Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

Coyote33 said:
In Massachusetts? See the two quotes prior to this one.

Which is it guys? Which is it, Massachusetts?
Click to expand...
It's all Liberal States. The Constitution is a Federal Document and under the jurisdiction of Federal Law. Leftist States and Leftist Judges actually understand this very clearly. In order to ignore it the Leftist States and Leftist Judges have ruled the 2A is not an Individual right and therefore Individual gun rights are controlled by the states....yes, I know, Heller stated it does apply to individuals but Leftist States and their courts just ignore it. How it changes will revolve around SCOTUS growing a spine.
 
Garys said:
With the multitude of issues with the new law, suing to give 18‐20 year olds the right to carry seems odd.
Click to expand...
It is about building a solid base of case law on low hanging 2A fruit before tackling larger 2A issues. Much easier to get judges to rule for 2A on small issues rather than taking on an entire shit bill some of these blue states have passed in recent years where a judge can use intermediate scrutiny to uphold what ever gun bans the state wants to enact.
 
Garys said:
With the multitude of issues with the new law, suing to give 18‐20 year olds the right to carry seems odd.
Click to expand...

If they weren’t also pursuing many other avenues around the country, I’d be concerned. But they are.

It is also a good time to tackle this one because of the 18-20 handgun restriction lawsuits going on in various circuits.

Yes, there are many pieces to Ch135 that need to be challenged. But they’ll unfortunately need to be tackled piece by piece.
 
Garys said:
With the multitude of issues with the new law, suing to give 18‐20 year olds the right to carry seems odd.
Click to expand...
It is not JUST "right to carry", implying handguns. This is also for all semi-autos, which affects hunting with .22's, shotguns, and other guns. Let alone the preposterous Constitutionality of it!

My girl could hardly wait to turn 21, and got her LTC class and license within a month, coming in just before the crazy new laws last year. MANY young people were left hanging out there.

What does a kid do if they are 17, and own a 10/22?
 
Garys said:
With the multitude of issues with the new law, suing to give 18‐20 year olds the right to carry seems odd.
Click to expand...
Once you look at the big picture it isn't.
Snope and Ocean State are up for Cert. Therefore exactly zero will happen with AWB or LCFD bans until those are adjudicated.
Red flag laws are 100% a losing issue in the 1st circuit - no need to waste money and expertise. In addition we don't want to close off any avenue of attack.

The 18-20 year old doesn't matter if we win or lose.
Win - awesome
Lose - clear circuit split with the 5th on a fundamental right and off to scotus.

The idea is to take on cases that allow you to progress win or lose.
 
Coyote33 said:
In Massachusetts? See the two quotes prior to this one.

Which is it guys? Which is it, Massachusetts?
Click to expand...
Show me where post Rahimi where an individual not adjudicated a danger to self or society does not enjoy an individual right to keep and bear arms.

SCOTUS has been very clear on this - the only contention is thr age at which a person gains access to those rights.
And history gives a very clear answer to this question.
 
Coyote33 said:
OK. Semantics. So what about a kid who TURNS 16 or 17, and now wants a 10/22 or Savage A22?
Click to expand...
The same exact thing as before
Under 18 cannot purchase so it is up to the parents or guardians.

As far as possession, that's a future question after the 18-20 question is completed then we can answer the question for those who have not reached the age of majority.
 
Coyote33 said:
It is not JUST "right to carry", implying handguns. This is also for all semi-autos, which affects hunting with .22's, shotguns, and other guns. Let alone the preposterous Constitutionality of it!

My girl could hardly wait to turn 21, and got her LTC class and license within a month, coming in just before the crazy new laws last year. MANY young people were left hanging out there.

What does a kid do if they are 17, and own a 10/22?
Click to expand...
Nothing because at 17 they don't personally own that gun, their parent or guardian does since they haven't reached the age of majority.
While this seems to be a slam dunk win, we aren't even close to having the case law in place to win.
First step is to get 18-20 validated as solidly part of the body politic and therefore able to enjoy the full panoply of rights.
Once that is done, then we show that those under 18 also enjoy their civil rights as held by their parents or guardians.
 
Mark Smith (Four Boxes Diner) opines on the challenge to MA's 18-20 year old ban on buying guns.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3I27tTW124

America's main gun rights groups have just filed big 2A challenge to Massachusetts gun control laws. Mark Smith Four Boxes Diner discusses...

Side note: Really wish he'd loose the stupid "Breaking News" banner for things that are not breaking. He overuses it, putting it on many if not most of his videos, and is doing it just for clicks.
 
sbhaven said:
Mark Smith (Four Boxes Diner) opines on the challenge to MA's 18-20 year old ban on buying guns.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3I27tTW124

America's main gun rights groups have just filed big 2A challenge to Massachusetts gun control laws. Mark Smith Four Boxes Diner discusses...

Side note: Really wish he'd loose the stupid "Breaking News" banner for things that are not breaking. He overuses it, putting it on many if not most of his videos, and is doing it just for clicks.
Click to expand...

I've been following mark for quite a while. I've seen him use stuff like this only more recently. If I were to guess, it's because he constantly wins awards and recognition for being the most influential/effective voice of the 2A but doesn't really have the subscriber base or views to show for it. I think this is a cheap way of grabbing eyeballs, but I agree - IMO it's cheesy and stupid and he doesn't need to do it.

The silver lining is the content though, he is always really good about explaining things in-depth (unlike for example, the armed scholar), and i have to credit him for most of the civics knowledge gains I've made on the topic. Washington gun law channel is also fantastic.
 
sbhaven said:
Side note: Really wish he'd loose the stupid "Breaking News" banner for things that are not breaking. He overuses it, putting it on many if not most of his videos, and is doing it just for clicks.
Click to expand...
Robert Redford Yes GIF by GritTV
 
pastera said:
Show me where post Rahimi where an individual not adjudicated a danger to self or society does not enjoy an individual right to keep and bear arms.

SCOTUS has been very clear on this - the only contention is thr age at which a person gains access to those rights.
And history gives a very clear answer to this question.
Click to expand...
A red flag hearing is a judicial finding that the person is a danger - but without many of the protections present in the profess for deprivaton of any other constitutional right.

The reality is that even SCOTUS considers the 2A is "inconvient" and a "right of the second class".
 
I'll drop this here:

www.ammoland.com

Massachusetts Old Nonresident Carry Licensing Scheme Unconstitutional, Court Upholds New Law

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found the old "may issue" law unconstitutional and the new "shall issue" law constitutional.
www.ammoland.com www.ammoland.com

and this:

www.ammoland.com

Franklin County Massachusetts Sheriff Race: A Choice Between Gun Rights & Gun Restrictions

As the race for Franklin County Sheriff heats up, the stark differences between Interim Sheriff Streeter & challenger Mass have become clear, on the issue of gun rights.
www.ammoland.com www.ammoland.com
 
1sern said:
I'll drop this here:

www.ammoland.com

Massachusetts Old Nonresident Carry Licensing Scheme Unconstitutional, Court Upholds New Law

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found the old "may issue" law unconstitutional and the new "shall issue" law constitutional.
www.ammoland.com www.ammoland.com

and this:

www.ammoland.com

Franklin County Massachusetts Sheriff Race: A Choice Between Gun Rights & Gun Restrictions

As the race for Franklin County Sheriff heats up, the stark differences between Interim Sheriff Streeter & challenger Mass have become clear, on the issue of gun rights.
www.ammoland.com www.ammoland.com
Click to expand...
I think it's important to remember that the SJC ruled that the old law was unconstitutional, which is kind of pointless going forward. But they did not rule that the new law, which now says "shall issue" instead of "may issue", is constitutional. After all, it does have a suitability component which regardless of what the law says, has been used as discretionary denial. Rather they side stepped the issue.
So why would they do that? My thought is because even the SJC can see that the new law is still unconstitutional, and they don't want to rule that. And ruling that it is constitutional will only get the matter to a higher court who will rule it unconstitutional. So they find that the plaintiff has no standing and avoid the question.

So to get the new law shot down we need a qualified plaintiff. That means someone who has applied under the new law and been denied on suitability. And given how "new" the law is, and how long they take to process an application, and the specific type of denial needed, the probably is no valid plaintiff yet.
 
Last edited:
sbhaven said:
A small win out of the Ninth Circuit who struck down Hawaii's short handgun permit validity and in-person firearm inspection requirements, saying they violate the Second Amendment.

View: https://x.com/gunpolicy/status/1900589959632839044

Click to expand...

2 years after oral arguments, 9th may be ready to release other rulings they have been sitting on, maybe SCOTUS knows this and are dragging their feet on for a reason
 
The entire thing is retarded once you’re a felon you can do anything you want without any repercussions, but God forbid to try to do it right
 

Similar threads

Massachusetts High Court Provides Cover for Unconstitutional Gun Laws
Replies
8
Views
621
lutstribe
L
Garland v. VanDerStok
Replies
0
Views
142
lutstribe
L
Supreme Court decision on rifle bans
Replies
9
Views
747
Tartakovsky
Tartakovsky
Circuit Court Judge Strikes Down Illinois FOID Card Requirement for Guns in the Home
Replies
1
Views
137
sbhaven
S
9th Circuit En Banc Rules As Expected For California In Duncan v. Bonta Mag Ban (Judge VanDyke Dissent Video Included)
Replies
22
Views
714
Coyote33
Coyote33
Back
Top Bottom