Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

Bladerunner said:
Dear Mr. Chief of Police:

Consistent with The Supreme Court's recent ruling in Bruen v. NY, 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
Click to expand...

Bruen is the NY bureaucrat. The case is NY state rifle and pistol association vs bruen in his official capacity
 
Coda said:
View attachment 629633
Click to expand...
If you think the Left isn’t dissecting this decision in it’s minutiae to figure out how it can be “interpreted” to their advantage you should stick to performing yoga poses on the beach.

ETA:
Manhattan Attorney General Alvin Bragg concurred. “At this very moment, my office is analyzing this ruling and crafting gun safety legislation that will take the strongest steps possible to mitigate the damage done today,” Bragg said in a statement.
 
Last edited:
mousegunfan said:
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
Click to expand...
I suspect that concurring opinions are a way of indicating which parts of the 2nd amendment should be reviewed next SCOTUS. It's like "if you bring this question to the supreme court, we will rule on it this thusly."
 
slugworth said:
Just saw camel toe talking about it🤦🏼🤦🏼
Click to expand...
She's such an idiot and empty pants suit. Took her 6 shots to sink a basket from 10 ft. and WH DB puts out tweet, "nothing but net" Do these people really believe citizens are that stupid? Do they realize we can read, write, type and use search engines?
 
SFC13557 said:
She's such an idiot and empty pants suit. Took her 6 shots to sink a basket from 10 ft. and WH DB puts out tweet, "nothing but net" Do these people really believe citizens are that stupid? Do they realize we can read, write, type and use search engines?
Click to expand...

Her targeted audience is not you, and yes her audience is that stupid.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
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.
Click to expand...
Good point.

JRT said:
if you live in one of the seven may issue states
Click to expand...
Can you list these?

xtry51 said:
The only proper ruling here was licensing is infringement and not allowed.
Click to expand...
They should have just said "Follow the Second Amendment".

1903Collector said:
So let me get this straight, based on recent posts today this is a great thing that really does nothing....that about right?
Click to expand...
Dench said:
It's a step in the right direction! That also happens to not be in the correct direction. But whatever! Winning!
Click to expand...
It is better than "losing". Don't rain on the parade.
 
AHM said:
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?)
Click to expand...


Okay so is this process different for a first time versus renewing person? A drivers license is not the same thing as a license to carry. That's the whole point to this decision today. You can't treat 2A differently than 1A-10A.

So again I ask, with greater specificity:

1). First time applicant: What happens and why should that person be required to interact with law enforcement in any way shape or form?

2). Renewing applicant: Fill out renewal app and a new LTC shows up in the mail

Charging a fee would violate this decision. Making people jump through extra hoops would violate this decision. The only way I can see this working is this:

1). First time applicant:
a) Sign up to a state run firearms school to get a certificate. There is no cost other than personal time and travel back and forth.
b) The school teaches the things one needs to know to not run afoul of the law and makes the sheep happy.
c) With the certificate number from the class, go online and complete an app to apply. There is no fee or charges required.
d) Wait a week or 2 and the LTC shows up in the mail ready to use
e). Buy first firearm and enjoy.

That to me is draconian however it's liveable assuming that there are no fees whatsoever. Any fee is a barrier to utilizing rights

2). Renewing applicant:
a). Go to website fill out app for renewal
b). Wait a week or 2 and the LTC shows up in the mail ready to use

This small window (1-2 weeks) gives the state enough time to run not just background checks but any other kind of mental health checks, etc. There's no fees or costs to applicants. All costs are the burden of taxpayers and not the applicant. Once the LTC is issued than the libtards can sleep peacefully at night. If a person is denied it has to be for very stringent and serious reasons.


I honestly feel that being a citizen of Massachusetts for most of my life that we're like the people living in North Korea except we know that the people who live 200 miles away are free citizens. Over here, we've just been set free and now we don't know what to do without having a permission slip for every last little thing.
 
GOAL has released a statement saying it's a victory, but they need time to sort out what this might mean for MA gun owners. I wonder what RI will do as their law states it's shall issue, but various cities and towns treat it as "may, but probably won, and if we do you'll have to jump through more hoops than a hungry Seal."
 
We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Click to expand...
I gather this means absolutely nothing good happens in the short term, and the case is handed back to a lower court for additional shenanigans.
 
Toast said:
Gun control isn't a sacrament to the left the way that abortion is.
Click to expand...

Gun control to the left is a perennial fund raising issue. They pump millions out of Bloombergs wallet and deliver nothing. If they delivered on anything they would lose the need for the cash. So it's in their best interests to keep the game going forever. Abortion is their sacred cow, the hill they are willing to die on. Except now that impending decision will be very difficult if not impossible to overturn.
 
Coyote33 said:
Good point.


Can you list these?


They should have just said "Follow the Second Amendment".



It is better than "losing". Don't rain on the parade.
Click to expand...

I believe these are the states that all referenced as the seven that did not conform to the national norm.
  1. Hawaii
  2. California
  3. Maryland
  4. New Jersey
  5. New York
  6. Connecticut
  7. Massachusetts
 
DispositionMatrix said:
I gather this means absolutely nothing good happens in the short term, and the case is handed back to a lower court for additional shenanigans.
Click to expand...

They lower court has to abide by scotus and they can't make up a BS excuse for denying again. It's basically over and the lower court is wrong and their decision is remanded back.
 
JRT said:
I believe these are the states that all referenced as the seven that did not conform to the national norm.
  1. Hawaii
  2. California
  3. Maryland
  4. New Jersey
  5. New York
  6. Connecticut
  7. Massachusetts
Click to expand...
Close: California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York. DC as well, but it's not a state.
 

Similar threads

Garland v. VanDerStok
Replies
0
Views
114
lutstribe
L
Supreme Court decision on rifle bans
Replies
9
Views
739
Tartakovsky
Tartakovsky
Circuit Court Judge Strikes Down Illinois FOID Card Requirement for Guns in the Home
Replies
1
Views
100
sbhaven
S
Supreme Court ending permits
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
Worcester State Court Gun Policy
Replies
12
Views
454
Mark from ?
M
Back
Top Bottom