Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

[Alex9661]

So you roll a grenade, then you pull the pin. I guess things change cause I'm pretty sure I was taught a different sequence.

 

[hv55maxx]

The Gun Grenade in the Hands of the Supreme Court

they're cringin'

I can't even read these articles anymore without almost puking with how little actual knowledge of history and civil rights these retards have.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

I thought Young vs Hawaii was supposed to be that case? Or are the conservative SCOTUS judges going to wait to grant cert to that case after they adopt strict scrutiny with this NY case?

The 9th Circuit just today vacated the Young v. Hawaii decision and is ordering rehearing en banc. It won't be SCOTUS ready until next term at the earliest. Rogers (petition submitted) and Gould (petition due April 1st) are rather along.

 

[T-Unit]

The 9th Circuit just today vacated the Young v. Hawaii decision and is ordering rehearing en banc. It won't be SCOTUS ready until next term at the earliest. Rogers (petition submitted) and Gould (petition due April 1st) are rather along.

Which would be after strict scrutiny is applied and possibly when a successor to RGB is on the bench.

Things look like they're shaping up to be like SCOTUS will rule open carry must be permitless nation wide.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Which would be after strict scrutiny is applied and possibly when a successor to RGB is on the bench.

Things look like they're shaping up to be like SCOTUS will rule open carry must be permitless nation wide.

We shouldn't get too hung up on the tiers of scrutiny paradigm. Scrutiny levels are an invention of the courts, they aren't the standard marker in every civil rights context, and a lot of judges have a problem with them. They're a convenient way to talk about what does and does not burden a constitutional right, but they're not the end-all. Don't be surprised if the Supreme Court takes a different approach to the Second Amendment.

 

[Coyote33]

... Don't be surprised if the Supreme Court takes a different approach to the Second Amendment.

This is what I don't get. How can they interpret things a certain way 9 times, then suddenly differently on the 10th? What logic can they possibly use to justify this break in consistency?

 

[drgrant]

Which would be after strict scrutiny is applied and possibly when a successor to RGB is on the bench.

Things look like they're shaping up to be like SCOTUS will rule open carry must be permitless nation wide.

I have a nice bridge to sell you if you actually believe that. They will contort themselves into a knot to have a narrow ruling.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Volokh Conspiracy: Right to Carry Guns in Public Headed for Ninth Circuit En Banc

No surprise really. CA9 hates us and they don't want one of their cases going up.

 

[Boston4567]

This is what I don't get. How can they interpret things a certain way 9 times, then suddenly differently on the 10th? What logic can they possibly use to justify this break in consistency?

There is a strong political consensus around the other rights, which allows for relatively consistent application of the tiers of scrutiny among judges across the political spectrum. That is not the case with the Second Amendment. It is also much more difficult and inherently political to apply balancing tests to 2A. No one denies the centrality of crime prevention to the government's legitimate purpose, so you have a heavy weight on the other side of the scale in any balancing test situation.

We're better off with a text, history, and tradition analysis: https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cg...ir=1&article=5763&context=faculty_scholarship

 

[AHM]

The Daily Caller: New York City Changes Firearms Transport Policy Before SCOTUS Review

(Hat tip: Instapundit, who says:

They know they’re going to lose, and hope to make this case go away.​

).

 

[xtry51]

They're still saying you must transport unloaded. It's effectively no change

 

[Dadstoys]

They're still saying you must transport unloaded. It's effectively no change

That and "Conditions" on transport, whatever the hell that means.

 

[MaverickNH]

Here’s the SCOTUS Docket page to track filings and briefs. Time to file amicus brief extended to Aug19 - one recent Mar19 is worth a read.

Quotable bit: “At their heart, gun control regulations have always been about a fundamental mistrust of one’s fellow citizens to behave in a civilized way.”

They wisely did not insert what I’m sure they wanted to say: “...mistrust of one’s fellow citizens [by the wealthy, elite ruling class] to behave in a civilized way [befitting their place in society].”

Search - Supreme Court of the United States

 

[Dadstoys]

Here’s the SCOTUS Docket page to track filings and briefs. Time to file amicus brief extended to Aug19 - one recent Mar19 is worth a read.

Quotable bit: “At their heart, gun control regulations have always been about a fundamental mistrust of one’s fellow citizens to behave in a civilized way.”

They wisely did not insert what I’m sure they wanted to say: “...mistrust of one’s fellow citizens [by the wealthy, elite ruling class] to behave in a civilized way [befitting their place in society].”

Search - Supreme Court of the United States

Or . "Do you know how hard it is to force your will onto people who can fight back ?"

 

[Squire]

Left-wing Statist Regimes don't trust their Citizens because they need them to comply with the oppression in the name of the Greater Good.

The only solution to the Constitutional Crisis over 2A is separate Countries. Everything that happens with SCOUTUS, State/Municipal ploicies, and Individual disobedience is just leading up to a Revolution and forming of a new Nation.

Here’s the SCOTUS Docket page to track filings and briefs. Time to file amicus brief extended to Aug19 - one recent Mar19 is worth a read.

Quotable bit: “At their heart, gun control regulations have always been about a fundamental mistrust of one’s fellow citizens to behave in a civilized way.”

They wisely did not insert what I’m sure they wanted to say: “...mistrust of one’s fellow citizens [by the wealthy, elite ruling class] to behave in a civilized way [befitting their place in society].”

Search - Supreme Court of the United States

 

[ThePreBanMan]

Don't worry, John Roberts will throw us under the bus and we'll continue on with business as usual.

 

[CatSnoutSoup]

Don't worry, John Roberts will throw us under the bus and we'll continue on with business as usual.

If the Chief Justice runs out of Febreze and Trump notices Ruthie has been dead since last year then John's influence will be over...

:emoji_tiger:

 

[Coyote33]

...The only solution to the Constitutional Crisis over 2A is separate Countries. Everything that happens with SCOUTUS, State/Municipal ploicies, and Individual disobedience is just leading up to a Revolution and forming of a new Nation.

What?

 

[AHM]

If the Chief Justice runs out of Febreze and Trump notices Ruthie has been dead since last year then John's influence will be over...
... :emoji_tiger:

^THIS.

 

[KBCraig]

“At their heart, gun control regulations have always been about a fundamental mistrust of one’s fellow citizens to behave in a civilized way.”

They wisely did not insert what I’m sure they wanted to say: “...mistrust of one’s fellow citizens [by the wealthy, elite ruling class] to behave in a civilized way [befitting their place in society].”

Short version: gun control only applies to those people, not good people like us.

 

[AHM]

Short version: gun control only applies to those people, not good people like us.

Slightly longer version,
for the truthiness:

Gun control only applies to
the people that vote for us,
and the people that don't vote for us -
not the people that are us.​

 

[PeterC]

SCOTUS Denies New York City's Motion - NYSRPA Case To Move Forward -

Good news

 

[AHM]

SCOTUS Denies New York City's Motion - NYSRPA Case To Move Forward -

Don’t expect this case to move quickly. The wheels of justice grind slowly, and that applies double for the Supreme Court.​

Keep filing those motions, NY.
You don't want that case heard by the current court.
See if you can get it delayed until RBG checks out.
Yeah; that's the ticket.


Someone should troll Moonbat Nation -
spread Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt about
which cases in the pipeline will be heard
after she's gone.

 

[CatSnoutSoup]

I hope they keep the court chambers at a very chilly 34 degrees.....

I am thinking by this point they have probably applied a couple coats of polyurethane, a nice understated semi-gloss, nothing to shiny I mean she is a supreme court justice after all.

:emoji_tiger:

 

[PeterC]

Don’t expect this case to move quickly. The wheels of justice grind slowly, and that applies double for the Supreme Court.​

Keep filing those motions, NY.
You don't want that case heard by the current court.
See if you can get it delayed until RBG checks out.
Yeah; that's the ticket.


Someone should troll Moonbat Nation -
spread Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt about
which cases in the pipeline will be heard
after she's gone.

Well, true that. However, it is *moving* and, so far, it's moving in a direction seemingly favorable to our side. We'll see.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

A danger is that SCOTUS will rule for us while adding additional verbiage like "nothing in this shall be construed as placing any limits on who may be granted a license to carry a gun outside the home".

 

[CatSnoutSoup]

A danger is that SCOTUS will rule for us while adding additional verbiage like "nothing in this shall be construed as placing any limits on who may be granted a license to carry a gun outside the home".

That would be unfortunate because while I don’t see the court saying that constitutional carry is the law of the land any time soon I do hope that sometime soon one of these cases results in “shall issue” being ruled the minimum standard.

:emoji_tiger:

 

[Waher]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...SRPA v. NYC - Brief for Petitioners FINAL.pdf

 

[xtry51]

It's hard to imagine you need to write such a document. It should be sufficient to simply point at Heller.

The problem with these cases is states and cities run by anti gunners can just pass 50-100 more laws in the time it takes to combat a single one through the system.

The scrutiny system is f***ing absurd to boot. There's one f***ing test for a natural right. Does what your asking to do physically or financially harm another citizen? If the answer is no, you can't pass a law regulating or banning it.

The design of the court system was a terrible travesty in the creation of this country. The assumption in court should always be the citizen is free to do as they please unless the state can produce a harmed citizen with a complaint that is provable AND the state cannot present itself as the victim.

 

[DispositionMatrix]

BRIEF OF FIREARMS POLICY FOUNDATION, FIREARMS POLICY COALITION, AND THE CALGUNS FOUNDATION AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS

U.S. Supreme Court Must Strike Down New York City Gun Control Rule and Tell Lower Courts to Enforce the Actual Text of Our Constitution’s Second Amendment, Argue Three Second Amendment Groups

The brief argues that many “courts have been relentless and creative in their efforts to uphold virtually any restriction on keeping or bearing arms,” and that those courts “lack the clear and firm guidance required for them to follow the law, rather than their predilections,” as the Second Circuit Court of Appeals did in the decision below by excluding much protected conduct from the supposed “core” of the Second Amendment, denying those things meaningful protection. But, the organizations’ brief says, “Rights covered by the text of the Second Amendment – as interpreted and understood according to history, practice, and public meaning when it and the Fourteenth Amendment were adopted – are not divided into lesser and greater categories. The Constitution itself has done the categorizing and those rights covered ‘shall not be infringed.’ Period.” Indeed, the court filing argues, “There is no further clause beginning with “except * * *.” No qualification of the prohibition saying some of those rights can be infringed a little, or if the government really feels strongly about it, or has reconsidered the costs and benefits of protecting such rights.”

The organizations also argue that so-called “tiers” of scrutiny used by courts are a “wholly judicial invention” that “should be viewed with skepticism when applied to conduct directly protected by the constitutional text.” Rather, they say, the “proper approach . . . would be to examine the text of the Second Amendment in light of the history, tradition and public meaning,” and “if the regulated conduct falls within the protection of such text, the regulation should be struck down” without need for further analysis. “Such a textual and categorical approach – government action forbidden by the Second Amendment is actually forbidden – is more faithful to the Constitution and would avoid much, if not all, of the gamesmanship now used by the courts applying watered-down versions of tiered scrutiny,” they argue.

“As our brief makes clear, the Constitution’s text means that all laws which ‘infringe on Second Amendment rights ‘shall not be infringed’,” explained FPC President and FPF Chairman Brandon Combs. “We believe that the Second Amendment’s text should not only guide the analysis, but is itself the the more constitutionally faithful analysis. History and tradition may well inform the contours of the right to keep and bear arms, but even those are extra-textual considerations best used to understand the contemporaneous meaning of the language rather than to supplement or restrict the language used. When honestly and appropriately applied, constitutional scrutiny in Second Amendment cases means that the American people must be able to access and exercise a robust and broad array of constitutionally-protected instruments and conduct.”