Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

[Hoover]

In a concurring opinion joined by the chief, Justice Kavanaugh writes that today's ruling "does not prohibit States from imposing licensing requirements for carrying a handgun for self-defense." "In particular," he says, "the Court's decision does not affect the existing licensing regimes--known as 'shall-issue' regimes-- that are employed in 43 states."

 

[xtry51]

In a concurring opinion joined by the chief, Justice Kavanaugh writes that today's ruling "does not prohibit States from imposing licensing requirements for carrying a handgun for self-defense." "In particular," he says, "the Court's decision does not affect the existing licensing regimes--known as 'shall-issue' regimes-- that are employed in 43 states."

I'm so tired of "compromise" on the right. Just spike the ball and repeal everything.

 

[Garys]

So, they did not go with "Shall not be infringed", but did strike down may issue?

In a concurring opinion joined by the chief, Justice Kavanaugh writes that today's ruling "does not prohibit States from imposing licensing requirements for carrying a handgun for self-defense." "In particular," he says, "the Court's decision does not affect the existing licensing regimes--known as 'shall-issue' regimes-- that are employed in 43 states."

 

[Picton]

So, they did not go with "Shall not be infringed", but did strike down may issue?

But he specifically says it doesn't affect "shall-issue" in other states? WTF?

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Barrett's concurrence channels her inner law professor.

 

[76Too]

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.

NY governor already stating they will not comply. SMH. What the f*** is the Supreme Court good for if states can just do whatever the f*** they want anyway?

 

[xero2099]

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.

im curious what they have cooking to throw a wrench into it

 

[40 Creedmoor fan]

6-3 by Thomas

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

That's some good reading!

 

[kalash]

NY governor already stating they will not comply. SMH. What the f*** is the Supreme Court good for if states can just do whatever the f*** they want anyway?

Perhaps New Yorkers shouldn't comply either...

 

[Coyote33]

(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.

I like the sound of that!

Wait. Is this JUST for "handguns"?

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.

Basically, the racist gun control. How will this affect the "suitability" in Massachusetts?

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

?? Need some details on this.

In a concurring opinion joined by the chief, Justice Kavanaugh writes that today's ruling "does not prohibit States from imposing licensing requirements for carrying a handgun for self-defense." "In particular," he says, "the Court's decision does not affect the existing licensing regimes--known as 'shall-issue' regimes-- that are employed in 43 states."

So, they did not go with "Shall not be infringed", but did strike down may issue?

Need clarification on these.

 

[JoseyWales]

IANAL, seems like mixed signals. From scotusblog:

"The states, including New York, that had used proper cause requirements "may continue to require licenses for carrying handguns for self-defense so long as those States employ objective licensing requirements like those used by the 43 shall-issue States."

 

[Toast]

So, they did not go with "Shall not be infringed", but did strike down may issue?

But he specifically says it doesn't affect "shall-issue" in other states? WTF?

He says that shall-issue can continue assuming the requirements are not arbitrary. Essentially, you can have prohibited persons and a licensing scheme can be imposed to weed them out.

However, this section of Kavanaugh's concurrence is interesting:

"Going forward, therefore, the 43 States that employ objective shall-issue licensing regimes for carrying handguns for self-defense may continue to do so. Likewise, the 6 States including New York potentially affected by today’s decision may continue to require licenses for carrying handguns for self-defense so long as those States employ objective licensing requirements like those used by the 43 shall issue States."​

​

So give it, oh, 12 years to find that "suitability" is not objective. Also, a concurrence does not have the same force as the main opinion.

 

[Parker Schreiber]

Before y'all celebrate too much, here are some points from the concurrences you may wish to review:

Alito:

That is all we decide. Our holding decides nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun. Nor does it decide anything about the kinds of weapons that people may possess. Nor have we disturbed anything that we said in Heller or McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010), about restrictions that may be imposed on the possession or carrying of guns.

Kavanaugh/Roberts:

First, the Court’s decision does not prohibit States from imposing licensing requirements for carrying a handgun for self-defense. In particular, the Court’s decision does not affect the existing licensing regimes—known as “shall-issue” regimes—that are employed in 43 States.

Likewise, the 6 States including New York potentially affected by today’s decision may continue to require licenses for carrying handguns for self-defense so long as those States employ objective licensing requirements like those used by the 43 shall issue States.

"May issue" is dead. The claim that 2A rights stops once you step out of your home is also dead. These are good things, but if you were looking for the Court to declare so-called "constitutional carry" the law of the land, or even to prohibit restrictions on carrying of long-guns, you didn't get your wish.

We therefore turn to whether the plain text of the Second Amendment protects Koch’s and Nash’s proposed course of conduct—carrying handguns publicly for self-defense. We have little difficulty concluding that it does. Respondents do not dispute this.

 

[Dench]

Maybe in 10 years we can have SCOTUS hear a case worth hearing.

Maybe.

Probably not.

 

[xtry51]

As I have stated before, the court willnever address AWB style laws. Now places like NY will just double down on banning types of firearms.

 

[F-Bobby]

My big question is how does this affect people with Restrictions on their LTC's?

 

[Picton]

He says that shall-issue can continue assuming the requirements are not arbitrary. Essentially, you can have prohibited persons and a licensing scheme can be imposed to weed them out.

However, this section of Kavanaugh's concurrence is interesting:

"Going forward, therefore, the 43 States that employ objective shall-issue licensing regimes for carrying handguns for self-defense may continue to do so. Likewise, the 6 States including New York potentially affected by today’s decision may continue to require licenses for carrying handguns for self-defense so long as those States employ objective licensing requirements like those used by the 43 shall issue States."​

​

So give it, oh, 12 years to find that "suitability" is not objective. Also, a concurrence does not have the same force as the main opinion.

Makes sense. Thank you.

 

[JoseyWales]

I was hoping they would mention specifically that post-98 Glocks are Ok outside of home.

 

[Dench]

As I have stated before, the court willnever address AWB style laws. Now places like NY will just double down on banning types of firearms.

Firearm type
Firearm accessories
Firearm Ammunition
Red Flag DQ's


We're still in very dangerous territory. And our enemies at the conservative SCOTUS like that.

 

[Dennis in MA]

How did NYC treat all the Taxi Medallion holders when Uber & whatnot upended that market?

Yeah. I think the whole taxi/Uber thing will go back to the same pricing structure and such within the next 10 years. It's clear that you can't make all 3 parties (driver, Oober, rider) happy. Only 2 out of 3 will "profit." Even with self-driving vehicles, you need a cleaning service and such for the "cabs." The cost is prohibitive and it will basically end up that a cab ride will cost what it's always costed. The only true scam is the medallion system in the first place.

It's going to take some parsing, but this looks like it'll impact the MA licensing scheme.

I'm sure Maura is crying in her Cheerios this morning.

I know this is a tangent, but

isn't that the WHOLE POINT of Miranda?!

I thought it was the right to dance outside with fruit on your head.

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.

Well, we got movement in our direction. Just like civil rights, it was not one moment or one law or one ruling that provided equality. In that case, it took over 100 years from slavery to mostly-freedom. This is an uphill battle and will continue to be. But I'm happy we got this today.

 

[AHM]

Supreme Court Strikes Down Restrictive New York Gun Licensing Law

"Because the State of New York issues public-carry licenses only when an applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we conclude that the State’s licensing regime violates the Constitution."

legalinsurrection.com

How will this affect the "suitability" in Massachusetts?

Arbitrary restrictions in red towns will be hardest hit.

 

[ThePreBanMan]

This is a big win!!!

 

[kalash]

"May issue" is dead. The claim that 2A rights stops once you step out of your home is also dead. These are good things, but if you were looking for the Court to declare so-called "constitutional carry" the law of the land, or even to prohibit restrictions on carrying of long-guns, you didn't get your wish.

This is a solid take on the ruling, as far as I've been able to tell. Definitely a big step in the right direction but it's not a checkered flag finish.

 

[Picton]

My big question is how does this affect people with Restrictions on their LTC's?

If what I'm reading here is correct (and it makes sense), the entire "suitability" farce should only be able to continue if it has specifically defined reasons to continue, rather than at the discretion of the Chiefs or any other individual. I'd imagine restrictions might go the same way? Meaning, specifically defined situations would need to arise before they could be imposed?

I trust the Commonwealth already has those specifics drafted, sadly. They knew this was coming.

 

[Coda]

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.

I doubt they will try that sort of stuff, and if they do it will just get struck down AGAIN.

 

[DosesR1]

What does this means for citys like boston and the gestapos deciding who can and cant carru

 

[kalash]

I doubt they will try that sort of stuff, and if they do it will just get struck down AGAIN.

Correct but it will take more lawsuits, more money, and more time. Just look at the stun gun debacle in MA.

 

[Dench]

This is a big win!!!

LICENSES ARE SHALL ISSUE!

[Red flag enters the room]

Oh.

 

[pdm]

So likely the gun safety course requirement in MA will survive. Background check too. But it will likely take further lawsuits to force MA to comply with even the letter, never mind the spirit of this ruling.

 

[Picton]

LICENSES ARE SHALL ISSUE!

[Red flag enters the room]

Oh.

This. Red Flags never had much meaning in MA because the local Chiefs already had a de-facto Red Flag they could throw anytime they wanted to.