Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

VEGA v. TEKOH. Held: A violation of the Miranda rules does not provide a basis for a §1983 claim.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action against any person acting under color of state law who “subjects” a person or “causes [a person] to be subjected . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.” The question we must decide is whether a violation of the Miranda rules provides a basis for a claim under §1983. We hold that it does not
Click to expand...
But they don't say what the remedy is when the government violates your rights with respect to the Miranda rule. So, cross that off the list.
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
VEGA v. TEKOH. Held: A violation of the Miranda rules does not provide a basis for a §1983 claim.


But they don't say what the remedy is when the government violates your rights with respect to the Miranda rule. So, cross that off the list.
Click to expand...
How many actual laws have an actual penalty against the government? I'm guessing like 98% do not.
 
NYSRPA v. BRUEN is decided! 6-3 IN FAVOR OF THE 2A

"The court holds that New York's "proper-cause" requirement to obtain a concealed-carry license violates the Constitution by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense."

 
(1) It is undisputed that petitioners Koch and Nash—two ordinary, law-abiding, adult citizens—are part of “the people” whom the Second Amendment protects. See Heller, 554 U. S., at 580. And no party disputes that handguns are weapons “in common use” today for self-defense. See id., at 627. The Court has little difficulty concluding also that the plain text of the Second Amendment protects Koch’s and Nash’s proposed course of conduct—carrying handguns publicly for self-defense. Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, and the definition of “bear” naturally encompasses public carry. Moreover, the Second Amendment guarantees an “individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” id., at 592, and confrontation can surely take place outside the home. Pp. 23–24.
Click to expand...

I like the sound of that!
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
VEGA v. TEKOH. Held: A violation of the Miranda rules does not provide a basis for a §1983 claim.


But they don't say what the remedy is when the government violates your rights with respect to the Miranda rule. So, cross that off the list.
Click to expand...
I know this is a tangent, but

isn't that the WHOLE POINT of Miranda?!
 
I'm sure NYC will respond to having to lose the proper cause requirement by making licenses cost $10k or capping them to 5 for the whole city or implementing a proficiency test where you shoot a derringer to 1000 yards.

That said, it's fantastic news that SCOTUS finally recognizes the right to keep and bear arms in public.
 
rep308 said:
We win!

WSJ - The Supreme Court struck down New York state’s system for issuing concealed weapons permits, ruling that the century-old law requiring that applicants demonstrate “proper cause” and “good moral character” violates the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...
If that's the case, why even having a licensing scheme at all? They should have just said licensing schemes are unconstitutional and left no wiggle room.
 
YES! Finally! 🖕 NYC and Mike Bloomberg, Comrade Bill and Eric Adams. Hopefully NYer's flock to their precinct's to apply and turn the city around, back to a safe city where criminals are afraid of the Cops and citizens instead of vice versa. It's Thomas's bday according to Bill Hemmer on FOX, Happy Birthday Clarence![rockon]
 
The decision is in:


What a victory.

"Held: New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense"
 
kalash said:
I'm sure NYC will respond to having to lose the proper cause requirement by making licenses cost $10k or capping them to 5 for the whole city or implementing a proficiency test where you shoot a derringer to 1000 yards.

That said, it's fantastic news that SCOTUS finally recognizes the right to keep and bear arms in public.
Click to expand...

The opinion is making clear that’s not allowed. It’s a right and greatly restricting that right is not constitutional.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
Taxi drivers are not important people like those who qualify for NYC carry permits are.
Click to expand...
Taxi drivers spent more money getting their medallion
than the beautiful people spent bribing licensing officials.
Possibly even including the money which the beautiful people
pissed away signaling their importance; importance frequently
only present inside their own heads.

Mesatchornug said:
I know this is a tangent, but

isn't that the WHOLE POINT of Miranda?!
Click to expand...
Miranda protects the ignorant against a spectrum of infringements.
The remedy for each infringement must be specific.
 

Supreme Court Strikes Down New York Law on Concealed Weapons​

from today's WSJ.

"The Supreme Court struck down New York state’s system for issuing concealed weapons permits, ruling that the century-old law requiring that applicants demonstrate “proper cause” and “good moral character” violates the Second Amendment.
The 6-3 decision, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, marks the widest expansion of gun rights since 2010, when the court applied nationwide a 2008 ruling establishing an individual right of armed self-defense within the home. It puts in question similar laws in at least eight other states and the District of Columbia, where authorities hold substantial discretion over issuing concealed-weapons permits.

While Republican-leaning states have been loosening gun regulations over the past decade, California, Hawaii and more urban states in the Northeast have maintained their traditional limits on concealed weapons."
Write to Jess Bravin at jess.bravin+1@wsj.com

The bitch in Albany is already whining, not about muskets DB.
 

Similar threads

Garland v. VanDerStok
Replies
0
Views
113
lutstribe
L
Supreme Court decision on rifle bans
Replies
9
Views
738
Tartakovsky
Tartakovsky
Circuit Court Judge Strikes Down Illinois FOID Card Requirement for Guns in the Home
Replies
0
Views
42
Reptile
Reptile
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
Back
Top Bottom