Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

Spanz said:
i think it is to prevent you having a fight with your neighbor, or finding your wife is cheating with her gym trainer, then you going out in a fit of rage to buy a gun and play Rambo. 7 days is enough time for a reasonable, non crazy, person to calm down
Click to expand...
Are you sure a reasonable wait time is 7 days and not six or four and a half days? Should free speech be reasonably delayed for cooldown stage? Your word reasonable is a very slippery slope and very subjective.
 
Spanz said:
i think it is to prevent you having a fight with your neighbor, or finding your wife is cheating with her gym trainer, then you going out in a fit of rage to buy a gun and play Rambo. 7 days is enough time for a reasonable, non crazy, person to calm down
Click to expand...
Yes, but we were discussing how this relates to someone who already owns firearms. Before even going into the store, they would posses the means to whack their neighbor, no?
 
Lank said:
Thanks, I wasn't aware...

But the decision has likely been made, yes?
Click to expand...
Depends. I expect they have to schedule a meeting to discuss and debate each case before the decision is "made". Of course, it depends what "made" means.
 
n1bsbri said:
Yes, but we were discussing how this relates to someone who already owns firearms. Before even going into the store, they would posses the means to whack their neighbor, no?
Click to expand...
you are thinking in a way too sophisticated way for lawmakers.
they just ASSUME you do not have any guns.....
and if you already do, their official position: tough titties
 
Hoover said:
thomas has been on the court since 1991 and until fairly recently (the past few years) rarely asked questions during oral arguments. He’d ask fewer questions in 5 years than some justices would in a few weeks.
Click to expand...
So he's asking questions now? Do we know WHAT questions? Is he on our side or not?


Dench said:
What were they doing with the guns?
Click to expand...

Postal match?

Postal Match | The American Legion

The American Legion Annual 3-Position Junior Air Rifle National Championship is a tournament that begins with postal match. What is a Postal Match? A Postal Match is a match in which competitor's fire on their home ranges using targets which have been marked for identification. The fired targets...
www.legion.org www.legion.org


Pony Express?
pony-express-rider.jpg
 
AHM said:
Can't wait to see the results on the MSM Chattering Skulls' Freedom of the Press literacy tests.
Click to expand...
99% of the US is capable of reading and writing, so I don't think illiteracy is a valid reason to deny a person from carrying a gun for protection, but what is questionable is what any sort of written test or classroom training is supposed to do or demonstrate that separates a person from passing or failing. Like, if someone doesn't know that taking the mag out of a gun WITHOUT racking the slide to check the chamber isn't actually clearing the gun... IDK if I'd deny someone for that because the 2nd Amendment states shall not be infringed, not can be infringed if you're a moron who isn't safe.

Problem is we're living in a time where safety is like a new religion and not being "safe" like say being vaccinated means your employer can fire you and hospitals can deny you care.

I'm much more against range qualifications because they're absolutely fukking stupid in that the target is usually 25 yards away and most self defense shootings occur at like, 7 yards or less. That alone could get people denied for not having the physical ability to hit at that distance when at 10 yards or less they'd be fine.

This is why I'm concerned that the May Issue states are going to re-write their laws dealing with qualification tests and the Progressives are going to make it so that only Jerry Miculek could qualify to get a CCW.
 
T-Unit said:
99% of the US is capable of reading and writing, so I don't think illiteracy is a valid reason to deny a person from carrying a gun for protection, ...
Click to expand...
What I'm saying is that the MSM deserves to be canceled wholesale
for all the damage they've done to the Nation.

And since they regard themselves as The 1%,
I guess it's a lead-pipe cinch that
they won't pass their 1st Amendment Literacy Tests.
 
Hoover said:
a KD mentioned Thomas has asked questions consistently for the past year or two. He rarely asked question in the past, he said there were too many questions asked and didn’t think more was productive. In the past the lawyers rarely got to present their arguments without constant interruption. The new format has allowed the lawyers to present their arguments then orderly ask question. I like it and think it makes the arguments and lawyers positions much clearer than the unorganized process they used to use.
Click to expand...
This 101%. Thomas also thought the previous format was disrespectful to the advocates. He was right. The justices engaged in a lot of dick swinging that didn't really help the argument. There was also some research a few years back that showed that both justice and advocates interrupted female justice significantly more often than male justices. Roberts has put an end to that. The upside is the justice are tag-teaming. More and more they're picking up on each other's questions and drilling into issues. It is a much better format. There's less showing off and more serious inquiry.
Rob Boudrie said:
There is a lot of work (especially for the law clerks) between "decided" and "decision written".
Click to expand...

Lank said:
Thanks, I wasn't aware...

But the decision has likely been made, yes?
Click to expand...
Each justice clearly knows how they're going to vote. After listing to arguments I think I'll be 6-3 for us rather than the fractured plurality decision I speculated on earlier But that's not the important part, the opinion is. I think it's going to be narrow, but hopefully not a remand.

Once they vote, the opinions gets assigned. The questions is will Roberts assign it to himself or to Kavanaugh or Barrett? Whoever writes it has to write something that everyone in the majority will join. That's why it won't be Thomas, Alito, or Gorsuch. One or more of them will write a concurring opinion.

Breyer will assign the dissent and I think he'll keep it. Kagan is too smart and nuanced to want to write it. Maybe Sotomayor will write it, but I doubt she wants it But really, who cares?

Once the assignments are made, the drafts get circulated and the justices negotiate (argue) over the details. And new versions get circulated - rinse and repeat. If Thomas, Alito, or Gorsuch don't like something they won't join that part of the majority opinion and they'll write a concurrence. My guess is that whoever writes the majority opinion will work very hard to make sure that none of the six opt out of any part. For a case like NYSRPA this takes months.
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
This 101%. Thomas also thought the previous format was disrespectful to the advocates. He was right. The justices engaged in a lot of dick swinging that didn't really help the argument. There was also some research a few years back that showed that both justice and advocates interrupted female justice significantly more often than male justices. Roberts has put an end to that. The upside is the justice are tag-teaming. More and more they're picking up on each other's questions and drilling into issues. It is a much better format. There's less showing off and more serious inquiry.



Each justice clearly knows how they're going to vote. After listing to arguments I think I'll be 6-3 for us rather than the fractured plurality decision I speculated on earlier But that's not the important part, the opinion is. I think it's going to be narrow, but hopefully not a remand.

Once they vote, the opinions gets assigned. The questions is will Roberts assign it to himself or to Kavanaugh or Barrett? Whoever writes it has to write something that everyone in the majority will join. That's why it won't be Thomas, Alito, or Gorsuch. One or more of them will write a concurring opinion.

Breyer will assign the dissent and I think he'll keep it. Kagan is too smart and nuanced to want to write it. Maybe Sotomayor will write it, but I doubt she wants it But really, who cares?

Once the assignments are made, the drafts get circulated and the justices negotiate (argue) over the details. And new versions get circulated - rinse and repeat. If Thomas, Alito, or Gorsuch don't like something they won't join that part of the majority opinion and they'll write a concurrence. My guess is that whoever writes the majority opinion will work very hard to make sure that none of the six opt out of any part. For a case like NYSRPA this takes months.
Click to expand...
I never put it past Roberts to screw us, it's his goal in life to cement his legacy and he wants the legal scholars for the next 100 years to write glowingly about how he bowed down to the first Black President, saved lives rewriting Obamacare, championed LGBT rights, and limited the expansion of gun rights.

From now on I never want to hear about a SCOTUS nominee's "Christian faith" as that right there is a fugging dog whistle to try to get gullible morons to support them.

Remember when Kavanagh was nominated before the rape allegations the response was pretty tepid? They fooled us by flying in a ditz from California to say he raped her 30 yrs ago when he looked like the captain of the football team and she looked like a band class reject. We all knew it was bullshit, so we supported him.

Anyway, so long as Roberts doesn't puss out it'll be Breyer who rights the dissent because he's the oldest on the court and the Left is pushing him to retire and it may just happen next year. He's the most anti gun justice and it may be the last opinion he ever writes.
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
This 101%. Thomas also thought the previous format was disrespectful to the advocates. He was right. The justices engaged in a lot of dick swinging that didn't really help the argument. There was also some research a few years back that showed that both justice and advocates interrupted female justice significantly more often than male justices. Roberts has put an end to that. The upside is the justice are tag-teaming. More and more they're picking up on each other's questions and drilling into issues. It is a much better format. There's less showing off and more serious inquiry.



Each justice clearly knows how they're going to vote. After listing to arguments I think I'll be 6-3 for us rather than the fractured plurality decision I speculated on earlier But that's not the important part, the opinion is. I think it's going to be narrow, but hopefully not a remand.

Once they vote, the opinions gets assigned. The questions is will Roberts assign it to himself or to Kavanaugh or Barrett? Whoever writes it has to write something that everyone in the majority will join. That's why it won't be Thomas, Alito, or Gorsuch. One or more of them will write a concurring opinion.

Breyer will assign the dissent and I think he'll keep it. Kagan is too smart and nuanced to want to write it. Maybe Sotomayor will write it, but I doubt she wants it But really, who cares?

Once the assignments are made, the drafts get circulated and the justices negotiate (argue) over the details. And new versions get circulated - rinse and repeat. If Thomas, Alito, or Gorsuch don't like something they won't join that part of the majority opinion and they'll write a concurrence. My guess is that whoever writes the majority opinion will work very hard to make sure that none of the six opt out of any part. For a case like NYSRPA this takes months.
Click to expand...

I agree with what you said. If I were betting, I’d bet Kavanaugh writes the opinion. I am not as pessimistic as you are on Gorsuch Alito or Thomas writing it though, because they already narrowed down the issue before even hearing the arguments. The decision is going to be on that narrowed issue so Alito or Thomas could issue an opinion which the others in the majority could join.

You probably agree the real issue isn’t if the NY law is overturned, it’s how clear the right to carry is outside the home and what SCOTUS dictates as the standard for 2A right, rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, strict scrutiny, text, history, etc SCOTUS needs to make it very clear what lower courts need to use and they need to slap those courts down when they do not follow what SCOTUS rules.
 
T-Unit said:
I never put it past Roberts to screw us, it's his goal in life to cement his legacy and he wants the legal scholars for the next 100 years to write glowingly about how he bowed down to the first Black President, saved lives rewriting Obamacare, championed LGBT rights, and limited the expansion of gun rights.

From now on I never want to hear about a SCOTUS nominee's "Christian faith" as that right there is a fugging dog whistle to try to get gullible morons to support them.

Remember when Kavanagh was nominated before the rape allegations the response was pretty tepid? They fooled us by flying in a ditz from California to say he raped her 30 yrs ago when he looked like the captain of the football team and she looked like a band class reject. We all knew it was bullshit, so we supported him.

Anyway, so long as Roberts doesn't puss out it'll be Breyer who rights the dissent because he's the oldest on the court and the Left is pushing him to retire and it may just happen next year. He's the most anti gun justice and it may be the last opinion he ever writes.
Click to expand...

Roberts isn’t trying to screw conservatives, etc, he is a politic conservative himself. But he is trying to keep the court from being seen as a political body. His attempt to keep the court from being political is making it more political than if he stopped trying. The rumor is roberts was in the majority to overturn Obamacare on both issues but after his vote to overturn and befor opinions were fully written he caved to the pressure obama, media, etc were putting on the court and he switched his vote. Until the opinion is issue, any justice can change their support, Roberts was rumored to be worried at the look 5 GOP justices striking down Obamacare would make.

Now where it’s a 6-3 court, Roberts doesn’t have the same power so I think you’ll see him vote the law and his views more often without worrying about the fall out. He has always been very good on affirmative action so we’re likely to see that case where Harvard is discriminating Asians before the court and dealing a fatal blow to race based college admissions.

The court absence of RBG definitely reduces it some politically. She and sotomayor were both very political. I don’t think Breyer or Karan are nearly as political
 
Hoover said:
I agree with what you said. If I were betting, I’d bet Kavanaugh writes the opinion. I am not as pessimistic as you are on Gorsuch Alito or Thomas writing it though, because they already narrowed down the issue before even hearing the arguments. The decision is going to be on that narrowed issue so Alito or Thomas could issue an opinion which the others in the majority could join.

You probably agree the real issue isn’t if the NY law is overturned, it’s how clear the right to carry is outside the home and what SCOTUS dictates as the standard for 2A right, rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, strict scrutiny, text, history, etc SCOTUS needs to make it very clear what lower courts need to use and they need to slap those courts down when they do not follow what SCOTUS rules.
Click to expand...
Yup, the smart money is on Kavanaugh, but maybe Barrett??? Roberts doesn't want his name on it, so he's out. I just don't think, Thomas, Alito, or Gorsuch want to write an opinion that will get six votes. In close cases, the middle justice often writes the opinion, it frequently happened with Kennedy.

I don't think they'll give us a clear standard. The the extent they do, I don't think they'll import tiers of scrutiny into the Second Amendment. It's a made-up standard and several of the justice don't like it. I think the opinion will be Heller-esqe.
Hoover said:
Roberts isn’t trying to screw conservatives, etc, he is a politic conservative himself. But he is trying to keep the court from being seen as a political body. His attempt to keep the court from being political is making it more political than if he stopped trying. The rumor is roberts was in the majority to overturn Obamacare on both issues but after his vote to overturn and befor opinions were fully written he caved to the pressure obama, media, etc were putting on the court and he switched his vote. Until the opinion is issue, any justice can change their support, Roberts was rumored to be worried at the look 5 GOP justices striking down Obamacare would make.

Now where it’s a 6-3 court, Roberts doesn’t have the same power so I think you’ll see him vote the law and his views more often without worrying about the fall out. He has always been very good on affirmative action so we’re likely to see that case where Harvard is discriminating Asians before the court and dealing a fatal blow to race based college admissions.

The court absence of RBG definitely reduces it some politically. She and sotomayor were both very political. I don’t think Breyer or Karan are nearly as political
Click to expand...
Oh, come on! We all know Roberts is compromised. The Clintons have pictures of him cavorting with teenage girls on Epstein's private island.

Actually, you're right of course. Roberts is much less powerful than he was on a clean 5-4 court. You're right about Breyer and Kagan too. Although I don't think Breyer is a very justice, I continue to think that Kagan is the smartest one at #1 First Street. For that reason, I don't think she'll pen the dissent.
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
Yup, the smart money is on Kavanaugh, but maybe Barrett??? Roberts doesn't want his name on it, so he's out. I just don't think, Thomas, Alito, or Gorsuch want to write an opinion that will get six votes. In close cases, the middle justice often writes the opinion, it frequently happened with Kennedy.

I don't think they'll give us a clear standard. The the extent they do, I don't think they'll import tiers of scrutiny into the Second Amendment. It's a made-up standard and several of the justice don't like it. I think the opinion will be Heller-esqe.

Oh, come on! We all know Roberts is compromised. The Clintons have pictures of him cavorting with teenage girls on Epstein's private island.

Actually, you're right of course. Roberts is much less powerful than he was on a clean 5-4 court. You're right about Breyer and Kagan too. Although I don't think Breyer is a very justice, I continue to think that Kagan is the smartest one at #1 First Street. For that reason, I don't think she'll pen the dissent.
Click to expand...

The narrowed the case when they accepted it, for that reason I think it’s possible Alito, Thomas or gorsuch write it.

I hate the tiers, it is made up BS for a lower court to justify their unconstitutional actions
 
1.
2.
www.yahoo.com

Column: This UC firearms researcher says America is on a collision course with disaster. We need to listen

A study by UC Davis' Garen Wintemute of the California Firearms Violence Research Center notes that "The unprecedented surge in firearms purchasing … shows no sign of abating and risks becoming part of a new normal for the USA."
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com

3. Same article as 1. but a different link/site: Letters to the Editor: If I need to carry a bomb to feel safe, will the Supreme Court let me?
 
Last edited:
Coyote33 said:
1.
2.
www.yahoo.com

Column: This UC firearms researcher says America is on a collision course with disaster. We need to listen

A study by UC Davis' Garen Wintemute of the California Firearms Violence Research Center notes that "The unprecedented surge in firearms purchasing … shows no sign of abating and risks becoming part of a new normal for the USA."
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com

3. Same article as 1. but a different link/site: Letters to the Editor: If I need to carry a bomb to feel safe, will the Supreme Court let me?
Click to expand...
Are Californians born retarded or do they become that way?
 
T-Unit said:
99% of the US is capable of reading and writing, so I don't think illiteracy is a valid reason to deny a person from carrying a gun for protection, but what is questionable is what any sort of written test or classroom training is supposed to do or demonstrate that separates a person from passing or failing. Like, if someone doesn't know that taking the mag out of a gun WITHOUT racking the slide to check the chamber isn't actually clearing the gun... IDK if I'd deny someone for that because the 2nd Amendment states shall not be infringed, not can be infringed if you're a moron who isn't safe.

Problem is we're living in a time where safety is like a new religion and not being "safe" like say being vaccinated means your employer can fire you and hospitals can deny you care.

I'm much more against range qualifications because they're absolutely fukking stupid in that the target is usually 25 yards away and most self defense shootings occur at like, 7 yards or less. That alone could get people denied for not having the physical ability to hit at that distance when at 10 yards or less they'd be fine.

This is why I'm concerned that the May Issue states are going to re-write their laws dealing with qualification tests and the Progressives are going to make it so that only Jerry Miculek could qualify to get a CCW.
Click to expand...
This is part of why there are so few LTCs in RI. There are 10's of thousand guns (and increasing almost every day) but only a few thousand permits (5 years ago it ws only 3600-ish). For a long time it was because everyone had to go through the AG until the court stepped in. I have heard so many people say they don't bother because of the stupid range test. A couple guys I shoot with a pretty good shots. One missed the qualification and the other can't be bothered.
As you said, I'd have no problem at 7 or 10 yards, probably even 15, Target looks like a postage stamp at 25 yards.
 
T-Unit said:
99% of the US is capable of reading and writing, so I don't think illiteracy is a valid reason to deny a person from carrying a gun for protection, but what is questionable is what any sort of written test or classroom training is supposed to do or demonstrate that separates a person from passing or failing. Like, if someone doesn't know that taking the mag out of a gun WITHOUT racking the slide to check the chamber isn't actually clearing the gun... IDK if I'd deny someone for that because the 2nd Amendment states shall not be infringed, not can be infringed if you're a moron who isn't safe.

Problem is we're living in a time where safety is like a new religion and not being "safe" like say being vaccinated means your employer can fire you and hospitals can deny you care.

I'm much more against range qualifications because they're absolutely fukking stupid in that the target is usually 25 yards away and most self defense shootings occur at like, 7 yards or less. That alone could get people denied for not having the physical ability to hit at that distance when at 10 yards or less they'd be fine.

This is why I'm concerned that the May Issue states are going to re-write their laws dealing with qualification tests and the Progressives are going to make it so that only Jerry Miculek could qualify to get a CCW.
Click to expand...
This is part of why there are so few LTCs in RI. There are 10's of thousand guns (and increasing almost every day) but only a few thousand permits (5 years ago it ws only 3600-ish). For a long time it was because everyone had to go through the AG until the court stepped in. I have heard so many people say they don't bother because of the stupid range test. A couple guys I shoot with a pretty good shots. One missed the qualification and the other can't be bothered.
As you said, I'd have no problem at 7 or 10 yards, probably even 15, Target looks like a postage stamp at 25 yards.

I can see someone making the case for "common sense" (WTF is that) rules like "Show me how to load it...show me how to unload it....take this 1 hour course". The goal is to stop a total newbie from walking around armed with no clue about the basic operation of the gun. Beyond that it's just a pain in the ass.
 
GL2020 said:
This is part of why there are so few LTCs in RI. There are 10's of thousand guns (and increasing almost every day) but only a few thousand permits (5 years ago it ws only 3600-ish). For a long time it was because everyone had to go through the AG until the court stepped in. I have heard so many people say they don't bother because of the stupid range test. A couple guys I shoot with a pretty good shots. One missed the qualification and the other can't be bothered.
As you said, I'd have no problem at 7 or 10 yards, probably even 15, Target looks like a postage stamp at 25 yards.
Click to expand...
Damn big postage stamp. I have to use two frames at the range and staple one side to each, otherwise, we'd destroy the frames when I have qualified people for their RI license.
 

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