Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

Waher said:
And then several years before Massachusetts even acknowledges it followed up by a bunch of weasel legislation violating it in various way.
Click to expand...

I think the worst offenders will be NJ, NYC and some California counties on the coast. NJ folks at least have the 3rd circuit to back them up, 2nd circuit should be ok too. 1st circuit and 9th will be horrible.
 

View: https://youtu.be/arZdeg_fL-I


Hoover said:
The reduced the question at hand when they accepted the case, so I’m not sure how far an opinion will go in this case. Obviously it’s likely the NY scheme goes down, beyond that will be if SCOTUS dictates the standard to use on 2A cases. You know Thomas will be lobbying to write this case. My bet is Thomas writes it.
Click to expand...
 
Hoover said:
The reduced the question at hand when they accepted the case, so I’m not sure how far an opinion will go in this case. Obviously it’s likely the NY scheme goes down, beyond that will be if SCOTUS dictates the standard to use on 2A cases. You know Thomas will be lobbying to write this case. My bet is Thomas writes it.
Click to expand...
The only reason I'm doubtful on Thomas writing the majority opinion how he gets to five. Thomas is a 2A absolutist as @Garys reminds us. He's famous for agreeing with the majority but stating he'd go further. That view doesn't necessarily get you the majority opinion.

If Roberts is out, Thomas gets to assign the opinion. But he can't assign it so himself if he can't get four other justices onboard with his version. Alito and Gorsuch and probably givens. But Barrett and Kavanaugh are unknown quantities. And so is Roberts. If Roberts is is the majority on the judgement, he still has to assign the opinion to someone that will get at least four other justices to sign on.

Certainly there's a majority for nuking the NY scheme. The big questions is what opinion can at least five justices agree upon?
 
I was pleased that this case made a big issue out "equal treatment", since that issue cannot be danced around with interpretations like "The 2A does not mean that" which is so common.

Remember Sotomayor's dissent in McDonald stating she could find nothing in the constitution guaranteeing the right to own a handgun (so much for Heller and stare decsis)

There is no intellectually sound argument supporting the "special people" criteria used by NY, NJ, CA, MD, etc. Talk about analytical strain 😡


If the NYC system is shot down, expect the licensing fee to increase by thousands and a multi-year wait for an appointment with the licensing department (unless, of course, you are one of those special people who would have previously qualified)
 
Last edited:
Rob Boudrie said:
I was pleased that this case made a big issue out "equal treatment", since that issue cannot be danced around with interpretations like "The 2A does not mean that" which is so common.

Remember Sotomayor's dissent in McDonald stating she could find nothing in the constitution guaranteeing the right to own a handgun (so much for Heller and state decsision).

There is no intellectually sound argument supporting the "special people" criteria used by NY, NJ, CA, MD, etc. Talk about analytical strain 😡


If the NYC system is shot down, expect the licensing fee to increase by thousands and a multi-year wait for an appointment with the licensing department (unless, of course, you are one of those special people who would have previously qualified)
Click to expand...
Could an equal treatment opinion also kick back on the laws that allow cops special gun ownership exceptions, like those in MA? This would have far reaching impact on mag capacity limits since they all contain exceptions for cops. Tell the cops they will also be limited and you lose their support of mag limits.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
I was pleased that this case made a big issue out "equal treatment", since that issue cannot be danced around with interpretations like "The 2A does not mean that" which is so common.

Remember Sotomayor's dissent in McDonald stating she could find nothing in the constitution guaranteeing the right to own a handgun (so much for Heller and state decsision).

There is no intellectually sound argument supporting the "special people" criteria used by NY, NJ, CA, MD, etc. Talk about analytical strain 😡


If the NYC system is shot down, expect the licensing fee to increase by thousands and a multi-year wait for an appointment with the licensing department (unless, of course, you are one of those special people who would have previously qualified)
Click to expand...

It’s not NYC scheme in this case, it’s NY state. The cities is even more restrictive so obviously that goes with a good decision.

A great brief in support of NYSRPA ago strike down the scheme was from black public defenders in NYC. The called out the scheme as racist with it certainly is among other things.
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
The only reason I'm doubtful on Thomas writing the majority opinion how he gets to five. Thomas is a 2A absolutist as @Garys reminds us. He's famous for agreeing with the majority but stating he'd go further. That view doesn't necessarily get you the majority opinion.

If Roberts is out, Thomas gets to assign the opinion. But he can't assign it so himself if he can't get four other justices onboard with his version. Alito and Gorsuch and probably givens. But Barrett and Kavanaugh are unknown quantities. And so is Roberts. If Roberts is is the majority on the judgement, he still has to assign the opinion to someone that will get at least four other justices to sign on.

Certainly there's a majority for nuking the NY scheme. The big questions is what opinion can at least five justices agree upon?
Click to expand...

Thomas certainly doesn’t mind being alone in his opinion, he makes his views very clear. lol

As I see it, there are basically 2 questions they’re deciding. One is a given, striking down the law, they’ll get 6 for that. The second is the standard of review lower courts should use on 2A cases. I think they can even get Roberts to join there.

I’m definitely more optimistic than some but I think it will happen. It also probably gets SCOTUS out of the AWB and mag limit cases they have on hold pending cert. if they decide as I suggested, they’ll return those cases to the district or circuit courts To reassess based on the NYSRPA ruling.
 
This case really puts the liberal justices between the pro verbal rock and hard place.

If the vote for the "special person" approach, it goes against giving the little people equal treatment against the big bad mean powerful people. If the vote for it, it goes against their desired public policy.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
This case really puts the liberal justices between the pro verbal rock and hard place.

If the vote for the "special person" approach, it goes against giving the little people equal treatment against the big bad mean powerful people. If the vote for it, it goes against their desired public policy.
Click to expand...

If they were consistent on their legal philosophy they would go against their desired public policy but they are not so I don’t see any way any of them go against the state power in a 2A case. The next time a liberal justice goes against the democrat policy position will be the first time a liberal has gone against the dem policy. There is never any question where they side or really what their “reasons” will be. They’re legislators in robes.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
This case really puts the liberal justices between the pro verbal rock and hard place.

If the vote for the "special person" approach, it goes against giving the little people equal treatment against the big bad mean powerful people. If the vote for it, it goes against their desired public policy.
Click to expand...

Since when has the Supreme Court made policy? I thought that is the job of the legislature.
 
jpk said:
Speaking of the rest of the court......Sotomayor's previous statement on McDonald is nothing short of dishonest....
Click to expand...
It was a particularly malignant kind of dishonesty because she failed to respect stare decisis, and took the position that the decision very recently made by a majority of the court was not valid. This is quite different from the usual logical gymnastics engaged in by results oriented justices.
 
Coyote33 said:
Since when has the Supreme Court made policy? I thought that is the job of the legislature.
Click to expand...

It's interesting. I was reading something. Maybe WSJ. Last week. It talked about how the laws passed by Congress are written vaguer and vaguer over the years. Meaning the President has more leeway AND the courts have more need to step in and deliver their 2 cents.

Imagine if laws said what was supposed to happen. Suddenly, there is NOT a need for an activist SC. Because it's like arguing 1+1 <> 2. Although I'm sure activist attorneys would try just about anything to figure out a chink in the armor of well written laws.
 
Dennis in MA said:
It's interesting. I was reading something. Maybe WSJ. Last week. It talked about how the laws passed by Congress are written vaguer and vaguer over the years. Meaning the President has more leeway AND the courts have more need to step in and deliver their 2 cents.

Imagine if laws said what was supposed to happen. Suddenly, there is NOT a need for an activist SC. Because it's like arguing 1+1 <> 2. Although I'm sure activist attorneys would try just about anything to figure out a chink in the armor of well written laws.
Click to expand...

Hence, the administrative state. And both sides like it because it helps them when they have executive branch power.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
If the NYC system is shot down, expect the licensing fee to increase by thousands and a multi-year wait for an appointment with the licensing department (unless, of course, you are one of those special people who would have previously qualified)
Click to expand...
In NC, a shall issue state with time limits on how long a Sheriff can delay approval, DNC controlled shiriffs play games like undermanning the permit office, delaying submission of an application until health records are checked.
Some sheriffs shut down the application process entirely, blaming covid.
We tried to at least get the Pistol Purchase Permit requirement repealed but that failed. I shot an email to my rep who is hispanic and blasted him for racism and upholding a Jim Crow law that disproportionately delays or denies women and minorities access to their constitutional rights. He replied with the DNC prescribed talking points about crime and safety. Can't talk sense to the senseless.
 
Dennis in MA said:
It's interesting. I was reading something. Maybe WSJ. Last week. It talked about how the laws passed by Congress are written vaguer and vaguer over the years. Meaning the President has more leeway AND the courts have more need to step in and deliver their 2 cents.

Imagine if laws said what was supposed to happen. Suddenly, there is NOT a need for an activist SC. Because it's like arguing 1+1 <> 2. Although I'm sure activist attorneys would try just about anything to figure out a chink in the armor of well written laws.
Click to expand...

That’s where the chevron doctrine comes in and agency “expert” writing of regulations. Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch want the end the chevron doctrine, it’s only a matter of time before they get a case and end it. That will force congress to do their job and not leave it to bureaucrats
 
Another sterling day for the 1st circuit court of appeals and Massachusetts district court. District court rules for Boston, appeals court rules 3-0 for Boston, SCOTUS reverses 9-0. The 1st circuit is a clown show. They are routinely reversed by SCOTUS, often 9-0. The best is when that asshat Souter is in the 3-0 circuit court ruling and his former court slaps him silly. Shows what a terrible, out of touch justice he was

 
Does GOAL have its own flag?
Hoover said:
Another sterling day for the 1st circuit court of appeals and Massachusetts district court. District court rules for Boston, appeals court rules 3-0 for Boston, SCOTUS reverses 9-0. The 1st circuit is a clown show. They are routinely reversed by SCOTUS, often 9-0. The best is when that asshat Souter is in the 3-0 circuit court ruling and his former court slaps him silly. Shows what a terrible, out of touch justice he was

Click to expand...
Time for someone to apply for a Molon Labe or Gadson flag.
 
Hoover said:
Another sterling day for the 1st circuit court of appeals and Massachusetts district court. District court rules for Boston, appeals court rules 3-0 for Boston, SCOTUS reverses 9-0. The 1st circuit is a clown show. They are routinely reversed by SCOTUS, often 9-0. The best is when that asshat Souter is in the 3-0 circuit court ruling and his former court slaps him silly. Shows what a terrible, out of touch justice he was

Click to expand...
 
I think it’s possible to get one or more of the 3 liberals to vote with the majority to strike down the NY gun license scheme but hey you definitely won’t join the majority on a second part directing what standard of review to use in 2A cases.
 
Hoover said:
Another sterling day for the 1st circuit court of appeals and Massachusetts district court. District court rules for Boston, appeals court rules 3-0 for Boston, SCOTUS reverses 9-0. ...
Click to expand...
Massachusetts. [rolleyes]
If this keeps up, they'll have to create a Civil Liberties Trail
so people can tour the high points.
AAcXr8qzadsIpnhKgPHdNeOZc3FuSiRJvBsEoDrNxcUfZWR8XPug-qlJSWKqJ4FL8337Y0K-s4ZhcKUF33D1onAVTAtvKObBTNgm33U=s1600-w420-h280

012114plannedjw05.jpg

boston-city-hall-flags-1880x1209.jpeg
 
Reinforces my preference for SC over NC.

fishgutzy said:
In NC, a shall issue state with time limits on how long a Sheriff can delay approval, DNC controlled shiriffs play games like undermanning the permit office, delaying submission of an application until health records are checked.
Some sheriffs shut down the application process entirely, blaming covid.
We tried to at least get the Pistol Purchase Permit requirement repealed but that failed. I shot an email to my rep who is hispanic and blasted him for racism and upholding a Jim Crow law that disproportionately delays or denies women and minorities access to their constitutional rights. He replied with the DNC prescribed talking points about crime and safety. Can't talk sense to the senseless.
Click to expand...
 
Garys said:
Reinforces my preference for SC over NC.
Click to expand...
Momentum is finally swining to constitutional carry. Finger crossed. I keep pointing out to anyone in my district that out rep is a racist who is oppose self defense for women and minorities. The rat only knows how to follow DNC orders.
 

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