Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

Garys said:
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."
Click to expand...
It also means that the RI AG's office may not be able to continue it's "may issue" policy.
 
Toast said:
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.
Click to expand...
I agree, because they need to target places where the carry ban will not adversely the "special people" who already qualified for carry licenses in prohibitive jurisdictions. These special people are more likely to use private cars, car services or taxis than low cost subways.
 
VetteGirlMA said:
So it still costs money to exercise this right? Or are we talking about something that looks like applying for a credit card online. I fill it out and the credit card shows up in a week, but at no point am I paying the bank for an application.
Click to expand...
Do we pay a fee for voting? For 1st Amendment exercise?

LTCRN said:
Don't move so fast! Wait for organizations like GOAL and Comm2A to issue statements on what you and others like you should do next! There is much greater strength in numbers. I'm sure the liberal DB Healey is standing on her head trying to figure out how to handle this before the lawsuits come rolling in too!
Click to expand...
I think people (and GOAL should be advising) should be standing in line TODAY in those red towns. Put them back on their heels.

drgrant said:
basically will have a "we can take away guns form anyone we dont like" red flag system built into it where a local antifa fgt or some angry broad can just basically report anyone they dont like and get their shit taken away.
Click to expand...
Do "the people" have this same ability with government officials? Why not?

VetteGirlMA said:
I think that in the decision SCOTUS said you can't treat this right differently. It has be treated the same as all other civil rights.
Click to expand...
Voting, 1A, etc.

VetteGirlMA said:
Wouldn't charging a fee be going against this decision though? I don't pay for a license to privacy. I simply have it.
Click to expand...
Yes. No charge to vote.

Waher said:
This ruling should eliminate restricted licenses in MA. Question is whether the state will comply with SCotUS without having to be dragged through years of litigation or if the legislature will pass a bill with Shall Issue licensing but a bunch of other random bullshit to make us unhappy.
Click to expand...
It should be immediate. TODAY! People should be lining up now. In New York (state and city), as well as Massachusetts.

Hoover said:
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.
Click to expand...
What's the fee to vote? There are costs to running an election also.
 
Hoover said:
DC is shall issue, has been for 6 or 7 years. I believe that was the Heller 2 case.
Click to expand...
DC folded to avoid risk of precedent.

I wonder how the left will deal with things once NYC finally is forced to obey the decision and nothing bad happens - like in Florida where the predicted gunfights in the streets. I lived in FL a long time ago back when carry permits were reserved for persons of privilege, power and influence. I remember store owners being told "no need, hire an armored courier service to make your deposits" whereas low level politicians were approved based on a general fear of crime.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
DC folded to avoid risk of precedent.

I wonder how the left will deal with things once NYC finally is forced to obey the decision and nothing bad happens - like in Florida where the predicted gunfights in the streets. I lived in FL a long time ago back when carry permits were reserved for persons of privilege, power and influence. I remember store owners being told "no need, hire an armored courier service to make your deposits" whereas low level politicians were approved based on a general fear of crime.
Click to expand...
Cant apply logic.
They will just blame the current and future NYC crime on "gun laws"
 
Coyote33 said:
Do we pay a fee for voting? For 1st Amendment exercise?


I think people (and GOAL should be advising) should be standing in line TODAY in those red towns. Put them back on their heels.


Do "the people" have this same ability with government officials? Why not?


Voting, 1A, etc.


Yes. No charge to vote.


It should be immediate. TODAY! People should be lining up now. In New York (state and city), as well as Massachusetts.


What's the fee to vote? There are costs to running an election also.
Click to expand...

Sounds like we're on the same page.
 
Broccoli Iglesias said:
There is no negative to online applications. There will always be some possible choke point, but going online is the right step.
Click to expand...
Ha. Be careful what you wish for. I can tell you stories of the complete f***ery that has ensued once the Rmv started allowing you to do transactions online. When your situation doesn’t fit neatly into their computer they throw their hands in the air, shrug their shoulders and say sorry…….next!! Recently tried to make an appointment online and it told me no appointment do it online. When I tried to do it online it said nope have to make an appointment. WTF!! The ceiling for screw ups is high.
 
VTski4x4 said:
Buffalo Mayor, and DA just came out and said "this changes nothing." What a bunch of cocksucking pieces of shit. They have zero plan to abide by the ruling.
Click to expand...

They can only ignore reality for so long until the insurance companies that underwrite the policies give up and tell Buffalo, sorry but we're not paying anymore. A city without any protection from liability is going to be in a very dire position. One or 2 lawsuits and they'll be turning over the keys to the city.
 
VTski4x4 said:
Buffalo Mayor, and DA just came out and said "this changes nothing." What a bunch of cocksucking pieces of shit. They have zero plan to abide by the ruling.
Click to expand...

Sure... today.

NYC commissioner is saying the same thing. After all, technically, the ruling hasn't led to any change in the facts of the case. But it soon will, and when it does? It'll certainly change something.

She's saying she'll still arrest today, and I bet she will, but after this the case would get thrown out somewhere along the line. And she knows it.
 
Roadglide said:
Ha. Be careful what you wish for. I can tell you stories of the complete f***ery that has ensued once the Rmv started allowing you to do transactions online. When your situation doesn’t fit neatly into their computer they throw their hands in the air, shrug their shoulders and say sorry…….next!! Recently tried to make an appointment online and it told me no appointment do it online. When I tried to do it online it said nope have to make an appointment. WTF!! The ceiling for screw ups is high.
Click to expand...
Go to AAA.

I renewed my license online in 2 minutes.

Also, the RMV is the lowest of lowest as far as combined IQ.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
DC folded to avoid risk of precedent.

I wonder how the left will deal with things once NYC finally is forced to obey the decision and nothing bad happens - like in Florida where the predicted gunfights in the streets. I lived in FL a long time ago back when carry permits were reserved for persons of privilege, power and influence. I remember store owners being told "no need, hire an armored courier service to make your deposits" whereas low level politicians were approved based on a general fear of crime.
Click to expand...

Every time with constitutional carry there’s the blood in the street bs and murders will go up. A huge problem for the antis are they make hysterical claims which never materialize. They have n credibility because of their lies.

My favorite from the Texas constitutional carry debate.


View: https://youtu.be/Jm8FtbXzL6k
 
From footnote #9:

—————— 9To be clear, nothing in our analysis should be interpreted to suggest the unconstitutionality of the 43 States’ “shall-issue” licensing regimes, under which “a general desire for self-defense is sufficient to obtain a [permit].” Drake v. Filko, 724 F. 3d 426, 442 (CA3 2013) (Hardiman, J., dissenting). Because these licensing regimes do not require applicants to show an atypical need for armed self-defense, they do not necessarily prevent “law-abiding, responsible citizens” from exercising their Second Amendment right to public carry. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 635 (2008). Rather, it appears that these shall-issue regimes, which often require applicants to undergo a background check or pass a firearms safety course, are designed to ensure only that those bearing arms in the jurisdiction are, in fact, “law-abiding, responsible citizens.” Ibid. And they likewise appear to contain only “narrow, objective, and definite standards” guiding licensing officials, Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U. S. 147, 151 (1969), rather than requiring the “appraisal of facts, the exercise of judgment, and the formation of an opinion,” Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 305 (1940)—features that typify proper-cause standards like New York’s. That said, because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.
 

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
107
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