Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

pastera said:
The author takes patently and obviously absurd position that a state's constitution cannot protect a right more explicitly and tightly than the federal Constitution's protections.
This is ridiculous and unsupportable as the Bill of Rights is a limit on government action - a state is completely open to barring itself from any infringement allowed by the federal constitution of an enumerated right - the 14th amendment only limits the imposition of further restrictions by the states of any enumerate right.
Click to expand...

Absurd, but necessary for him to hold his thesis true.

The author paid brief lip-service to Judge Sutton, whose excellent 51 Imperfect Solutions spoke of the interaction between the US and State constitutions. It may be he disagreed or just didn’t read it.
 
pastera said:
Opinion
Click to expand...


Thanks for posting the decision. It is worth reading. It is good to see that a judge “gets it” and has a sense of humor.


“Acquiring a firearm is a necessary step in the exercise of keeping and bearing a firearm. Any interpretation to the contrary requires the type of interpretative jui jitsu that would make Kafka blush.”
 
Cap'n Mike said:
Case out of Maine on 3 day waiting periods. Good analysis of how the Bruen one step test should be applied.

View: https://x.com/moroskostas/status/1890199759211966824?s=46
Click to expand...

I could never understand the idea of a 'cool down period'. A person who currently has a safe full of guns isn't going to be thinking "I want to go postal but I want to do it with the newest Glock I've been eyeing at the gun shop so I'm going to have to wait 3 days". How many mass shooters are there out there who buy a couple of guns and then think "I need one more so I'm going to wait".
 
Cap'n Mike said:
Case out of Maine on 3 day waiting periods. Good analysis of how the Bruen one step test should be applied.

View: https://x.com/moroskostas/status/1890199759211966824?s=46
Click to expand...

A good example of the proper handling of the conditions for the issuance of a preliminary injunction.The state would be insane to appeal this injunction.
Since this is just an injunction, we don't have the detailed citations found in a final opinion but the citations given and the foreshadowing of the judge's logic lead us to believe this will be a good opinion.
And I hope Maine steps on its unit and appeals the inevitable outcome of this case giving it wider applicability.
 
VetteGirlMA said:
I could never understand the idea of a 'cool down period'. A person who currently has a safe full of guns isn't going to be thinking "I want to go postal but I want to do it with the newest Glock I've been eyeing at the gun shop so I'm going to have to wait 3 days". How many mass shooters are there out there who buy a couple of guns and then think "I need one more so I'm going to wait".
Click to expand...
Stop applying logic.

Each roadblock, no matter how slight, overcomes the will of some would be gun owner.
If they can't create a casm they will make it road paved with boulders - still passible but only by the most intent.
 
pastera said:
Stop applying logic.

Each roadblock, no matter how slight, overcomes the will of some would be gun owner.
If they can't create a casm they will make it road paved with boulders - still passible but only by the most intent.
Click to expand...

That’s the goal…..and they are very good at it. Imagine the outcry if they did this to our other civil rights.
 
Washington Gun Law's William Kirk opines on the Maine 72 hour ruling.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1lJq9drxpM

Washington Gun Law President, William Kirk, discusses a ruling out of the United States District Court for the State of Maine, which has found that the state's mandatory 72 waiting period is without historical support and is therefore unconstitutional. While the ruling is likely to be appealed such that this case is a long way from over, it does provide some excellent insight about arguments that can be used in other states in challenging these laws. A right delayed is a right denied, and that is the only real purpose of these laws. So learn more today and arm yourself with education.
 
VetteGirlMA said:
I could never understand the idea of a 'cool down period'. A person who currently has a safe full of guns isn't going to be thinking "I want to go postal but I want to do it with the newest Glock I've been eyeing at the gun shop so I'm going to have to wait 3 days". How many mass shooters are there out there who buy a couple of guns and then think "I need one more so I'm going to wait".
Click to expand...
The cool down period is basically the stop the husband who doesn't own a gun and forgot his glasses on his way to work and sees his wife having an affair from running to the gun store down the street and back in 10 minutes to blow the two away, then himself law.

In theory it makes sense because it delays the instant gratification of revenge and society today has an issue with self control and delayed gratification, which in this case would be calling a lawyer, getting a divorce, and kicking the cheating bitch out of the house and forcing her to be roomates with schizos and Haitian immigrants who eat cats and toothpaste for dinner. On the flipside it also prevents people who are legitimately at threat from someone dangerous, like a jealous ex who wants to murder his ex gf and his former best friend who stole her away from him, from buying a means to protect themselves.

Since it works one way, but not the other, it's flawed and the law should go as it's a denial of a right, albeit a temporary one and it only works when the person buying a gun doesn't already possess one, so it adversely and unnecessarily impacts almost half the nation. You could argue it gives time to make sure the person buying isn't prohibited and if this were the 80s or 90s and data wasn't as readily available then and it would make some sense, but it's 2025, the data is all right there for the NICS system and that reason for a 3 day wait is as archaic as the NFA is 91 years later.
 
T-Unit said:
The cool down period is basically the stop the husband who doesn't own a gun and forgot his glasses on his way to work and sees his wife having an affair from running to the gun store down the street and back in 10 minutes to blow the two away, then himself law.

In theory it makes sense because it delays the instant gratification of revenge and society today has an issue with self control and delayed gratification, which in this case would be calling a lawyer, getting a divorce, and kicking the cheating bitch out of the house and forcing her to be roomates with schizos and Haitian immigrants who eat cats and toothpaste for dinner. On the flipside it also prevents people who are legitimately at threat from someone dangerous, like a jealous ex who wants to murder his ex gf and his former best friend who stole her away from him, from buying a means to protect themselves.

Since it works one way, but not the other, it's flawed and the law should go as it's a denial of a right, albeit a temporary one and it only works when the person buying a gun doesn't already possess one, so it adversely and unnecessarily impacts almost half the nation. You could argue it gives time to make sure the person buying isn't prohibited and if this were the 80s or 90s and data wasn't as readily available then and it would make some sense, but it's 2025, the data is all right there for the NICS system and that reason for a 3 day wait is as archaic as the NFA is 91 years later.
Click to expand...

The gun control advocates also point to a supposed reduction in suicide rate. The research is mixed, so neither side can point to conclusive evidence. We know many lower courts don’t apply Bruen cleanly, by intent, so Intermediate Scrutiny, if not Rational Basis tests are still applied regularly.

Consensus 2.0 is an AI website that attempts to gather and evaluate research on evidence-based matters. It’s still far from perfect, gathering papers from low-quality journals with few citations. That’s why no anti-gun paper goes unpublished - authors just keep submitting to lower and lower quality journals, often publishing in those with high “page charges”, which are just pay-to-publish rags used to pump up publication numbers.

IMG_3431.jpeg
 
T-Unit said:
The cool down period is basically the stop the husband who doesn't own a gun and forgot his glasses on his way to work and sees his wife having an affair from running to the gun store down the street and back in 10 minutes to blow the two away, then himself law.

In theory it makes sense because it delays the instant gratification of revenge and society today has an issue with self control and delayed gratification, which in this case would be calling a lawyer, getting a divorce, and kicking the cheating bitch out of the house and forcing her to be roomates with schizos and Haitian immigrants who eat cats and toothpaste for dinner. On the flipside it also prevents people who are legitimately at threat from someone dangerous, like a jealous ex who wants to murder his ex gf and his former best friend who stole her away from him, from buying a means to protect themselves.

Since it works one way, but not the other, it's flawed and the law should go as it's a denial of a right, albeit a temporary one and it only works when the person buying a gun doesn't already possess one, so it adversely and unnecessarily impacts almost half the nation. You could argue it gives time to make sure the person buying isn't prohibited and if this were the 80s or 90s and data wasn't as readily available then and it would make some sense, but it's 2025, the data is all right there for the NICS system and that reason for a 3 day wait is as archaic as the NFA is 91 years later.
Click to expand...
But it doesn't actually work since the husband has an infinite choice of weapons including just pummeling the wife to death with bare fists.
 
MaverickNH said:
The gun control advocates also point to a supposed reduction in suicide rate. The research is mixed, so neither side can point to conclusive evidence. We know many lower courts don’t apply Bruen cleanly, by intent, so Intermediate Scrutiny, if not Rational Basis tests are still applied regularly.

Consensus 2.0 is an AI website that attempts to gather and evaluate research on evidence-based matters. It’s still far from perfect, gathering papers from low-quality journals with few citations. That’s why no anti-gun paper goes unpublished - authors just keep submitting to lower and lower quality journals, often publishing in those with high “page charges”, which are just pay-to-publish rags used to pump up publication numbers.

View attachment 964707
Click to expand...
Suicide reduction is based on the fact that of a person gets help the overwhelming outcome is loss of suicidality. Therefore removal of highly lethal, immediately implemented methods can reduce rates.
Removal of firearms doesn't do much in cases with high motivation or where firearms aren't a personal or cultural thought.
We also need to look at methodology vs age.
Older men tend towards firearms but they have chronic problems pushing their mental health so short delays are immaterial
Younger men have lower access (fewer can afford) and much more fleeting issues pushing mental health, so this is where intervening can actually work.

The US even with more guns than people has a lower suicide rate than many countries with complete disarmiment.
 
pastera said:
Suicide reduction is based on the fact that of a person gets help the overwhelming outcome is loss of suicidality. Therefore removal of highly lethal, immediately implemented methods can reduce rates.
Click to expand...

This is true, and it's foolish of gun owners and gun rights advocates to pretend it isn't.


pastera said:
Removal of firearms doesn't do much in cases with high motivation or where firearms aren't a personal or cultural thought.
Click to expand...

... or when the person already owns a gun.


The "it'll save lives because suicide" argument is a distraction from both suicide prevention *and* gun rights.
 
Garys said:
Did kid yourself, the 2A is the first one they want and they already started on the 1A. The rest will follow if they have their way.
Click to expand...
I think I wasn't clear
How many people had their life destroyed because they used the correct pronoun or voiced a scientific viewpoint counter to a cultural push.

Our free expression is under massive attack also - the problem is we try to go along to get along with people that lack the same cultural and moral values.
 
Okay, that makes sense.


pastera said:
I think I wasn't clear
How many people had their life destroyed because they used the correct pronoun or voiced a scientific viewpoint counter to a cultural push.

Our free expression is under massive attack also - the problem is we try to go along to get along with people that lack the same cultural and moral values.
Click to expand...
 
pastera said:
But it doesn't actually work since the husband has an infinite choice of weapons including just pummeling the wife to death with bare fists.
Click to expand...
Not if the guy the wife is screwing around with looks like this

Paul-Dillet-now.webp
 

Article XVII.​


The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.
 
HARRYM said:

Article XVII.​


The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.
Click to expand...


Commonwealth vs Davis 1976
 
MickeyD’s said:
Basically mass courts says you have no individual right
Click to expand...
HARRYM said:
Yes, and we have discussed that the Liberal Courts take this stance to remove 2A rights from Federal control to a State controlled issue.
Click to expand...

pastera said:
PreHeller federally
PreCanjura at the SJC
While the baseline age to be part of the people is still being adjudicated, that the 2nd confers an individual right is very clear.
Click to expand...
In Massachusetts? See the two quotes prior to this one.

Which is it guys? Which is it, Massachusetts?
 

Similar threads

Massachusetts High Court Provides Cover for Unconstitutional Gun Laws
Replies
8
Views
597
lutstribe
L
Garland v. VanDerStok
Replies
0
Views
120
lutstribe
L
Supreme Court decision on rifle bans
Replies
9
Views
744
Tartakovsky
Tartakovsky
Circuit Court Judge Strikes Down Illinois FOID Card Requirement for Guns in the Home
Replies
1
Views
136
sbhaven
S
Supreme Court ending permits
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
Back
Top Bottom