Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

Hoover said:
in places like NY, NJ, CA, MD, HI, MA you have have zero chance to carry legally
Click to expand...
I don't understand what you are saying here at all for Massachusetts.


Dench said:
Heller clear as day says you can't ban common use firearms. AR-15's are the de facto American rifle. They aren't common use. They are ubiquitous. Hell, even in ban states they are.
Click to expand...
++++
 
Rob Boudrie said:
Our side did not get to choose which case of many SCOTUS granted cert to.

This case has a stonger possibility of winning that an "AW ban" or "mag ban" case, and will fundamentally change carry law/polities in the US if SCOTUS decides favorably.
Click to expand...

During the oral arguments the justices seemed to agree that states should have the right to decide certain restrictions, even with shall issue. If Bruen goes our way and places like NY decide to vastly expand what makes a "sensitive location" (within 5,000' of a public building) or "prohibited person" (any overdue library books) do you see time, place, and manner being the next thing we have to litigate?

I'm optimistic but I don't think that Bruen will be the sweeping licensing smackdown that some folks seem to think.
 
Dench said:
@Rob Boudrie mentioned that he doesnt think an AWB case has as good of chance. I'll take his word for it. that said, Heller clear as day says you can't ban common use firearms. AR-15's are the de facto American rifle. They arent common use. They are ubiquitous. Hell, even in ban states they are. Yet here they are still in some weird limbo gray areas. SCOTUS doesnt care which is why they wont take it. They don't want the heat from that one.
Click to expand...
Also thought the Comm2a marijuana case was doomed. I was very happy 2b wrong about that.

Rather than don't like the heat, I tend to suspect "like public policy the way it is and don't want to have to choose between an intellectually honest ruling and one that creates the outcome they desire".
 
Dench said:
for the sake of conflict of interest I've been shitting on this case since before I moved, if I remember correctly.

SCOTUS doesnt want to give out solid 2A rulings. Just look at Heller. The states said f*** you straight to SCOTUS. So then we had to have McDonald so the states had to use it at their level. And then they continued to ignore it.

@Rob Boudrie mentioned that he doesnt think an AWB case has as good of chance. I'll take his word for it. that said, Heller clear as day says you can't ban common use firearms. AR-15's are the de facto American rifle. They arent common use. They are ubiquitous. Hell, even in ban states they are. Yet here they are still in some weird limbo gray areas. SCOTUS doesnt care which is why they wont take it. They don't want the heat from that one.
Click to expand...

Heller, McDonald Kennedy was the 5th vote. The opinion could only go as far as he wanted. There are now 6 conservatives and 3 of them were not on the heller and McDonald cases. Think Gorsuch, kavanaugh and Barrett are stronger on 2A than Scalia, Kennedy and Ginsberg? I do. Kavanaugh voted to strike down an AWB when he was on the DC circuit. Thomas, Gorsuch and Alito definitely would too. You only need one more between Barrett and Roberts.

We have no idea what this court will do because it’s a year old. Seeing that they are overturning the “sacred” roe, going to strike down may issue laws and are taking up an affirmative action case next term, this current court doesn’t strike me as meek. We’ll see.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
Also thought the Comm2a marijuana case was doomed. I was very happy 2b wrong about that.

Rather than don't like the heat, I tend to suspect "like public policy the way it is and don't want to have to choose between an intellectually honest ruling and one that creates the outcome they desire".
Click to expand...
Can you link me info on that im unaware of it
 
Coyote33 said:
I don't understand what you are saying here at all for Massachusetts.



++++
Click to expand...

I’m just saying a person, with xyz background, character, etc, has zero chance to legally conceal carry in some areas. If you’re 23 with xyz background and live in 42 states, you can carry, you’ll get a license or it’s constitutional carry. But If you live in some states or cities/towns in the states I listed, you won’t get a carry license. Some places in mass will give restrictions on your first license.
 
Hoover said:
I’m just saying a person, with xyz background, character, etc, has zero chance to legally conceal carry in some areas. If you’re 23 with xyz background and live in 42 states, you can carry, you’ll get a license or it’s constitutional carry. But If you live in some states or cities/towns in the states I listed, you won’t get a carry license. Some places in mass will give restrictions on your first license.
Click to expand...
And some will give you a restriction on renewals as well unless you are connected or LEO.
 
xtry51 said:
It would be nice to live to see Roberts die and be replaced by another Thomas.
Click to expand...

He’s not pelosi, Obama, Schumer, Sheehan type scumbag. I’d be happy if there’s a GOP controlled senate and DeSantis as POTUS and Roberts wants to retire and spend time with grandkids. I think Thomas and Alito will retire with the next GOP POTUS/Senate combo.
 
Hey - maybe we can find a conservative gay black non-binary Martian. He'd HAVE to get in on that one.

Joe - we need a VP

"How'bout a black lady?"

Joe - gonna need a new Supreme Court Justice

"I know - get a black lady."

Joe - Peppermint Patty is retiring. What should we do?

"Black lady????"

I think he's really Hesh from The Sopranos.
 
It looks like Thomas wrote 2 of the opinions released today. What does that potentially mean for the NY case? Likely not Thomas writing that opinion? If not him, who would be most likely?
 
Jason Flare said:
It always scares me when people are so sure of things.
Click to expand...
I mean, it's entirely plausible after shit like Obamacare and the SD v Wayfair internet tax ruling that Scotus could come out and say "States have every right to deny people the right to bear arms, openly or concealed, outside the home for any reason bwcause govt knows best."
 
safetyfirst2125 said:

View: https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status/1533944401386430469?s=21&t=GxMu4tfP9rxsrjiddOvbeg


View: https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status/1533945106184773633?s=21&t=GxMu4tfP9rxsrjiddOvbeg
Click to expand...

Back when Koch was mayor of NYC there was pending legislation at the state level that would have rendered all NY pistol permits (state and city) unrestricted. Kock announced that if such a law was passed, all existing pistol permits that were not hens teeth ("Special full carry" in NYC parlance) would be immediately revoked.
 
eboos said:
While everyone seems pretty confident that we will get a win here, possibly a big one, it is also entirely possible that we will get screwed again (either by a narrow ruling, or possible even a negative ruling).
Click to expand...

It definitely won’t be a negative ruling, there were at least 6 to strike down the NY law.
 
Hoover said:
DC tried that and their new restrictions were struck down
Click to expand...
I dont understand how Scotus has the power to declare that tho, that bridges on them making law and unless Scotus rules all 50 states constitutional carry, then that opens the way for states to decide what requirements conceal carriers must have before they get the license.

Shall issue doesn't mean you get a license simply for not being a prohibited person, it just means the state can't deny you a license for not being a PP. Beyond that, if they dont think your 20/40 vision is good enough, they can deny you for that.
 

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
454
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