Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

LTCRN

NES Member
Rating - 100%
23   0   0
Joined
May 8, 2009
Messages
2,356
Likes
1,182
Location
Southeastern, MA
No it will not, at least not without further litigation. The MA licensing system is a problem in and of itself because individual PDs control the process without any real control. Many towns that are effectively 'shall issue' still impose these requirements.

I'm hopeful that MA will go to a fully on-line system where you submit your application on-line and its routed to the indivdiual PD for review and processing. I have reason to believe that something like that is in the work. This would be the key to greater accountability. Florida, Washington and other states are already using a system like this. I've recently done both of those and they work great.
A one sentence letter will be more than enough if it is still required. No need to overthink or beg anymore. The burden or reason for denial now will fall on the licensing officer or Chief, One would think that the risk of a large lawsuit will force them to think long and hard before they deny and they should leave their personal ideals, opinions, and ego's in their homes!
 

VetteGirlMA

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 3, 2015
Messages
6,772
Likes
14,992
Location
western mass
A fee would be allowed if it’s reasonable. Basically a fee is to pay for the costs of making the license, processing the paperwork etc. a fee designed to prevent people from getting a license wouldn’t be allowed.

So tomorrow if the state passed a license for free speech, as long as one paid the fee they would have free speech? You know to cover the costs for the license and all? Why not charge it through income tax which is a legitimate scheme. This way everyone pays include the anti-s
 

JRT

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Sep 13, 2013
Messages
3,336
Likes
4,803
Location
Philadelphia, PA
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.
The seven rogue states will attempt a lot of things I suspect, I agree with you there. Try as they may the minimum acceptable bar to stay out of trouble is shall issue. This is a win if you live in one of these seven nanny states.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
13,326
Likes
6,629
Yeah but they were also shitting their pants over Heller too. Of course heller was more fundamental than this is. Because it "broke the supreme court hymen" on not taking 2A cases, thats why it was a big deal.

Thomas and Alito have been gripping about the post heller rulings by lower courts. Thomas expressly says the two step process (9th circuit has 50 cases where they use that and approved every gun law) are not the standard.
 

LTCRN

NES Member
Rating - 100%
23   0   0
Joined
May 8, 2009
Messages
2,356
Likes
1,182
Location
Southeastern, MA
Range tests incoming. You must hit the bullseye on every shot.
And their target test results must be posted for all to see too! We all know how many times the majority of police officer's have to prove proficiency on a yearly basis. But there is nothing preventing them from posting a false result or lying.
 

Garys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
92   0   0
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
20,358
Likes
5,595
Location
Stoughton
Read Justice Thomas' Opinion and the concurring Opinions by Alito and Kavanaugh, especially Kavanaugh. Alito spends a lot of time kicking sand in the faces of the three dissenting Justices. Kavanaugh specifically says that this decision effects "may issue" states, but doesn't strike down "shall issue" states laws as long as they are objectively enforced.

From Kavanaugh's concurring opinion,

By contrast, 43 States employ objective shall-issue licensing regimes. Those shall-issue regimes may require a license applicant to undergo fingerprinting, a background check, a mental health records check, and training in firearms handling and in laws regarding the use of force, among other possible requirements. Brief for Arizona et al. as Amici Curiae 7. Unlike New York’s may-issue regime, those shall-issue regimes do not grant open-ended discretion to licensing officials and do not require a showing of some special need apart from self-defense. As petitioners acknowledge, shall-issue licensing regimes are constitutionally permissible, subject of course to an as-applied challenge if a shall-issue licensing regime does not operate in that manner in practice. Tr. of Oral Arg. 50−51.

Need clarification on these.
 

JRT

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Sep 13, 2013
Messages
3,336
Likes
4,803
Location
Philadelphia, PA
Read Justice Thomas' Opinion and the concurring Opinions by Alito and Kavanaugh, especially Kavanaugh. Alito spends a lot of time kicking sand in the faces of the three dissenting Justices. Kavanaugh specifically says that this decision effects "may issue" states, but doesn't strike down "shall issue" states laws as long as they are objectively enforced.

From Kavanaugh's concurring opinion,
That was a great read. Justice Thomas is a national treasure.
 

mousegunfan

NES Member
Rating - 100%
50   0   0
Joined
Mar 20, 2010
Messages
2,851
Likes
1,612
Location
Cape
Read Justice Thomas' Opinion and the concurring Opinions by Alito and Kavanaugh, especially Kavanaugh. Alito spends a lot of time kicking sand in the faces of the three dissenting Justices. Kavanaugh specifically says that this decision effects "may issue" states, but doesn't strike down "shall issue" states laws as long as they are objectively enforced.

From Kavanaugh's concurring opinion,
Sorry i feel the need to repeat this.

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

I will add, especially in a 6/3 decision.
 

Garys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
92   0   0
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
20,358
Likes
5,595
Location
Stoughton
Kavanaugh, Alito, and Barrett all state that they agree with the decision, but wanted to expand upon some of the logic involved. Unlike Thomas' concurring, but disagreeing opinion in McDonald where he took the majority to task for not reviving the 14th Amendment "Privileges or Immunities" clause which would have effectively required all states to recognize each others permits.

Sorry i feel the need to repeat this.

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
 

Mesatchornug

Instructor
NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
7,329
Likes
12,910
Location
People's Republik
Sorry i feel the need to repeat this.

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

I will add, especially in a 6/3 decision.
His concurrence explains the decision before going on to say where he differs. It's useful as a summary.
 

mousegunfan

NES Member
Rating - 100%
50   0   0
Joined
Mar 20, 2010
Messages
2,851
Likes
1,612
Location
Cape
Sorry i feel the need to repeat this.

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

I will add, especially in a 6/3 decision.

His concurrence explains the decision before going on to say where he differs. It's useful as a summary.
No it's not. It explains his decision not the majority. In other words it can't be used as precedent or in court.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
13,326
Likes
6,629
I believe The 2 part test is what was used to uphold CA mag ban

There are literally 50 cases the 9th circuit upheld a gun law and they used the 2 step approach in almost every single one. Mag bans, AWB, conceal carry, etc. all are now subject to be challenged again.

The 9th still has a 16-13 dem GOP nominee majority but in 2016 it was a 21-8 majority. The chances of a pro 2A en banc majority or 3 judge panel is decent now, it wasn’t when most of those cases were decided. Peruta, baker, etc
 

Garys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
92   0   0
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
20,358
Likes
5,595
Location
Stoughton
During COVID some PA counties allowed you to fill out the application on line, BUT required a personal appearance for the photo and printing of the license. I went to Wyoming County, PA in January of 2021 to "renew" my permit. I applied on line, received a phone call to schedule the appointment, and then drove there.

Previously, you had to do everything in person in many counties.

… as long as it’s still possible to apply on paper.

Adding a technology requirement, even if it’s a barrier most people can overcome easily, isn’t great.
 

Mesatchornug

Instructor
NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
7,329
Likes
12,910
Location
People's Republik
No it's not. It explains his decision not the majority.
I'll have to revisit his concurrence, then.

Edit
I just reread it. I see what you're getting at. That said, his entire concurrence is "to underscore two important points about the limits of the Court’s decision." That is, he's reinforcing the actual decision.
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
13,889
Likes
15,224
Let's see:

* Biden says the Supreme Court no longer honors the Constitution and is a rogue body

* Biden then brags about how many unconstitutional Executive Orders he has passed

* Biden then urges local and state governments to pass as many unconstitutional laws as they can

* Biden then urges Americans to rise up against SCOTUS because their lives are being threatened


Question: Who is the REAL insurrectionist?
 

AHM

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Messages
20,419
Likes
24,885
Location
Some caves off Route 40 past Groton
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.​
I've seen that language before:

Ham Radio Antennas: What Does the Law Require of Localities or Municipalities?
By Fred Hopengarten​
...​
FCC Materials
...​
DA 99-2569. An additional FCC order was issued in 1999, stating the FCC position on two items which some localities and courts had found confusing. DA 99- 2569 rejects balancing tests (“it is clear that a "balancing of interests" approach is not appropriate”). The local authority may not balance the interests of the community against those of the amateur, as the FCC has already done the balancing and issued a Federal rule.​

In other words,
don't come crying to us demanding compromise -
what you're bitching about is the result of a compromise,
and we're all done with that noise.
The "compromise" is baked in to the law you don't like.


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”.
Those words will speak volumes to constitutional scholars.

Man, some of you guys are too busy high five-ing and back patting to realize this means nothing for the people that were banking on this meaning something.
People who expected this ruling to talk about assault weapon bans
and magazine restrictions have a very tenuous grasp on reality.

That's like expecting Traffic Court to reopen Sacco and Vanzetti.

I don't see how an e-filing scheme solves anything.
If ultimately the only bars to gun ownership recognized as valid
are the FPP rules, then applying for a license boils down to passing a NICS check.
Add in Home Firearm Safety, and it's still easier than getting a full driver's license.
If you don't see a significant difference between that and the current Mass crapfest...

(I don't know; maybe I'm wrong. You're a car fancier.
Are the Intarweb car forums choked with people asking
which Registry office has the easiest road test layout,
like the incessant din of newb NESers asking
whether their police chief slaps restrictions on new LTCs?)

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.
The first chief to deny a whistle-clean applicant
will have selected Comm2A's defendant for the suit
to sh¡tcan the entire suitability scheme;
perhaps even the fact that the system is town-based
(including address change notifications in triplicate).

If Comm2A gets the system thrown out,
that will get as many as 347 towns pissed off at
whichever one of the four red jurisdictions that Killed The Job.

It also could kill all the extra requirements. If the online portion is the application, then the PD exists for prints and interview...
Interview? What's an "interview"?

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.
A bright spot is that if it requires a second case to smack the dumpster fire states in to line,
SCOTUS may issue a snap per curiam opinion (like the 9-0 of Caetano)
that says "what part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?"

And if that happens to some other state with a big pile of infringed applicants
who can bankroll a big case, it'll smack the rest of the semi-uppity states in to line.

(Not to mention FPC having a running start on cases).

Based on quick reading it feels like a win, but it is more about equal access to the law under the 14th. What would stop NYC from having a tiered license that applies to everyone?
Because that bears no resemblance to the text and history of the Constitution.

I wonder if the new firearms bill with age restrictions will now have to be pulled and redone.
I wonder if the clowns embedded a severability clause in the new firearms bill,
or if one flick sends the whole house of cards tumbling down.

After all, they screwed that up on Obamacare.
 

Bladerunner

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
2,306
Likes
7,273
Dear Mr. Chief of Police:

Consistent with The Supreme Court's recent ruling in NYSR&PA v. Bruen, which found that "may issue" state licensing schemes are unconstitutionaI, I respecfully decline to provide ANY rationale for why I'm submitting this application today.

Furthermore, go eat a dick.

Regards,
Bladerunner
 
Last edited:
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Aug 2, 2019
Messages
2,243
Likes
2,762
Location
Central Ma.
Expanded article from 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 in the case, 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.

“The Second and 14th Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court. New York law requiring that applicants justify their need for a concealed-weapons permit thus was unconstitutional.

The ruling came on the same day Senate Democrats and more than a dozen Republicans were set to advance bipartisan gun control legislation past its last procedural hurdle, setting up a final passage for as soon as Friday on the biggest firearms legislation in decades.

The Supreme Court’s decision swept further than the rules for concealed-weapons permits. The court rejected the legal method overwhelmingly used by lower courts to evaluate gun regulations, which has considered such government’s interests as crime prevention. Under that standard, most weapons laws have been upheld since the Supreme Court first recognized an individual right under the Second Amendment in its 2008 decision on District of Columbia v. Heller and a subsequent ruling in McDonald v. Chicago in 2010.

Instead, Justice Thomas wrote Thursday, a weapons law is constitutional only if the government demonstrates “that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett joined the opinion.

Under that standard—previously asserted in dissenting opinions by Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett when they sat on lower courts—gun advocates believe more regulations will fall, allowing greater access to weapons and ammunition nationwide.

A 52-page dissent by Justice Stephen Breyer began bluntly. “In 2020, 45,222 Americans were killed by firearms,” he wrote, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. History alone shouldn’t govern the Second Amendment’s application, he wrote, for “it is constitutionally proper, indeed often necessary… to consider the serious dangers and consequences of gun violence that lead States to regulate firearms.”

While Republican-leaning states have been loosening gun regulations over the past decade, some more urban states have maintained their traditional limits on concealed weapons. In his opinion, Justice Thomas specifically mentioned that permit laws in California, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts and New Jersey shared New York’s constitutional flaw.

“We are currently reviewing the decision from the Supreme Court on New York’s ability to regulate who can carry firearms in public,” New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a tweet. “But we will continue to do everything in our power to protect New Yorkers from gun violence and preserve our state’s common sense gun laws.”

Tom King, executive director of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, which brought Thursday’s case, said the decision “means that the people in New York state and hopefully the nation are going to be allowed the benefit of the Second Amendment rather than having their rights limited by left leaning politicians.”

Mr. King’s group, an affiliate of the National Rifle Association, has been litigating against New York’s gun laws for years, making Thursday’s ruling a milestone achievement for the group. While the court’s dissenters raised the specter of gun violence, Mr. King said,“they are creating victims by keeping firearms out of the hands of the lawful gun owners.”

President Biden said in a statement he was “deeply disappointed” by the court’s opinion. “This ruling contradicts both common sense and the Constitution, and should deeply trouble us all,” he said. Citing former Justice Antonin Scalia in noting that the Second Amendment isn’t an absolute ban on gun regulation, Mr. Biden urged states to “continue to enact and enforce commonsense laws to make their citizens and communities safer from gun violence.”

As a matter of legal interpretation, the Bruen opinion reflects the triumph of originalism—the method championed by conservatives that applies the Constitution according to the court’s determination of the text’s “original public meaning” at the time it was adopted. Both majority conservatives and liberal dissenters argued that history supported their positions.

The Supreme Court made its first significant opinion regarding the Second Amendment in decades with its 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. That opinion, striking down Washington’s municipal handgun ban, recognized an individual right to armed self-defense within the home. Two years later, invalidating a similar ordinance in Chicago, the court extended that right nationwide. Both 5-4 decisions, adopted over liberal dissent, discarded earlier views that the Second Amendment referenced a collective right to militia service that states retained upon establishing the Union.

The move toward broader gun rights then paused, with the court passing up opportunities to elaborate on the extent to which the Constitution protects weapons possession.

Liberal justices never accepted the new construction that elevated individual decisions about self-defense over public-safety regulations adopted by state and local lawmakers. Conservatives at the court’s center, including Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy, remained silent as their colleagues further to the right, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito among them, argued that the new Second Amendment right was left to atrophy.

Lower courts, over the intervening decade, upheld most state and local weapons laws against Second Amendment challenges, often noting the Heller decision’s allowance for reasonable regulation of firearms.

The landscape changed when President Donald Trump—who pledged to appoint Supreme Court justices from a list cleared by leaders of conservative organizations such as the Federalist Society—had the rare opportunity of a one-term president to fill three vacancies. Two of his nominees, Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, stood significantly to the right of their predecessors, Anthony Kennedy and the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Among conservatives activists pressing for change on constitutional issues, expanding access to weapons has long stood second only to rescinding abortion rights as an objective.

Democrats who control New York’s state government enacted a series of laws this month to strengthen the state’s gun controls. The new laws increase the minimum age to purchase a semiautomatic rifle to 21 from 18 and ban the sale of bullet-resistant vests."
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
13,326
Likes
6,629
The next few weeks will be interesting. There were mag limit cases pending cert at SCOTUS from NJ and CA (3rd and 9th circuit ), an open carry license case from Hawaii (young, the 9th) and an AWB case from MD (4th circuit).

Does SCOTUS take one of them, deny cert allowing the lower court decision to stand or return to the lower court with instructions based on the NYSRPA case?

That will tell us a lot.
 
Top Bottom