Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

[Broc]

People don't understand that even if the court says X that doesn't mean that Thugs and tyrants will suddenlt not be trying to abuse people.... honestly I expect the abuse to continue until the courts have occasion to brace the bad actirs but good luck with that. There's never/rarely a real penalty for the "state being wrong".

The abuse continues because they are not held responsible for it. When nothing bad can happen to the CLEO, the CLEO will do whatever it wants because our system s*cks.

If there was a way to make it clear that something was unconstitutional and if the CLEO proceeds he would be held personally responsible, 100% of bullsh*tting would stop. But a system like that would be impossible to create because there are too many grey areas.

 

[Amputee Marksman]

The end of intermediate scrutiny

 

[Broc]

So some local PD just turtles everyone by saying "Come in some time next year to get your picture taken". Yep it's filed electronically, it's just inconvenient to everyone to get fingerprinted and pictures taken. Or we talking about complete elimination of pictures and fingerprints?

RMV pictures.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

RMV pictures.

And fingerprints? Any touchpoint that involves travelling to the local PD is a pinch point.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

After years. Ban states can keep playing this game in perpetuity.

The obvious NYC "sensitive place" target is public transportation, as the important people who now have full carry permits are unlikely to be impact, just "ordinaries". They key is to take rights away from the little people, not the big ones.

The big reason celebrities qualify is because society considers them to be more important than ordinary people, and it suits the NYPD goal of keeping the numbers down. A great example is the interview report on Sean Penn that described him as an "impressive applicant" despite criminal convictions. Another is meeting rock stars at the venue of their show to do the printing and take the application, as well as approving The Donald's fully carry permit before he entered politics.

It's no different that restaurants that are "full because of reservations" saying "right this way sir" when a famous media or athletic star wants a table. People get starstruck and feel some sort of duty to make the important person happy.

As to K. Dragger's comment about "penalties for the govt violating the law are rare" ..... remember, the penalty provision for police is what was the motivation for the back room kill of the MA Katrina bill.

On to new business - Today in June Twenty Third. I propose "Junerd" as gun owners holiday.

RMV pictures.

More secure than separate LTC photos since RMV photos are run through facial recognition software to prevent acquiring a license under an assumed identity.

 

[Picton]

People won't be able to just get a permit because of this desicion.

The chief can still tell you to s*ck it, you will then have to contact a lawyer, the lawyer will have to educate the chief and hope the chief will back down. If the chief won't back down you will have to spend months/years and thousands in court while the chief doesn't give a f*ck because it doesn't cost him anything.

I wish it was as easy as you make it sound, but we live in MA, nothing is that easy.

Although thibgs are slowly getting better. For example, many red towns now renew without restrictions (including Boston). While it is not perfect, it is a step in the right direction.

We will see what happens when Maura becomes supreme leader of MA. I dont think Maura will f*ck with CLEO, I think she will mostly go after "assault" rifles and online purchases.

All true.

But.

Remember back when the MA legislature got rid of LTC-B and streamlined a bunch of other shit? A few years ago? The chiefs mostly fell into line once they realized they would no longer have as much backing at state level.

There will always be a risk (and a reality, in some places) of petty tyrants being abusive, but an explicit slapdown of this magnitude will be difficult for the MA legislature to just ignore. I'm thinking most CoPs will follow the legislature's line, like they did last time.

 

[JRT]

Great. I can't wait to stand by for a decade or two instead of SCOTUS simply handing down a f***ing clear ruling with zero exceptions.

The ruling seems very clear, shall issue is the minimum acceptable form of licensure. That’s what the court says and it’s the law of the land. The court has done their job, there is going to be local work to be done if you live in one of the seven may issue states.

 

[Broc]

All true.

But.

Remember back when the MA legislature got rid of LTC-B and streamlined a bunch of other shit? A few years ago? The chiefs mostly fell into line once they realized they would no longer have as much backing at state level.

There will always be a risk (and a reality, in some places) of petty tyrants being abusive, but an explicit slapdown of this magnitude will be difficult for the MA legislature to just ignore. I'm thinking most CoPs will follow the legislature's line, like they did last time.

I won't hold my breath for the MA legislature to pass some law any time soon saying certain things cannot be asked on an LTC application.

Like I said, MA is slowly getting better for LTC, but nothing happens overnight here.

 

[xtry51]

The ruling seems very clear, shall issue is the minimum acceptable for of licensure. That’s what the court says and it’s the law of the land. The court has done their job, there is going to be local work to be done if you live in one of the seven may issue states.

The ruling is not clear at all. It claims to block may issue, but leaves everything else on the table. The Dems will just label may issue as something else. Instead of character letters MA will just start calling your neighbors or acquaintances and asking them if they'd like to red flag you before issuing a license.

The problem with your reading of the ruling is you beleive statists won't simply act with intentional malice to get what they want by warping words further.

The only proper ruling here was licensing is infringement and not allowed.

 

[Broc]

More secure than separate LTC photos since RMV photos are run through facial recognition software to prevent acquiring a license under an assumed identity.

Interesting, I did not know that.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

So, Comm2a may have to litigate if Brookline continues to place restrictions on LTCs. We already had one case of state recalcitrance when it originally said the marijuana case decision applied to only the two plaintiffs in that case, but faced with repeated litigation to enforce the decision, the state rightfully backed down. Once resistant PDs realize they will lose on the restriction issue, they will lose the heart to play that game.

 

[Coyote33]

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.

Can we get a "second" on this? Can anyone verify this in any way?

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

THIS is EXACTLY what needs to happen to give this some teeth!

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Interesting, I did not know that.

Every once in a while someone is contacted by the registry informing there has been a match hit with another license, and giving them a deadline to report to the RMV with all their documents so it can determine if their papers are in order.

 

[Broc]

And fingerprints? Any touchpoint that involves travelling to the local PD is a pinch point.

An online application starts a nice paper trail.
If a PD d*cks you around, it is a lot easier to call a lawyer and have him/her call the PD and tell them to stop f*cking around.

There is no negative to online applications. There will always be some possible choke point, but going online is the right step.

 

[SFC13557]

And fingerprints? Any touchpoint that involves travelling to the local PD is a pinch point.

fingerprints are only required for 1st/initial license so online would eliminate appointment/visit to PD to renew hopefully.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

fingerprints are only required for 1st/initial license so online would eliminate appointment/visit to PD to renew hopefully.

The Utah online renewal is really slick - it requires you upload a new photo and even gives you an online tool to crop it.

 

[cathouse01]

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.

Respectfully disagree. The specific finding that the NY law’s requirement to show a specific need for self protection is unconstitutional is a small win. The real win is that SCOTUS, via Thomas, is SPECIFICALLY directing the lower courts that they can no longer use their “two step” process in determining the constitutionality of any given law respecting the right to keep and bear arms. They must rely on the actual text and the history of the right.

The implication is that, while some restrictions on who and where you can conceal carry are supported by history, almost all restrictions on things like types of guns and sizes of magazines have no historical support and should, therefore, be considered infringements on the RKBA.

 

[Uzi2]

Justice Clarence Thomas is well deservedly sticking it to Xiden for his conduct during Thomas's appointment hearings where that racist, bully bastard Biden almost railroaded Thomas out of the appointment.
It took 31 years but Justice Thomas prevailed in the end.

May Justice Thomas live long enough to piss on Xiden's grave.

 

[Dench]

Great. I can't wait to stand by for a decade or two instead of SCOTUS simply handing down a f***ing clear ruling with zero exceptions.

in 2054 SCOTUS will hear the red flag case dont worry

meanwhile "constitutional carry" states just got outed as BS, as said states can anytime at their discretion revoke said right as SCOTUS just said licenses are ok

 

[drgrant]

All true.

But.

Remember back when the MA legislature got rid of LTC-B and streamlined a bunch of other shit? A few years ago? The chiefs mostly fell into line once they realized they would no longer have as much backing at state level.

There will always be a risk (and a reality, in some places) of petty tyrants being abusive, but an explicit slapdown of this magnitude will be difficult for the MA legislature to just ignore. I'm thinking most CoPs will follow the legislature's line, like they did last time.

You're assuming the legislature will do anything WRT suitability etc. "doubt". If anything they might decide to make the whole process
worse within the realm they can still screw with it.... like increasing the training requirements etc.

Also the mega douche towns dont care about liability, QI protects those chiefs etc their shit town might get shellacked in court but it aint coming out of their pocket, well, at least not until the mayor decides to fire them. do you really think a shit town mayor like from like Springfield/Brookline is going to fire the chief for being an anti?

They're going to hang around until the town gets hit with a big legal bill/judgement and then and only then will they capitulate. Unless their attorney is like "ok you can just fold now, or pay a lot later and have your names in the paper" etc.

 

[Coda]

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.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

No f***ing way is this "good enough" not even close !!! No permit, letters, no application and no reason. that's what should have come from this.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

An online application starts a nice paper trail.
If a PD d*cks you around, it is a lot easier to call a lawyer and have him/her call the PD and tell them to stop f*cking around.

There is no negative to online applications. There will always be some possible choke point, but going online is the right step.

So nothing changes except a paper trail that amounts to a hill of beans if the local PD plays games if you have the cash to pay for a lawyer you can get the PD to do something that they are required to by law. If not then it's business as usual. I don't see how any of this solves any problems or makes life easier for first time LTC applicants.

If on the other hand the process was: fill out online app (should be no fee for this), wait for LTC to arrive in the mail in a few weeks. Anything short of that is opening the door no matter how little for shenanigans.

 

[1903Collector]

So let me get this straight, based on recent posts today this is a great thing that really does nothing....that about right?

 

[VetteGirlMA]

fingerprints are only required for 1st/initial license so online would eliminate appointment/visit to PD to renew hopefully.

I agree and I am specifically talking about first time applicants having to jump through greater hoops then those who are renewing. The situation has to be the same. A first time applicant should be no different than a renewing applicant.

 

[Picton]

You're assuming the legislature will do anything WRT suitability etc. "doubt". If anything they might decide to make the whole process
worse within the realm they can still screw with it.... like increasing the training requirements etc.

Also the mega douche towns dont care about liability, QI protects those chiefs etc their shit town might get shellacked in court but it aint coming out of their pocket, well, at least not until the mayor decides to fire them. do you really think a shit town mayor like from like Springfield/Brookline is going to fire the chief for being an anti?

They're going to hang around until the town gets hit with a big legal bill/judgement and then and only then will they capitulate. Unless their attorney is like "ok you can just fold now, or pay a lot later and have your names in the paper" etc.

Time will tell.

I'm not usually a "glass half-full" kind of person, but I'm not deliberately a "glass half-empty" one either. I'm content to take this as the win I think it is. Is it going to change the world today? No, but it lays important groundwork to change it tomorrow, and that's at a minimum.

We've spent almost a century letting 2A get chipped away. It's not going to be fixed in the first decade of the Trump Court. Right now, every high profile lib in the country is "outraged." That's a good thing. As for its staying power? We don't know yet.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Everyone is talking NYC.

The NJ governor and AG are going to squeal like stuck pigs over their current "convince both your licensing agency and a judge that your need is special" going by the wayside. That will not doubt take some litigation. Ditto for HI and most of CA.

As to "is this a win" - we need to take the same view and strategy as the opposition. It's about taking territory. The opposition understands that - identify a boogeyman they can attack (currently EBRS and magazines; was handguns in the 70's), get it banned, then move on to find some other territory to take. Every thing they succeed without giving anything they already have up, they have moved the needle in their direction.

This is a win for us since we have sacrificed nothing to the opposition, and gained some things. That does not mean the fight is over - the next step is enforcing this decision.

 

[Dench]

So let me get this straight, based on recent posts today this is a great thing that really does nothing....that about right?

It's a step in the right direction! That also happens to not be in the correct direction. But whatever! Winning!

 

[40 Creedmoor fan]

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”.

This is actually a VERY important part! Currently, capacity ban lawsuit is being challenged because the lower courts are the two-step scrutiny approach. By removing lower courts' ability to use this approach, capacity laws in CA, RI, MA, and other states can be invalidated.
I suspect there are many lawsuits on hold, waiting for this decision to come out.

 

[drgrant]

The only proper ruling here was licensing is infringement and not allowed.

Yeah but let's be frank, this nostrum of this case dumping licensing was never happening and never had a chance of happening. Whether it really has even a couple teeth or not is buried in the bowels of the decision and also whether or not circuit courts are willing to go to states and say "hay you can't do that!" etc.

Even if SCOTUS had just said "no license is required to carry a gun, ever" they still would have allowed for caveats for "reasonable restriction" BS. Then you would still have tyrants being tyrants over that stuff. (eg, places you cant carry etc).

Some guy in a robe cant stop a tyrant from being a tyrant only people dropping the tyrants out of helicopters might have an effect... maybe. If its done enough times.