Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

[Hoover]

This is a pretty good piece and discusses each of the may issue states. The acting AG for NJ said the ruling strikes down NJs similar ‘just cause’ requirement. He said he will be issuing guidance very soon. It sounds like he’s accepting the ruling and NJ residents will get their civil rights back very soon.

Hawaii among states with strict gun-permitting laws considering next steps | Honolulu Star-Advertiser

The U.S. Supreme Court today struck down a New York state law that had restricted who could obtain a permit to carry a gun in public. Under the law in place since 1913, New York residents needed to show proper cause, or an actual need, to carry a concealed handgun in public for self-defense..

www.staradvertiser.com

 

[Mesatchornug]

I’m not a lawyer, but below is a comment I saw in another group and it has me wondering if there is actually something here we will see play out over the next couple years.

People are focusing on the wrong part of this ruling. It's actually huge.

• ⁠Syllabus:... Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny.... The Second Amendment “is the very product of an interest balancing by the people,” and it “surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms” for self-defense.

Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context

This is DC v Heller levels or big. This explicitly changes how all 2A cases are to be heard and ruled. You can no longer say "Might save lives, so therefore public interest". Which is how every feature and magazine ban has been upheld.

This is above and beyond "strict scrutiny". This is an absolute bombshell that everyone is missing because they're too focused on the Permits.

Every California law out of the 9th circuit has been upheld on that two-step process. This ruling is SCOTUS explicitly backhanding that down into the trash and saying "No. That's not the standard we told you to use. Cut that shit out." in no uncertain terms.

Practically three things just happened.

Three things:

1. ⁠Basically all your magazine bans, your assault weapon bans, your registries, are going to get reheard under the new directive and most likely struck down because they cannot survive without means-end scrutiny.

• ⁠They are not explicitly struck down by this, but they are going to be extremely hard pressed to withstand the new standard.

1. ⁠All "May Issue" permitting is done, it now must be "Shall issue".
2. ⁠States cannot declare large swathes of areas to be "sensitive areas" and prohibit carrying. They have to shot a historical and traditional pattern of restriction, at the national level.

• ⁠So saying no guns in the legislature, courthouse, polling places, banks is fine. But explicitly called out what that NY cannot declare Manhattan Island a "Sensitive area".

This is being discussed in this thread. Yes, that's the real "bombshell" of this decision.

 

[Hoover]

I’m not a lawyer, but below is a comment I saw in another group and it has me wondering if there is actually something here we will see play out over the next couple years.

People are focusing on the wrong part of this ruling. It's actually huge.

• ⁠Syllabus:... Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny.... The Second Amendment “is the very product of an interest balancing by the people,” and it “surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms” for self-defense.

Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context

This is DC v Heller levels or big. This explicitly changes how all 2A cases are to be heard and ruled. You can no longer say "Might save lives, so therefore public interest". Which is how every feature and magazine ban has been upheld.

This is above and beyond "strict scrutiny". This is an absolute bombshell that everyone is missing because they're too focused on the Permits.

Every California law out of the 9th circuit has been upheld on that two-step process. This ruling is SCOTUS explicitly backhanding that down into the trash and saying "No. That's not the standard we told you to use. Cut that shit out." in no uncertain terms.

Practically three things just happened.

Three things:

1. ⁠Basically all your magazine bans, your assault weapon bans, your registries, are going to get reheard under the new directive and most likely struck down because they cannot survive without means-end scrutiny.

• ⁠They are not explicitly struck down by this, but they are going to be extremely hard pressed to withstand the new standard.

1. ⁠All "May Issue" permitting is done, it now must be "Shall issue".
2. ⁠States cannot declare large swathes of areas to be "sensitive areas" and prohibit carrying. They have to shot a historical and traditional pattern of restriction, at the national level.

• ⁠So saying no guns in the legislature, courthouse, polling places, banks is fine. But explicitly called out what that NY cannot declare Manhattan Island a "Sensitive area".

Yep.

Also, these circuit courts rehearing the cases are MUCH more 2A friendly than they were 5 or 10 years ago. Trump and the GOP senate loaded the courts with very pro 2A judges.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

as much as I am happy for this decision, the Supreme Court did not give anyone that has been screwed by Lautenburg any relief, nor anyone that has had their constitutional right taken away by some BS law like a MisdaFelony DWI conviction in MA

Voisine v. United States legitimized the f*cking over of a lot of guys who were never arrested, charged or convicted in a court of law, and gave them no way to clear their names from false allegations​

What part of Voisine bypasses the need for a conviction? I thought the issue was determining if a conviction for reckleness in a domestic case qualified as a crime of violence, not bypass the need for such a conviction.

 

[mousegunfan]

View attachment 629918

Thanks, I missed that. I have no doubt Roberts would have voted no if it was a 4/4 tie. He only votes for show when left is losing any way.

 

[AHM]

That's not true our public schools are the safest place for little Johnny to learn Liberal bullsh!t without getting harmed. This is according to our whack job educators calling @Picton

...huh?

Here; now are you happy?

It's too bad so many people have no idea how many guns are around them all the time.

Word.

as much as I am happy for this decision, the Supreme Court did not give anyone that has been screwed by Lautenburg any relief, nor anyone that has had their constitutional right taken away by some BS law like a MisdaFelony DWI conviction in MA

People are focusing on the wrong part of this ruling. It's actually huge.

When the dust starts settling,
we'll see the civil rights bar start pondering
how that framework would affect their favorite right,
and if it's constructive, how they can try and leverage it
for their own cases.

The acting AG for NJ said the ruling strikes down NJs similar ‘just cause’ requirement. He said he will be issuing guidance very soon. It sounds like he’s accepting the ruling and NJ residents will get their civil rights back very soon.

He doesn't have to be the least woke AG trying to ignore the ruling.
He just has to be less woke than the other idiots about to draw
unwelcome attention to their hackery.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Dear Jason,

If you're reading this, please help me sue Medford. I will sue them right now. PM me. I'm serious. I can pay and would enjoy it.

A first step would be to re-apply at Medford so they cannot argue "irrelevant, that was before the SCOTUS decision". Follow you attorney's advise as to what to say, what to put down on the application, etc. so you will be in good shape if it goes to court.

 

[Broc Tuah]

Does this means the Boston AWB is dead?

 

[Broc Tuah]

Dear Jason,

If you're reading this, please help me sue Medford. I will sue them right now. PM me. I'm serious. I can pay and would enjoy it.

How about you PM the lawyer, rather than asking the lawyer to PM you?

Go sue them tiger.

 

[mousegunfan]

Yep.

Also, these circuit courts rehearing the cases are MUCH more 2A friendly than they were 5 or 10 years ago. Trump and the GOP senate loaded the courts with very pro 2A judges.

Trump filled a lot of judges in the lower courts. At least 219. Check out this list. List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump - Wikipedia

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Thanks, I missed that. I have no doubt Roberts would have voted no if it was a 4/4 tie. He only votes for show when left is losing any way.

People misread Roberts. Don't kid yourself. He's as conservative as they come. But he's the kind that wants to 'boil the frog slowly' so that no one will notice. Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch, on the other hand are happy to drop the unsuspecting frog onto a lightly oiled, red-hot cast iron skillet.

 

[watchman]

Here; now are you happy?

Word.

Damn...you just made @Picton more famous than scrivener at NES!

 

[Picton]

Damn...you just made @Picton more famous than scrivener at NES!

...huh?

 

[Garys]

The last I knew, but it's been a while, each island in Hawaii is a separate county. Each county issues it's own permits and they are only valid in that county. That was in 2009, so maybe they changed the law.

When we were on Honolulu one of the big tourist attractions was shooting at indoor ranges in Waikiki. Lots of Japanese tourist went there to touch and shoot real guns, including full auto.

Hawaii has issued 4 carry licenses in the past 22 years. 4!

 

[Garys]

That wasn't part of the case even from the start. The Court restricts itself to the specific question being asked. Whether this will effect Lautenburg down the road is a separate question.

as much as I am happy for this decision, the Supreme Court did not give anyone that has been screwed by Lautenburg any relief, nor anyone that has had their constitutional right taken away by some BS law like a MisdaFelony DWI conviction in MA

Voisine v. United States legitimized the f*cking over of a lot of guys who were never arrested, charged or convicted in a court of law, and gave them no way to clear their names from false allegations​

 

[AHM]

Damn...you just made @Picton more famous than scrivener at NES!

Thanks for following my posts.

 

[ToddDubya]

There's a lot going on in this thread. Good gracious.

 

[42!]

Hopefully I did miss someone asking this.
I wonder how the ruling might affect MA non-res LTCs. Unlike the resident LTC there is no suitability clause for the non-res. Which kinda makes sense since the claim is that the local Chief would know the applicant. But the non-res is May Issue. Would this ruling mean that if you met the conditions of the law regarding non-res licensing they would have to issue?

Would love to hear Comm2a's thoughts on this.

 

[bigbravehog]

This is a pretty good piece and discusses each of the may issue states. The acting AG for NJ said the ruling strikes down NJs similar ‘just cause’ requirement. He said he will be issuing guidance very soon. It sounds like he’s accepting the ruling and NJ residents will get their civil rights back very soon.

Hawaii among states with strict gun-permitting laws considering next steps | Honolulu Star-Advertiser

The U.S. Supreme Court today struck down a New York state law that had restricted who could obtain a permit to carry a gun in public. Under the law in place since 1913, New York residents needed to show proper cause, or an actual need, to carry a concealed handgun in public for self-defense..

www.staradvertiser.com

State Rep. David Linksy, a Democrat who has advocated for gun control measures, said he is still examining the ruling but is deeply concerned about its potential effect on police chiefs’ ability to use their discretion when issuing gun licenses.
“The end result is there will be an increase in gun violence,” he said. “There will be people killed, there will be people injured, and we will all be less safe.”

what a repugnant POS

 

[El_Guapo77]

State Rep. David Linksy, a Democrat who has advocated for gun control measures, said he is still examining the ruling but is deeply concerned about its potential effect on police chiefs’ ability to use their discretion when issuing gun licenses.
“The end result is there will be an increase in gun violence,” he said. “There will be people killed, there will be people injured, and we will all be less safe.”

what a repugnant POS

Lickme is a pos the fear mongering on the Democrat side is unreal

 

[sig shooter]

State Rep. David Linksy, a Democrat who has advocated for gun control measures, said he is still examining the ruling but is deeply concerned about its potential effect on police chiefs’ ability to use their discretion when issuing gun licenses.
“The end result is there will be an increase in gun violence,” he said. “There will be people killed, there will be people injured, and we will all be less safe.”

what a repugnant POS

A cocksucker for sure

 

[El_Guapo77]

Massachusetts gun laws was trending on Twitter the responses are both laughable and annoying

 

[Hoover]

State Rep. David Linksy, a Democrat who has advocated for gun control measures, said he is still examining the ruling but is deeply concerned about its potential effect on police chiefs’ ability to use their discretion when issuing gun licenses.
“The end result is there will be an increase in gun violence,” he said. “There will be people killed, there will be people injured, and we will all be less safe.”

what a repugnant POS

The town linsky lives in gives everyone an unrestricted LTC. I don’t hear about people dying all the time there. He’s a clown.

 

[Hoover]

Trump filled a lot of judges in the lower courts. At least 219. Check out this list. List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump - Wikipedia

A good illustration of the courts and the balances

Courting change

A deep dive into the composition of the federal appellate bench and how President Donald Trump will impact the judiciary.

fingfx.thomsonreuters.com

 

[Picton]

I said then, and I still say, that the 2016 election wasn't about Trumpism, or "draining the swamp," or MAGA. Not for me, anyway. It was a generational struggle between judiciary picks (including SCOTUS picks) by DJT vs HRC.

It paid off. Boy, did it pay off. Days like today are the proof of it. Can you imagine a world where Hillary gets to fill those vacancies?

 

[crispnipz]

A first step would be to re-apply at Medford so they cannot argue "irrelevant, that was before the SCOTUS decision". Follow you attorney's advise as to what to say, what to put down on the application, etc. so you will be in good shape if it goes to court.

Can't reapply in Medford (I think?) because I have moved towns (to Melrose) and already have my Melrose unrestricted LTC in hand, but I can't actually carry yet because the Medford one is still active (and the Melrose one isn't active yet) for about 5 more months. I think this is the cohort of people who are, at least for a few years, screwed, people who recently got restricted licenses. Mine's almost up, but I know a guy in Woburn, in his 50s, totally law abiding citizen, just got his first LTC, so he's stuck for 5 years.

 

[Hoover]

Can't reapply in Medford (I think?) because I have moved towns (to Melrose) and already have my Melrose unrestricted LTC in hand, but I can't actually carry yet because the Medford one is still active (and the Melrose one isn't active yet) for about 5 more months. I think this is the cohort of people who are, at least for a few years, screwed, people who recently got restricted licenses. Mine's almost up, but I know a guy in Woburn, in his 50s, totally law abiding citizen, just got his first LTC, so he's stuck for 5 years.

Can’t you get Medford to expire it?

The guy in Woburn should call the police ASAP and ask for the restrictions to be lifted. If not sue. He doesn’t need to wait 5 years, SCOTUS just ruled arbitrary restriction of good cause are unconstitutional. Be nice and such but if they want to continue to infringe , he should call Comm2A and sue.

 

[crispnipz]

Can’t you get Medford to expire it?

I called them around January of 2020 and asked them and they told me to go F myself, both the secretary (woman) and the LO. I'm really torn between calling and visiting in person (driving through the intersection of Main St (route 38) and the parkway (route 16) to get to the station is way scarier than being around guns).

Can call tomorrow and see if the answer is different.

 

[Fixxah]

Clarence "One Step Too Many" Thomas just did more for the rights of blacks today than liberals have done in the last 50 years.

And he will be blamed for removing the shackles and unlocking the doors of the plantation. Some folks don't want to be free, they need the guidance of those who kept them down for generations.

 

[AHM]

There's a lot going on in this thread. Good gracious.

State Rep. David Linksy, ... said he is ... deeply concerned about its potential effect on police chiefs’ ability to use their discretion when issuing gun licenses.

I found a photo of town police chiefs' ability to use their discretion
under a shall-issue licensing scheme.

Spoiler: Artist's conception