Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

[Mesatchornug]

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.

While "shall not be infringed" would have been an ideal decision, that would be incompatible with the question they were investigating. Frankly "licenses are unconstitutional" is incompatible with the question. The question at hand was "is this NY law constitutional?" And even that took a decade to get in front of them.

So now we know. Yes, the NY law stands opposite our constitutional protections. We also know (bonus!) that "because guns" is no longer an acceptable excuse for supporting standing infringements.

Separately, we know there are 50+ cases that were previously decided based on ends-means balancing that can now be revisited, including magazine and AW bans. Someone sufficiently driven might, now, be able to revisit the entire license conversation (or, more likely, training requirements and fees).

 

[sig shooter]

Eat Shit Sleepy Joe

 

[VetteGirlMA]

While "shall not be infringed" would have been an ideal decision, that would be incompatible with the question they were investigating. Frankly "licenses are unconstitutional" is incompatible with the question. The question at hand was "is this NY law constitutional?" And even that took a decade to get in front of them.

So now we know. Yes, the NY law stands opposite our constitutional protections. We also know (bonus!) that "because guns" is no longer an acceptable excuse for supporting standing infringements.

Separately, we know there are 50+ cases that were previously decided based on ends-means balancing that can now be revisited, including magazine and AW bans. Someone sufficiently driven might, now, be able to revisit the entire license conversation (or, more likely, training requirements and fees).

I would love to know how many more years I will have to wait that doesn't involve me moving to another state before I can walk into a gun shop and see an AR or AK for plain old money like it used to be a few years ago, or gone is the separate display case that says 'for sale to leo only'. That will be a great day as far as I'm concerned. I'm not going to hold my breath though.

 

[Toast]

And the game's afoot. NY Mayor Eric Adams:

“We have been preparing for this decision and will continue to do everything possible to work with our federal, state, and local partners to protect our city. Those efforts will include a comprehensive review of our approach to defining ‘sensitive locations’ where carrying a gun is banned, and reviewing our application process to ensure that only those who are fully qualified can obtain a carry license … we cannot allow New York to become the Wild West.”​

​

Clearly they're going to try to expand all the places you can't carry to the point where it's difficult to carry without hitting one of them.

From Thomas' decision, which recognizes that the government can still prohibit carry in "sensitive places":

To be clear, even if a modern-day regulation is not a dead ringer for historical precursors, it still may be analogous enough to pass constitutional muster. For example, courts can use analogies to “longstanding” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings” to determine whether modern regulations are constitutionally permissible. That said, respondents’ attempt to characterize New York’s proper-cause requirement as a “sensitive-place” law lacks merit because there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a “sensitive place” simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department.​

From Breyer's dissent, giving them a possible roadmap:

"So where does that leave the many locations in a modern city with no obvious 18th- or 19th-century analogue? What about subways, nightclubs, movie theaters, and sports stadiums? The court does not say."​

So, if I had to bet, states will now start piling on "sensitive places", there'll be a lot of lawsuits, the same circuit courts that ignored Heller and McDonald will proclaim those sensitive definitions as valid, rinse and repeat until it gets back to the SC in 8 to 14 years.

Where am I putting my money on the first set of places to be deemed "sensitive"? Public transit locations, because if people can't carry there, they're unable to bring a gun to a place where they can carry. Does it fly in the face of Thomas' statement that the Second Amendment guarantees an “individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation”? Sure it does, but that won't stop massive foot dragging in the hopes of getting to a different court in the future.

 

[NewGuyRay]

So it would seem there is no historical or traditional justification for prohibitions on individuals manufacturing firearms for personal use.

According to Thomas's writing, periods of time significantly pre, or post-dating the Ratification and Reconstruction eras should not be considered when search for history and tradition. On that basis, is there any historical or traditional justification for the Feds to require serial numbers on firearms?

 

[Chevy 2 65]

Blhahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

[Bladerunner]

They say the ruling violates the constitution. Which part? Please explain it to me….

The living part you dolt!

 

[Cap'n Mike]

This decision does for bearing arms what Heller did for keeping arms.
it seems to be the best outcome we could have realisticly hoped for in one descision.

 

[FalArAk]

Blhahahahahahahahahahahahaha

View attachment 629701

That car around here would make heads explode on both sides, I love it!

 

[VetteGirlMA]

Blhahahahahahahahahahahahaha

View attachment 629701

You will be shocked to learn exactly how many LGBT folks have walked away from the democrats in the last few years. Give them a spot in republican party. There are a lot of things they support that line up very nicely with republican ideals. The dems are bleeding voters everywhere except for possibly cemeteries where the residents there vote democrat 100% of the time.

 

[Bladerunner]

A patchwork of sensitive places such that it will be impossibe to stay within the law. Penalties will be draconian.

 

[Admin]

 

[Admin]

 

[Gidge]

Abortion is the be all to the left. They’re obsessed with it

Satan has always loved child sacrifice. Liberals think they're so hip and modern, liberalism is nothing more than neo-paganism.

 

[Dench]

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."

I cant think of many events in my life I stated were victories while I continued I had no idea why or how.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

And the game's afoot. NY Mayor Eric Adams:

“We have been preparing for this decision and will continue to do everything possible to work with our federal, state, and local partners to protect our city. Those efforts will include a comprehensive review of our approach to defining ‘sensitive locations’ where carrying a gun is banned, and reviewing our application process to ensure that only those who are fully qualified can obtain a carry license … we cannot allow New York to become the Wild West.”​

​

Clearly they're going to try to expand all the places you can't carry to the point where it's difficult to carry without hitting one of them.

From Thomas' decision, which recognizes that the government can still prohibit carry in "sensitive places":

To be clear, even if a modern-day regulation is not a dead ringer for historical precursors, it still may be analogous enough to pass constitutional muster. For example, courts can use analogies to “longstanding” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings” to determine whether modern regulations are constitutionally permissible. That said, respondents’ attempt to characterize New York’s proper-cause requirement as a “sensitive-place” law lacks merit because there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a “sensitive place” simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department.​

So, if I had to bet, states will now start piling on "sensitive places", there'll be a lot of lawsuits, the same circuit courts that ignored Heller and McDonald will proclaim those sensitive definitions as valid, rinse and repeat until it gets back to the SC in 8 to 14 years.

My money on the first set of places to be deemed "sensitive"? Public transit locations, because if people can't carry there, they're unable to bring a gun to a place where they can carry. Does it fly in the face of Thomas' statement that you can carry in order to be armed in case of confrontation? Sure it does, but that won't stop massive foot dragging in the hopes of getting to a different court in the future.

Yeah but at least there is a decision stopping them from simply expanding this across the board. If I recall Longmeadow MA tried to outlaw carrying in all public places including roads. Of course the first question out of my mouth was, how does someone get to the range? Tough sh*t isn't going to be a permissible answer in court.

 

[Individualist]

Well, yer an intelligent fella ain’t chya?

 

[VetteGirlMA]

God do I love the salty tears of the left. They grab for the ring of power, they miss and then they cry.

 

[Hoover]

Close: California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York. DC as well, but it's not a state.

DC is shall issue, has been for 6 or 7 years. I believe that was the Heller 2 case.

 

[Hoover]

God do I love the salty tears of the left. They grab for the ring of power, they miss and then they cry.

Ah, the sexism. Barrett is 10x smarter than olberman dreams he is.

 

[Hoover]

A patchwork of sensitive places such that it will be impossibe to stay within the law. Penalties will be draconian.

Won’t be allowed. Thomas addressed sensitive place restrictions and it was part of the oral arguments. Also DC tried to do this after the Dc circuit made DC a shall issue jurisdiction and the court struck down the plethora of restrictions DC tried to impose. They tried no carry within 1000 ft of a school, etc. the court struck them down

 

[Admin]

Me scrolling through social media today.

 

[Dennis in MA]

Arbitrary restrictions in red towns will be hardest hit.

You can totally see them trying to ignore it.

"You have to pass our interview."

"Unconstitutional."

"Well, the chief has final say, though."

"Unconstitutional."

"We need a doctor's note. . . . "

"UN-CON-STUH-TOO-SHUN-UL!"

"We'd like a letter from 3 people not related to you."

"ARE YOU NOT HEARING ME?!?!?!?!?"

"We're really not sure at this point. We don't like you're anti-government attitude."

You KNOW there will be a few towns that cause some here to have to pay our fine legal folks of NES in order to defend their own rights.

 

[El_Guapo77]

 

[Bladerunner]

Lot's of salt to mine.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

Wow this new SCOTUS decision is awesome. I picked this up at Harbor Freight with no background checks, LTC or paperwork. Freaking amazing.

 

[JRT]

A patchwork of sensitive places such that it will be impossibe to stay within the law. Penalties will be draconian.

I have no doubt that NYC will turn everything into a sensitive area. It will look like TexASS with "gun buster" signs on every business.

 

[Admin]

These guys are flat out retarded. Sorry bro if it's no enumerated power by the constitution it's a states rights issue. You learned that in 5th grade.

 

[Admin]

Here are the 19 Worst Media Meltdowns Over the SCOTUS Ruling Defending Americans' Gun Rights

"A dark day in America. This is a dangerous decision from a court hell bent on pushing a radical ideological agenda and infringing on the rights of states"...

beckernews.com

 

[eboos]

Its long past time to take on "assault weapons" bans on the basis of common use vs "dangerous and unusual". 60+ years of AR sales tends to favor common use.