Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

Rob Boudrie said:
A first step should be not just "shall issue" but "shall issue without restrictions". Two potential cases come to mind:

1) a person denied for a non-disabling record (expired RO; not guilty finding; dismissed charges; etc.)
2) a person denied unrestricted outright, or issued a restricted LTC. Brookline, meet Comm2A [rofl]
Click to expand...
Wouldn't "shall issue" and "shall issue without restrictions" be one and the same under this cases analysis? If an applicant does not need to show extraordinary circumstances to justify their need for a license and the discretionary approval/denial is removed in favor of a scheme where any qualified applicant shall be issued the license, wouldn't a set of restricted and unrestricted licenses being issued at the discretion of the licensing authority run afoul of this ruling?

I read most of the opinion, but not all of it. It seemed to strike down denials based on "suitability" so long as they are not otherwise a federally prohibited person.
 
Hoover said:
This is hilarious. Blondie is ok with a former NYC cop having a CCW because he was highly trained lol. The former federal prosecutor, the black woman not named whoopi says the NY scheme was about not allowing carry on subways and sensitive places. She’s a lawyer talking about a case she obviously didn’t read or listen to the arguments on.

And blondie says good guys with guys are shooting on streets all the time, killing kids. What an idiot

www.newsbusters.org

'INSANITY!' The View Loses Their Minds Over SCOTUS Gun Carry Ruling

With the Supreme Court finding that New York’s arduous restrictions on the concealed carrying of firearms violated the Constitution in a 6-3 ruling on Thursday, the unhinged coven that made up ABC’s The View lost their minds.
www.newsbusters.org www.newsbusters.org
Click to expand...
Can you imagine the douchebaggery of this masturbating monkey?

"You know, we know that in the United States you have the right under the First Amendment to say pretty much anything anywhere because we have freedom of speech in the United States. What the conservatives on the Supreme Court are saying is we want the Second Amendment to be a first class right like the First Amendment," Toobin griped.

www.foxnews.com

SCOTUS guns rights ruling prompts meltdown from CNN's Toobin: Conservatives want guns 'anywhere anytime'

CNN's Jeffrey Toobin railed against the Supreme Court striking down a strict New York State gun law, and argued the ruling could lead to more mass shootings.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com
 
GaryO said:
Can you imagine the douchebaggery of this masturbating monkey?

"You know, we know that in the United States you have the right under the First Amendment to say pretty much anything anywhere because we have freedom of speech in the United States. What the conservatives on the Supreme Court are saying is we want the Second Amendment to be a first class right like the First Amendment," Toobin griped.

www.foxnews.com

SCOTUS guns rights ruling prompts meltdown from CNN's Toobin: Conservatives want guns 'anywhere anytime'

CNN's Jeffrey Toobin railed against the Supreme Court striking down a strict New York State gun law, and argued the ruling could lead to more mass shootings.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com
Click to expand...

Regardless of his liberal views, he’s a stupid man. His legal analysis is what you’d see from a high school student. I enjoy watching him because he be clowns himself each time.
 
Hoover said:
Rulings are not necessarily narrow. Thomas flatly rejected the two test process, intermediate scrutiny and strict scrutiny. That’s a broad ruling and opens up cases across the country
Click to expand...
Specifically, are there cases opened up in Massachusetts or New England? If so, which ones?


GaryO said:
"You know, we know that in the United States you have the right under the First Amendment to say pretty much anything anywhere because we have freedom of speech in the United States. What the conservatives on the Supreme Court are saying is we want the Second Amendment to be a first class right like the First Amendment," Toobin griped.
Click to expand...
Did someone actually say that, for real?


NewGuyRay said:
So, how many people think Mass will proactively amend its permitting scheme to bring it into compliance with today's ruling? [rofl]
Click to expand...
Proactively? Doubtful. Retroactively, most certainly.
 
NewGuyRay said:
In typical NES fashion, it seems many are missing the forest for the trees. "The ruling today, while a substantial victory, doesn't immediately invalidate every 2A restriction that has ever been or will ever be passed; so I'm logging onto NES to start hammering away on my keyboard bitching about how SCOTUS sucks."

While eliminating permitting schemes altogether would have been ideal, the ruling on NY's carry permit scheme feels truly secondary to this ruling effectively eliminating the "two-part test" using bastardized intermediate scrutiny. This is the true gift bestowed upon us by SCOTUS. Shouldn't this open the floodgates to a tidal wave of new litigation?

Clearly, we'll have to fight (litigate) for every inch of ground we retake from the anti's, however, we have a shiny new weapon to wield in the fight. Now, if the State wished to defend mag capacity limits, it's not enough for a win by claiming the restriction doesn't burden the core of the 2A right (self-defense in the home - as it's been applied). Now, the State will need a historical analogue for the capacity limit statute, from a relevant historical period, showing that people were prohibited from carrying musket balls in a pouch capable of holding more than "x" number of musket balls. And if they find one, it would have to be a common restriction and not an outlier.o

My layman reading says that as courts are forced to apply this standard of review, AWBs and Mag Limits cannot possibly survive under it.

As for the cases still on the shadow docket, does SCOTUS apply the Bruen opinion to overturn them outright, does it grant cert, or does it return them to their respective appellate courts to be reconsidered in light of Bruen (seems this would be a fast test of how the lower courts will apply Bruen)?
Click to expand...
Bingo! That’s exactly it!
 
Coyote33 said:
Specifically, are there cases opened up in Massachusetts or New England? If so, which ones?



Did someone actually say that, for real?



Proactively? Doubtful. Retroactively, most certainly.
Click to expand...

Nothing big I know of. Comm2A may have a few going. The AWB case was decided a number of years ago. After this ruling I’m sure you’ll see Comm2A, FPC etc file new cases.
 
 
 
Thoughts and Prayers for Justice Thomas [rofl]

babylonbee.com

Justice Thomas Once Again Suffers Severe Burns While Writing Absolutely Fire Opinion

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Justice Clarence Thomas has been rushed to a burn ward in Washington after he scorched his hands writing another 'absolutely fire' Supreme Court opinion this morning in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, sources at SCOTUS confirmed...
babylonbee.com babylonbee.com
 
NewGuyRay said:
My layman reading says that as courts are forced to apply this standard of review, AWBs and Mag Limits cannot possibly survive under it.
Click to expand...

I agree with that analysis.

And Thomas opened the opinion by referencing the 14th amendment, so even if the AWB and mag limits did survive, it would seem then the AWB and mag limit would have to apply to police also; either it applies to ALL or it applies to NONE. Can't have "special" classes of people. Same with gun rosters. Of course, separate law suits would have to be filed to hash it out.
 
...and yet no-one (including GOAL and COM2A) seem interested in challenging MA's requirement for us all to pay a $100 application fee in order to (maybe) exercise our second amendment right. . What other constitutional right comes with a price tag from the government? I must be missing something
 
Hoover said:
Rulings are not necessarily narrow. Thomas flatly rejected the two test process, intermediate scrutiny and strict scrutiny. That’s a broad ruling and opens up cases across the country
Click to expand...
Think that is the genius of the ruling - while the case at hand was narrow, the ruling could only deal with the specific question granted cert, the resulting decision tells the lower courts when it comes to "gunz" only historical limits can apply. So it would appear all the new/current attempts to create infringements should get smacked down by SCOTUS. Require insurance - nope, new, different, expanded sensitive areas- nope.
 
weehooker said:
...and yet no-one (including GOAL and COM2A) seem interested in challenging MA's requirement for us all to pay a $100 application fee in order to (maybe) exercise our second amendment right. . What other constitutional right comes with a price tag from the government? I must be missing something
Click to expand...
It's been fought in the past. This might free folks up to revisit.
 
cams said:
Too bad we couldn’t just give them the abortion stuff they’re so set on burning cities for and we take the 2A. Wide open.

“You all can kill off your own babies all you like, it’ll actually be better for the country in the long run, but we get 100% unrestricted 2A to protect ours. Deal? Deal.
Click to expand...

You talk as if they'd give any inches at all. There is no policy they are willing to compromise on. None. They have not compromised a LICK on gun control in Congress. "Well, we haven't gone after AW's like we said" is NOT a concession. It's a fight for another day.
 
DispositionMatrix said:
The retaliation has begun:
Could All of New York City Be Designated a Gun Free Zone?
Click to expand...
If NYC does something this retarded SCotUS will probably throw out GFZ as unConstitutional.

I fully expect MA to respond to "target & hunting" LTCs by revoking them and forcing those of us stuck with the things to reapply.

I'm wondering if we are going to see pre-planned lawsuits against shitbird licensing jurisdictions filed tomorrow or Monday to put the usual suspects on the defense?
 
How about hunting restrictions?

In MA you can’t carry a handgun while deer hunting. You surrender that right while hunting.

I never understood how they can say you can’t have a handgun while in the woods just because you’re hunting deer. But then again it is MA.
 
eboos said:
Wouldn't "shall issue" and "shall issue without restrictions" be one and the same under this cases analysis? If an applicant does not need to show extraordinary circumstances to justify their need for a license and the discretionary approval/denial is removed in favor of a scheme where any qualified applicant shall be issued the license, wouldn't a set of restricted and unrestricted licenses being issued at the discretion of the licensing authority run afoul of this ruling?

I read most of the opinion, but not all of it. It seemed to strike down denials based on "suitability" so long as they are not otherwise a federally prohibited person.
Click to expand...
True, but the concepts are different - unconstitutional restriction vs. justification for denial of a constitutional right.

I fully expect MA to respond to "target & hunting" LTCs by revoking them and forcing those of us stuck with the things to reapply.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what NYC announced they would decades ago when there was a credible threat the state legislature would render all NY and NYC permits unrestricted. Except, of course, for the reapply part.

Actually, MA has generally been professional when it is clear they lost - but it took a reminder on the marijuana case. The non-citizen case was met with an immediate work-around (paper licenses for permanent resident aliens) while the FRB upgraded the database and MIRCS to accommodate the nationality.
 
steve8140 said:
How about hunting restrictions?

In MA you can’t carry a handgun while deer hunting. You surrender that right while hunting.

I never understood how they can say you can’t have a handgun while in the woods just because you’re hunting deer. But then again it is MA.
Click to expand...
Wow.....never....I repeat.....never.....try to understand mass hunting regulations lol. Your talking about a state that has night time hunting caliber reatrictions.....and caliber restrictions on just about any game animal in the state......except for grey squirrel in zones 1 to 9.....which can be hunted literally with handguns and rifles of any caliber. Got a bolt action 50? Take it squirrel hunting......send it. But coyotes at night your limited to 22 mag and 17hmr max 😂

Mass hunting regs are a circus.
 
Last edited:
Beretta92FS said:
I agree with that analysis.

And Thomas opened the opinion by referencing the 14th amendment, so even if the AWB and mag limits did survive, it would seem then the AWB and mag limit would have to apply to police also; either it applies to ALL or it applies to NONE. Can't have "special" classes of people. Same with gun rosters. Of course, separate law suits would have to be filed to hash it out.
Click to expand...
What I was getting at here:
www.northeastshooters.com

exempt from MA and US laws

I was just wondering what laws the MA police are exempt from that the rest of us are subject to. Anyone have any of these they could help out with? AG's rules will also do. I also know that they are not listed in town/city clerk's listings of residents, nor assessor's records.
www.northeastshooters.com www.northeastshooters.com


Waher said:
I fully expect MA to respond to "target & hunting" LTCs by reissuing them, allowing those of us stuck with the things to have a way out.
Click to expand...
FIFY. [rofl]
 
steve8140 said:
How about hunting restrictions?

In MA you can’t carry a handgun while deer hunting. You surrender that right while hunting.

I never understood how they can say you can’t have a handgun while in the woods just because you’re hunting deer. But then again it is MA.
Click to expand...
I was walking my dog last week in the woods and didn't bother carrying but I ran across a very aggressive raccoon. If I was carrying I probably would have shot the damn thing if it got any closer. My dog took up a position in front of me but I didn't want him tangling with it either. If I had to shoot it I wonder what the repercussions would be.
Resized_Resized_20220615_081834(1).jpeg
 

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
108
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
455
Mark from ?
M
Back
Top Bottom