expand...
www.nytimes.com

The Gun Lobby’s Hidden Hand in the 2nd Amendment Battle

Case after case challenging gun restrictions cites the same Georgetown professor. His seemingly independent work has undisclosed ties to pro-gun interests.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

And they slaughtered the guy in this article.

1. They criticize him for not publishing his work (it was just a white paper) but then criticize him for not complying with funding disclosure standards for published work.
2. They say he didn’t provide access to the data in his unpublished work but by the time anyone asked, he had posted his data.
3. They said his pilot study was funded by private pro-gun sources for legal cases but seemed to think he was obligated to hand over his data outside of court discovery rules.

The guy had gone on record saying he hadn’t published his work as junior faculty who publish other than anti-gun work before being tenured find their contracts not renewed. Which is quite true. NYT is making double sure he’ll not have an academic job - ever.

Heads on pikes - that’s how liberals debate gun control.
 
MaverickNH said:
www.nytimes.com

The Gun Lobby’s Hidden Hand in the 2nd Amendment Battle

Case after case challenging gun restrictions cites the same Georgetown professor. His seemingly independent work has undisclosed ties to pro-gun interests.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

And they slaughtered the guy in this article.

1. They criticize him for not publishing his work (it was just a white paper) but then criticize him for not complying with funding disclosure standards for published work.
2. They say he didn’t provide access to the data in his unpublished work but by the time anyone asked, he had posted his data.
3. They said his pilot study was funded by private pro-gun sources for legal cases but seemed to think he was obligated to hand over his data outside of court discovery rules.

The guy had gone on record saying he hadn’t published his work as junior faculty who publish other than anti-gun work before being tenured find their contracts not renewed. Which is quite true. NYT is making double sure he’ll not have an academic job - ever.

Heads on pikes - that’s how liberals debate gun control.
Click to expand...

The academic equivalent of “you can take this job and shove it”, even though the guy was only sticking up for himself. He’s radioactive now and will have to take work at conservative think tanks or line up with the illegals looking for work at the landscaping supply centers…

”The Times and other outlets are signaling that they will cancel academics who state inconvenient facts. Progressive law clerks and state lawyers are violating longstanding norms and laws in service to political agendas. Many journalists carry water for these causes by running poorly sourced articles larded with dishonest accusations. Those of us who want to foster an evidence-based public-policy discourse should reject these tactics, and courts should take note of them.

If these are the strongest criticisms that can be made of my survey after years of digging, it should make us more confident in the results. If these reporters want to uncover a well-funded, ideologically motivated plot to undermine objective firearms research, they need only look in the mirror.”

IMG_2992.jpeg
conservative
 
SCOTUS says no to Raoul for now. No surprise.

Thomas:
"But, if the Seventh Circuit ultimately allows Illinois to ban America’s most common civilian rifle, we can—and should—review that decision once the cases reach a final judgment. The Court must not permit “the Seventh Circuit [to] relegat[e] the Second Amendment to a second-class right."
 
1sern said:
SCOTUS says no to Raoul for now. No surprise.

Thomas:
"But, if the Seventh Circuit ultimately allows Illinois to ban America’s most common civilian rifle, we can—and should—review that decision once the cases reach a final judgment. The Court must not permit “the Seventh Circuit [to] relegat[e] the Second Amendment to a second-class right."
Click to expand...


It is already a second class right that expires when I cross a state line.
 
Per the orders today. Antonyuk got GVR'd back to the 2nd Circuit.
23-910 ANTONYUK, IVAN, ET AL. V. JAMES, STEVEN G., ET AL.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for further consideration in light of United States v. Rahimi, 602 U. S. ___ (2024).
Click to expand...
 
Firearms Policy Coalition sues DC over it's so-called assault weapons ban.

FPC Sues Washington, D.C., to End Ban on So-Called “Assault Weapons”

The complaint: https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/7733/attachments/original/1720050415/(Dkt._01)_2024.07.03_Complaint.pdf?1720050415

Clemendor v. District of Columbia: Clemendor v. DC - FPC Law 2A Challenge to Washington DC's "Assault Weapons" Ban


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ocI8lSJjsY

This time, it's a challenge to the District of Columbia's assault weapon ban. Washington Gun Law President, William Kirk, goes through the pleadings in this new challenge brought to us by FPC.where an old case suddenly becomes a new case but with a whole new twist. That is, the Court's previous ruling has the ability to come back and really bite the court back. So learn what makes this case so unique and arm yourself with education today.
 
MD win on some GFZ's

SAF WINS PARTIAL JUDGMENT IN MARYLAND CARRY LAW CHALLENGE
BELLEVUE, Wash. — Aug. 2, 2024 — A federal court in Maryland has handed a victory to the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a challenge of the state law restricting carry in certain locations, declaring three provisions in the statute to be unconstitutional. The case is known as Novotny v. Moore.

Chief U.S. District Judge George L. Russell III for the District of Maryland, a Barack Obama appointee, issued the 13-page ruling and a separate order granting summary judgment enjoining the state from enforcing provisions in the law which restrict the carrying of firearms in: (1) locations selling alcohol for onsite-consumption, (2) private buildings or property without the owner’s consent, and (3) within 1,000 feet of a public demonstration.

“We are pleased that the Court found Maryland’s draconian ‘anti-carry’ rule to be unconstitutional,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Such a provision flies in the face of this nation’s history and tradition. Of course, we will examine the court’s opinion and weigh our options for appeal to continue to challenge other provisions we believe are unconstitutional.”

SAF is joined by Maryland Shall Issue, the Firearms Policy Coalition and three private citizens, all of whom possess “wear and carry permits,” including Susan Burke of Reisterstown, Esther Rossberg of Baltimore, and Katherine Novotny of Aberdeen, for whom the lawsuit is named. They are represented by attorneys David H. Thompson and Peter A. Patterson at Cooper & Kirk in Washington, D.C., Mark W. Pennak at Maryland Shall Issue in Baltimore, and Matthew Larosiere from Lake Worth, Fla. The case was consolidated with a similar case known as Kipke v. Moore.

“We’re delighted by the court’s decision,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This is just one more step in SAF’s ongoing effort to win firearms freedom, one lawsuit at a time.”"
 
DarthRevan said:
I don’t watch the videos. Cliffnotes?
Click to expand...
Requiring specific permission to carry with a NY carry permit (Pistol Permit in NY speak) on property that is privately owned but publicly accessable is inconsistent with Bruen. Under NY law doing so is a felony, and the governer has ordered the state police to aggressively enforce the law. For all practical purposes it turns all NY carry permits into possession and transport permits - even getting gas would require specific permission from the gas station.

The state requested a stay of the injunction against the law until it appealed. The state lost on that motion.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
Requiring specific permission to carry with a NY carry permit (Pistol Permit in NY speak) on property that is privately owned but publicly accessable is inconsistent with Bruen. Under NY law doing so is a felony, and the governer has ordered the state police to aggressively enforce the law. For all practical purposes it turns all NY carry permits into possession and transport permits - even getting gas would require specific permission from the gas station.

The state requested a stay of the injunction against the law until it appealed. The state lost on that motion.
Click to expand...
Perfect, thanks.
 

Upcoming Panel Event: Perspectives on American Gun Violence – Wilson Center for Science and Justice at Duke Law

wcsj.law.duke.edu wcsj.law.duke.edu

I distracted myself during today's spin-bike ride by watching the live Duke Firearms Law Center's webinar "Perspectives on American Gun Violence: Finding New Synergies for Problem-Solving from Public Health, Public Policy, Crime Control, Economics, Justice, Advocacy, Politics, and the Media".

Some high points [and my comments]:

- the hard work of engaging both gun control and gun rights supporters must be done
[but not on this webinar, which was gun control advocates only]

- the WH Office of Gun Violence Prevention might shift funding priorities from the $250 million earmarked for prevention to enforcement
[remaining funds might just cover deporting illegals with criminal records]

- fatal gun violence victims whose associates might take matters into their own hands
[are they talking young Black gang members?]

- non-fatal gun violence victims who might not be forthcoming in police investigations
[yes, young Black gang members]

- the 2019-2021 surge in gun homicides came down thereafter overall, but continues to increase in the Black community
[see, young Black gang members - again]

- mass incarceration, biased toward Blacks (48% Black vs 13% by US population) must be addressed; this doesn't mean those committing gun homicides shouldn't face penalties
[but non-fatal shootings get a pass?]

- whatever new gun policies might be enacted under the GOP's trifecta will have to be supported by both parties
[so, none...]

- to cure schizophrenia would reduce potential gun violence by up to 4%
[while I might believe that's true, the other guy in my head has doubts]

- there's still hope - don't forget the states!
[NY, NJ, HI, etc. will fight on!]

- the gun lobby is weak right now
[good, they still think the NRA is leading the effort]

- Gallup finds more than half of Americans want stricter gun laws
[Gallup 11/18/2024 "Support for a ban on handguns in the U.S. has dropped to a near-record low"]

- some time in Trump's next term he will face a mass shooting, but he's free to upset special interests
[Trump: take guns from criminals first, due process later - that upsets ACLU]

- until the left understands gun culture, no progress can be made; Harris's talk of an AWB just isn't going to fly
{oh, NOW they tell Harris...]
 
MaverickNH said:

Upcoming Panel Event: Perspectives on American Gun Violence – Wilson Center for Science and Justice at Duke Law

wcsj.law.duke.edu wcsj.law.duke.edu

I distracted myself during today's spin-bike ride by watching the live Duke Firearms Law Center's webinar "Perspectives on American Gun Violence: Finding New Synergies for Problem-Solving from Public Health, Public Policy, Crime Control, Economics, Justice, Advocacy, Politics, and the Media".

Some high points [and my comments]:

- fatal gun violence victims whose associates might take matters into their own hands
[are they talking young Black gang members?]
Click to expand...

I don't understand what this means. Retribution?

MaverickNH said:
- the 2019-2021 surge in gun homicides came down thereafter overall, but continues to increase in the Black community
[see, young Black gang members - again]

- mass incarceration, biased toward Blacks (48% Black vs 13% by US population) must be addressed; this doesn't mean those committing gun homicides shouldn't face penalties
[but non-fatal shootings get a pass?]
Click to expand...

These two are ... a little misleading.

One almost universally overlooked factor is that in general black people live in places that have shitty services. That means really slow 911 response, long trips to trauma units (if there even are any close enough) and worse care when they get there. The end result is that for any given action, with the same injury, black people are more likely to be charged with and convicted of murder; while white people doing exactly the same thing will get charged with attempted murder or reckless endangerment or something. This is purely because black people are more likely to actually die from the event. Same behavior, different outcomes, and it distorts the statistics.

That leads/contributes to a higher incarceration rate for black people.
 
milktree said:
I don't understand what this means. Retribution?



These two are ... a little misleading.

One almost universally overlooked factor is that in general black people live in places that have shitty services. That means really slow 911 response, long trips to trauma units (if there even are any close enough) and worse care when they get there. The end result is that for any given action, with the same injury, black people are more likely to be charged with and convicted of murder; while white people doing exactly the same thing will get charged with attempted murder or reckless endangerment or something. This is purely because black people are more likely to actually die from the event. Same behavior, different outcomes, and it distorts the statistics.

That leads/contributes to a higher incarceration rate for black people.
Click to expand...
www.pewresearch.org

1. Demographic and economic trends in urban, suburban and rural communities

Three key demographic forces have reshaped the overall U.S. population in recent years: growing racial and ethnic diversity, increasing immigration and
www.pewresearch.org www.pewresearch.org

I question your claims bc I'd think blacks would be closer to hospitals since higher percentages live in urban areas than the majority.

PSD_05.22.18_community.type-01-08-.png
 
1sern said:
www.pewresearch.org

1. Demographic and economic trends in urban, suburban and rural communities

Three key demographic forces have reshaped the overall U.S. population in recent years: growing racial and ethnic diversity, increasing immigration and
www.pewresearch.org www.pewresearch.org

I question your claims bc I'd think blacks would be closer to hospitals since higher percentages live in urban areas than the majority.

PSD_05.22.18_community.type-01-08-.png
Click to expand...

"urban" and "near services" aren't the same thing.

South Chicago, for instance: It's urban, but the trauma centers are elsewhere.
Cambridge vs. Worcester.
Hollywood vs South Central LA.
You get the point.

Poorer areas have worse services. Black people tend to live in poorer areas. Therefore the areas where black people live tend to have worse services.

And even in rural areas, the white people tend to live closer to and get quicker responses from emergency services than black people.

Note that I said "tend" and not "do". There's plenty of exceptions, obviously, but overall, my assertion is true.
 
milktree said:
"urban" and "near services" aren't the same thing.

South Chicago, for instance: It's urban, but the trauma centers are elsewhere.
Cambridge vs. Worcester.
Hollywood vs South Central LA.
You get the point.

Poorer areas have worse services. Black people tend to live in poorer areas. Therefore the areas where black people live tend to have worse services.

And even in rural areas, the white people tend to live closer to and get quicker responses from emergency services than black people.

Note that I said "tend" and not "do". There's plenty of exceptions, obviously, but overall, my assertion is true.
Click to expand...

I'll agree that might be the case in the specific areas themselves (do you have any references for that?) but there are higher percentages of non blacks in suburbs where it usually is farther and in rural areas where it almost always is farther. I would say the graphic I posted speaks for itself that a much higher percentage of whites is far more likely to be in rural areas and suburbs so that should nullify any claim that whites in general are closer to services even if they may be compared to blacks in the same areas.
 
1sern said:
I'll agree that might be the case in the specific areas themselves (do you have any references for that?) but there are higher percentages of non blacks in suburbs where it usually is farther and in rural areas where it almost always is farther. I would say the graphic I posted speaks for itself that a much higher percentage of whites is far more likely to be in rural areas and suburbs so that should nullify any claim that whites in general are closer to services even if they may be compared to blacks in the same areas.
Click to expand...

I can't remember the references. It was part of a podcast I listened to about a year ago. The argument and data presented was pretty compelling though.

The point though is that there's other stuff going on besides "black people kill each other more", because it's not nearly that simple.
 
milktree said:
I can't remember the references. It was part of a podcast I listened to about a year ago. The argument and data presented was pretty compelling though.

The point though is that there's other stuff going on besides "black people kill each other more", because it's not nearly that simple.
Click to expand...
I can buy that there's more going on but I'm not sold that in general blacks are not more criminally dangerous, whatever the cause (No I don't think it's simply skin color, melanin causing crime is ridiculous )
 

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