Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

[crispnipz]

"My side" is the Constitution and the rights of the people, versus government abuse. Thomas is great on some issues, but horrible on other.

He authored the 6-3 majority opinion that effectively makes it impossible to sue a federal agent who clearly violates your well established rights.

SCOTUS Just Made It Even Harder To Sue an Abusive Federal Agent

A series of recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have made it practically impossible to sue a federal officer over an alleged constitutional rights

reason.com

The case is Egbert v. Boule. At issue were the actions of a border patrol agent who sought to question one of the guests at a Washington state bed-and-breakfast about the guest's immigration status. When owner Robert Boule told the agent, Erik Egbert, to leave his property, Egbert allegedly assaulted Boule. Then, when Boule complained about the alleged assault to the agent's superiors, Egbert allegedly retaliated by asking the IRS to investigate Boule, who was audited.

The POS was helping illegals (from Turkey and other countries) enter both to and from the US and Canada and was later trying to sue the glowie for money. IMO they were both in the wrong (owner for harboring illegals and glowie for harassing/retaliating). I have no sympathy for glowies but I have perhaps less for people who are very clearly committing crimes and trying to hide them behind the 4th Amendment.

 

[Dennis in MA]

Plus he was turning a % of them in AFTER they paid him. It's a wonder why he wasn't just beaten to death by a customer.

 

[doxdsgn]

Don't like the fact that the POS border agent got away with what he did, but think the bottom line of the ruling is, it's up to Congress, not the courts to say what is actionable.

 

[Wildcard]

Is there supposed to be a ruling on this case soon?

 

[T-Unit]

Is there supposed to be a ruling on this case soon?

Given what happened with Kavanagh almost being capped and National Guard be placed on stand by with the Roe decision that they will release the ruling before Roe, which likely isn't hitting until a Monday. Scotus knows that if they release the Roe ruling late in the week we'll have another George Floyd situation on our hands.

 

[Parker Schreiber]

Is there supposed to be a ruling on this case soon?

Heller was released on June 26th. McDonald was released on June 28th. That's typical timing for major Court cases. So in about 3 weeks we can stop speculating about the decision and start speculating about the aftermath.

 

[doxdsgn]

SCOTUS is scheduled to release opinions next week on Monday, June 13 and Wednesday, June 15. Which ones? Who knows?

 

[Dench]

Is there supposed to be a ruling on this case soon?

In a time when the left is trying to take the guns away and or price people out I am just so thrilled SCOTUS is hearing this case instead of all the orders of magnitude more important 2A cases they keep avoiding!

Congrats, you can have a gun license! You can only own shit tier firearms though! Freedom!

 

[crispnipz]

In a time when the left is trying to take the guns away and or price people out I am just so thrilled SCOTUS is hearing this case instead of all the orders of magnitude more important 2A cases they keep avoiding!

Congrats, you can have a gun license! You can only own shit tier firearms though! Freedom!

Proportionally, right to carry I would argue is more pressing and affects more people. I am of course biased because of my (almost expired) restricted LTC. But "bearing" arms is paramount to "keeping" them and this is the right sequel to Heller which affirmed "keep" but stopped short of "bear." A huge portion of the US population is under may/no issue. The entire state of New Jersey for example, the most densely populated state in the US, and none of them can carry.

I wouldn't be worried about the other 2A cases (I imagine you mean AWB, mag limits, etc). SCOTUS made pretty clear that 2A covers modern weapons (see Caetano vs Mass). They will come.

SCOTUS is scheduled to release opinions next week on Monday, June 13 and Wednesday, June 15. Which ones? Who knows?

Every remaining Monday and Wednesday in June will likely be opinion releases because of how many cases they have. I expect the last possible day to be the day they release this one.

 

[Dench]

Proportionally, right to carry I would argue is more pressing and affects more people.

It means zero if the guns we want aren't allowed.

Heller is already widely ignored. And Caetano certainly is also. They arent enough. They are as useful as Miller, which is 100% ignored now.

The gun lobby gave SCOTUS an easy out for their once in a decade 2A case. And I'm resentful about the softball they handed these bozos.

 

[Goliathan]

Bruen is the oldest SCOTUS decision still pending. It's hard to imagine why it's still not released, except for calendar management.

Or they need to make security provisions for the Justices. You know, in case the "Party of Tolerance and Peace" doesn't like what they have to say.

 

[crispnipz]

It means zero if the guns we want aren't allowed.

Which guns aren't allowed? Even in MA you can have ARs, etc. If we want to go down that road we'd want to repeal the NFA (which I agree with)

Heller is already widely ignored. And Caetano certainly is also.

Care to explain how? Even in NYC they can't really deny you from having a gun in your home.

 

[Dench]

Which guns aren't allowed? Even in MA you can have ARs, etc. If we want to go down that road we'd want to repeal the NFA (which I agree with)



Care to explain how? Even in NYC they can't really deny you from having a gun in your home.

Heller says you cannot ban common use firearms. Many states openly ban common use firearms specifically by name and or generalizations.

Miller says if the weapons in the military (small arm wise) it's game for civilian use. No one pays Miller any attention.

All for nothing. You got your stun guns though! win! /s

 

[crispnipz]

Heller says you cannot ban common use firearms. Many states openly ban common use firearms specifically by name and or generalizations.

They will always come up with ways around rulings. It's always going to be a cat and mouse game. So those states that ban, including MA, all have workarounds. Like in MA, the "ban" is mostly that stores are too afraid to sell them. You see it also with the plan to add a 1000% tax or ban ammo etc. But before Heller, states (and DC) were banning possession irrespective of commonality. Commonality is the tactic they switched to, and I don't disagree that SCOTUS needs to address it more. Heller (and then McDonald) was absolutely crucial in getting all states to be shall issue in the home, and I would argue that they all are.

All for nothing. You got your stun guns though! win! /s

Not for nothing.



And the court is arguably more conservative now than it was when Heller was won. I don't think being pessimistic about this important 2A case is helpful despite other pending issues involving 2A.

 

[Dench]

They will always come up with ways around rulings. It's always going to be a cat and mouse game. So those states that ban, including MA, all have workarounds. Like in MA, the "ban" is mostly that stores are too afraid to sell them. You see it also with the plan to add a 1000% tax or ban ammo etc. But before Heller, states (and DC) were banning possession irrespective of commonality. Commonality is the tactic they switched to, and I don't disagree that SCOTUS needs to address it more. Heller (and then McDonald) was absolutely crucial in getting all states to be shall issue in the home, and I would argue that they all are.



Not for nothing.

View attachment 625368

And the court is arguably more conservative now than it was when Heller was won. I don't think being pessimistic about this important 2A case is helpful despite other pending issues involving 2A.

Whats that map have to do with scotus? That useless court did not make that map green.

 

[crispnipz]

Whats that map have to do with scotus? That useless court did not make that map green.

No, but it did eliminate the last no issue state (Notice the elimination of Illinois' no issue status) as a direct result of McDonald. And the explosion of CC states since Heller I believe was referenced in arguments for the current case.

 

[Dench]

No, but it did eliminate the last no issue state (Notice the elimination of Illinois' no issue status) as a direct result of McDonald. And the explosion of CC states since Heller I believe was referenced in arguments for the current case.

Fair enough. I regardless remain extremely pessimistic regarding that court. I hope they change my mind for the better

 

[ChevyGuy91]

In a time when the left is trying to take the guns away and or price people out I am just so thrilled SCOTUS is hearing this case instead of all the orders of magnitude more important 2A cases they keep avoiding!

Congrats, you can have a gun license! You can only own shit tier firearms though! Freedom!

I'm with you man f*** all the things.

 

[Hoover]

Monday and Wednesday next week will be opinion days.

 

[Coyote33]

Last week, my 18 year old daughter asked how she can get her LTC. I had to tell her she has to wait until she's 21 for handguns. When is that going to be addressed by the SCOTUS?

 

[Lokdog]

I keep seeing a trend of Gorsuch, Thomas and Alito are always solid good; the liberal bloc, including that coward Roberts, solid bad but Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett seem to be the most untrustworthy of the whole court. Never know what is going to come from those 2 and that is really scary so I don't feel comfortable about any decision until it's official

 

[June4th]

I can see Kavanaugh the type of guy busting out of his bedroom naked while rocking an AR-15 if a bozo slips through the security blanket.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

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).

Everyone will be unhappy with the Bruen decision. The gun control crowd will be pissed that they lost. Most on our side will be pissed that the decision didn't go as far as most think it should.

Nothing today. Just a case about an inn situated on the US/Canada border.

That would be EGBERT v. BOULE where SCOTUS all but reversed Bivens. (Bivens is still good law if your name is 'Bivens')

"My side" is the Constitution and the rights of the people, versus government abuse. Thomas is great on some issues, but horrible on other.

He authored the 6-3 majority opinion that effectively makes it impossible to sue a federal agent who clearly violates your well established rights.

SCOTUS Just Made It Even Harder To Sue an Abusive Federal Agent

A series of recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have made it practically impossible to sue a federal officer over an alleged constitutional rights

reason.com

+100. Just like qualified immunity for state actors, there is no effective private remedy when your rights are violated by federal actors.

Unless scotus takes a strong stand for civil rights in this country, the left will just keep pecking away at civil liberties until they get a win somewhere and then that will be 'settled' law that cannot be reversed or argued and then they can use one legal victory to shoehorn an entire agenda.

SCOTUS has done a really good job of gutting the Bill of Rights this term. See Boule above as well as the hatchet job they did to the Sixth Amendment right to competent consel in Shinn i.e. actual innocence is not enough for someone on death row to introduce evidence in a federal habeas effectiveness of counsel action. I cannot make any sense out of this case other than, 'sure, he may be innocent, but we can still execute him based upon a legal technicality'.

Our Second Amendment and First Amendment free exercise rights are on solid ground for now. Other than that, we're f***ed.

United States Constitution and Bill of Rights ARE SETTLED LAW !!!!!!!

It's just an inconvenience for the left

^

 

[xtry51]

There are certainly alterations to the Constitution that could be made to mandate harsher penalties for politicians, judges, prosecutors and police that violate rights. IMO any person who helps pass, enforce or prosecute a law that is struck down should be barred from law and any public paying or elected job for life mandate punishment and the victims should be allowed to file civil lawsuits against all of them.

 

[Bonesinium]

There are certainly alterations to the Constitution that could be made to mandate harsher penalties for politicians, judges, prosecutors and police that violate rights. IMO any person who helps pass, enforce or prosecute a law that is struck down should be barred from law and any public paying or elected job for life mandate punishment and the victims should be allowed to file civil lawsuits against all of them.

Federal law already prescribes a punishment up to and including death for violations of rights. There is no law or amendment to the Constitution that will change anything when the laws and Constitution we already have are ignored.

So that would be a waste of time. There isn’t a single law that will somehow magically convert a tyrannical government into a lawful one. Not one. The only way to change things, at least for a time, is to overthrow it. Period. I can’t find a single example anywhere in the world at any time in history where a tyrannical government changed into a fair one because of a law or voting.

 

[microwave900]

I can see Kavanaugh the type of guy busting out of his bedroom naked while rocking an AR-15 if a bozo slips through the security blanket.

Yeah, I always thought he was the justice most likely to re-enact this scene.

If we’re right, he’s probably pretty upset that he’s limited to an HBAR upper (because Maryland) so he’s also probably excited to knock down AWBs.

 

[KBCraig]

Just like qualified immunity for state actors, there is no effective private remedy when your rights are violated by federal actors.

The effective private remedy is highly illegal.

 

[Reptile]

Are the decisions already made - just waiting to be released?

If some commie nut case kills one of our judges - could that overturn a decision that has yet to be released?

The Roe case has not been released officially. If that commie nut case killed Kavenaugh before the decision gets released - would that overturn the hinted decision to "ban abortion".

Don't the judges have to be polled right before a decision like on a jury?
"Say one, say all"

 

[amb]

Are the decisions already made - just waiting to be released?

They can change their minds right up until it goes out the door. Thus the pressure now.

 

[Reptile]

They can change their minds right up until it goes out the door. Thus the pressure now.

HOLY CRAP!!!

So, if they just off one justice - abortion stays legal???

Good Luck with that!

They aught to keep the SCOTUS at Green Briar.