Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

[VTski4x4]

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

While I'm sure it will take some finessing, it means that shit must stop.

 

[JoseyWales]

LICENSES ARE SHALL ISSUE!

[Red flag enters the room]

Oh.

The founding fathers would have all been red flagged.

[ heard on the radio ]

 

[Picton]

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.

I would assume this, too.

I'd also imagine there will continue to be statutory disqualifiers based on court outcomes. The legislature might move to define a few more misdafelonies to get fewer people licensed, for example.

 

[AHM]

The allusion to the objective rules in the 43 states are a nod to
the kind of requirements that even NH has,
which basically mirror the Prohibited Person rules in GCA '68/Brady.

 

[pdm]

I don't know if mere possession without a license is hit by this at all. Like in the home. I would have thought that Heller covered that, but, well, MA gonna MA.

 

[Keop]

Anyone living in a Red Town already at the police station asking to file for a license?

 

[mousegunfan]

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."

Does a concurring opinion have any merit? Isn't it just like a dissenting opinion?

 

[Dench]

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.

The ruling sucks because at the end of the day for the actual 2A and it's purposes it does ZERO.

And the stuff that it "actually does," which again is nothing in reality, is easily bypassed by a conviction free red flag claim.

So congratulations, gentlemen. The king SHALL grant you your gun license. And that king can take it away at any time for any reason without a conviction.

People who think this is a win are dumb-dumbs. This is a complete waste of time and another lost opportunity to restore the 2A as intended.

 

[mousegunfan]

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

Good news, but it will require law suits.

 

[F-Bobby]

Anyone living in a Red Town already at the police station asking to file for a license?

I'm about to go down and demand my restrictions get removed lol

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

The decision along with Kavanaugh's cautionary concurrence sound about right. I'm really disappointed in the dissent. The crux of this case was really all about New York's subjective licensing regime. Breyer along with most commentators utterly fail to address this issue. Dispite all the hand wrining, this decision is far less consequential to far fewer Americans than many of the court's other decisions this term, like Dobbs and Shinn. Our Second Amendment rights are on a good trajectory. Too bad it's at the cost of the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments.

 

[nstassel]

 

[F-Bobby]

The ruling sucks because at the end of the day for the actual 2A and it's purposes it does ZERO.

And the stuff that it "actually does," which again is nothing in reality, is easily bypassed by a conviction free red flag claim.

So congratulations, gentlemen. The king SHALL grant you your gun license. And that king can take it away at any time for any reason without a conviction.

People who think this is a win are dumb-dumbs. This is a complete waste of time and another lost opportunity to restore the 2A as intended.

Gotta celebrate the wins when we get them. Which is few and far between. Hopefully this will push more states to Constitutional carry? We've already got 25 (with florida lagging behind...>.>) So yes we still shouldn't need a permit. But now at least those people who couldn't get one before because the chief in their down is anti-gun can now get one. The more we can introduce into the population the better. The more common it is, the less people will be afraid of it (hopefully).

 

[DispositionMatrix]

Matthew Larosiere is on live discussing this.

 

[Coda]

This is a big win!!!

I agree, I am amazed how many people here don't realize that.

I tend to focus on the positive with rulings like this. But for some folks nothing is enough and they just need SOMETHING to complain or feel pessimistic about.

 

[El_Guapo77]

Mass Libtards about to lose their minds in 3..2..1

 

[SFC13557]

The Bitch in Albany stated when the 2nd Amendment was written citizens carried muskets. So what, that's still a firearm DB. The AR is today's equivalent to a Kentucky Long Rifle so by your comparison you're saying we can all carry AR's? What a moron!

 

[cathouse01]

I think this is the most important part of the ruling:

(1) Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny. Pp. 9–15.
(2) Historical analysis can sometimes be difficult and nuanced, but reliance on history to inform the meaning of constitutional text is more legitimate, and more administrable, than asking judges to “make difficult empirical judgments” about “the costs and benefits of firearms restrictions,” especially given their “lack [of] expertise” in the field. McDonald, 561 U. S., at 790–791 (plurality opinion). Federal courts tasked with making difficult empirical judgments regarding firearm regulations under the banner of “intermediate scrutiny” often defer to the determinations of legislatures. While judicial deference to legislative interest balancing is understandable—and, elsewhere, appropriate—it is not deference that the Constitution demands here. The Second Amendment “is the very product of an interest balancing by the people,” and it “surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms” for self-defense. Heller, 554 U. S., at 635. Pp. 15–17.

It’s basically saying that Thomas is sick of the lower courts treating the Second Amendment as a 2nd class right and that they now must treat it as the fundamental right that it is. It is specifically instructing the lower courts that they are not to use “strict or intermediate scrutiny” and that the courts should not give "deference to legislative interest balancing”.

 

[DispositionMatrix]

Gotta celebrate the wins when we get them. Which is few and far between. Hopefully this will push more states to Constitutional carry? We've already got 25 (with florida lagging behind...>.>) So yes we still shouldn't need a permit. But now at least those people who couldn't get one before because the chief in their down is anti-gun can now get one. The more we can introduce into the population the better. The more common it is, the less people will be afraid of it (hopefully).

It's probably prudent to keep in mind NY firearm prohibitionists have been preparing for this. They're going to dole out some serious punishment to firearm owners over this, even if they know it will land them right back in court.

 

[Dench]

Gotta celebrate the wins when we get them. Which is few and far between. Hopefully this will push more states to Constitutional carry? We've already got 25 (with florida lagging behind...>.>)

It's not a win.

FL is lagging behind on 2A stuff because it's not a free state. FL likes to pretend it is, but it aint. FL is a state driven bureaucratic nightmare run by minimum wage employees.

 

[Coyote33]

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

I have no doubt they will try that sort of stuff. I agree it will get struck down again. The issue then will be how long it takes to correct again.

 

[xtry51]

The ruling sucks because at the end of the day for the actual 2A and it's purposes it does ZERO.

And the stuff that it "actually does," which again is nothing in reality, is easily bypassed by a conviction free red flag claim.

So congratulations, gentlemen. The king SHALL grant you your gun license. And that king can take it away at any time for any reason without a conviction.

People who think this is a win are dumb-dumbs. This is a complete waste of time and another lost opportunity to restore the 2A as intended.

This is a validation of licensing, which is de facto a decision that guns are not a right.

 

[mousegunfan]

For MA it will eliminate needing references or letters. It will eliminate the question of what purpose, IE all lawful purposes. It will also remove any denials without a felony. The language "moral character" in the opinion removes this.

 

[BobR51]

As long as Chucky Shummer is POed. I'm happy. f*** that POS!

 

[SFC13557]

It's probably prudent to keep in mind NY firearm prohibitionists have been preparing for this. They're going to dole out some serious punishment to firearm owners over this, even if they know it will land them right back in court.

Hmmm, I wonder if this ruling effects NY's refusal to issue non-resident licenses?

 

[mousegunfan]

Does a concurring opinion have any merit? Isn't it just like a dissenting opinion?

I found the answer. The concurring opinion is not law.

"A concurring opinion is an opinion that agrees with the majority opinion but does not agree with the rationale behind it. Instead of joining the majority, the concurring judge will write a separate opinion describing the basis behind their decision. Concurring opinions are not binding since they did not receive the majority of the court's ..."

 

[bigbravehog]

Good news, but it will require law suits.

coincidently, I am receiving a barrage of emails from 2A groups today to send money. I've sent enough. Now time for them to act.

 

[SFC13557]

As long as Chucky Shummer is POed. I'm happy. f*** that POS!

Schmucky doesn't care, he has his own security goon's but the Justices sure gave him the finger.

 

[mousegunfan]

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."

This means nothing!

A concurring opinion is an opinion that agrees with the majority opinion but does not agree with the rationale behind it. Instead of joining the majority, the concurring judge will write a separate opinion describing the basis behind their decision. Concurring opinions are not binding since they did not receive the majority of the court's ...

 

[F-Bobby]

It's probably prudent to keep in mind NY firearm prohibitionists have been preparing for this. They're going to dole out some serious punishment to firearm owners over this, even if they know it will land them right back in court.

Yup. They're gonna add in all these "prohibited places". Which hopefully will ALSO get taken to court and proven to not be in the spirit of this decision.