Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

MaverickNH said:
Some 25 amicus briefs added 13-14 May - lots of reading.

The United States itself (ourselves) actually submitted one!

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/99744/20190514172549610_18-280tsacUnitedStates.pdf
Click to expand...
NYSRPA Files Brief on the Merits of their Supreme Court Case

The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association (NYSRPA) filed a new brief in their lawsuit against New York City’s handgun laws. The case has gathered rapt attention and has the potential for a decision as sweeping as DC v. Heller more than a decade ago. This brief, filed late in the day on Tuesday, May 7th, concerns the merits of the case. Those who have been following the developments in the lawsuit carefully will find little new information contained in the filing. However, for those of us following the case closely, it’s fascinating reading.

NYSRPA Files Brief on the Merits of their Supreme Court Case
 
I recall June being the month that SCOTUS decisions are made.

If the court takes this up, when will the decision be revealed?
 
https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. New York (Whitehouse amicus FINAL).pdf

Five Democrat files an “Enemy of the Court” brief Opinion | Senators File an Enemy-of-the-Court Brief

“The five progressive Senators are furious the Justices may rule on the case though the most constitutionally dubious provisions have been repealed. Their amicus brief claims the Court would be deciding a “hypothetical” issue. Their real fear is that the Court will clarify its Second Amendment jurisprudence and broaden protections for gun ownership.

As the left-wing website ThinkProgress notes with approval, the brief amounts to a “declaration of war” against the conservative Justices that essentially describes the Supreme Court as “dominated by political hacks selected by the Federalist Society.”

Oh yeah, insulting the Court will probably do the trick. We can always rely on gun control advocates to go b*tshit crazy, scream, yell, cry and wring their hands. That’s pretty much how the States have mostly gone from May-Issue to Shall-Issue on CCW.
 
But seriously. Would a win in this case recognize an individual right to “bear arms” outside of the home, and thus make state CCW permits all “shall issue”?
 
BigGreen2000 said:
But seriously. Would a win in this case recognize an individual right to “bear arms” outside of the home, and thus make state CCW permits all “shall issue”?
Click to expand...

Not likely, but it could potentially render bullshit like "restricted travel laws with unloaded guns" illegal.... NJ, NY, and RI have these laws (although the RI one barely enforced) and perhaps others do too.
 
BigGreen2000 said:
But seriously. Would a win in this case recognize an individual right to “bear arms” outside of the home, and thus make state CCW permits all “shall issue”?
Click to expand...

A favorable ruling might create language that could be used in support of a future case that addresses that question directly.

A more immediate outcome, as @drgrant points out, is that states like NY might be barred from their current practice of blatantly subverting federal law...

18 U.S. Code § 926A. Interstate transportation of firearms
U.S. Code

Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.

(Added Pub. L. 99–360, § 1(a), July 8, 1986, 100 Stat. 766.)
18 U.S. Code § 926A - Interstate transportation of firearms

A favorable ruling could end up being relief for not only the plaintiffs but also those of us here in the northeast who have to drive through New York to get anywhere.

However please keep in mind that according to my wife in addition to not being a lawyer I am more than slightly retarded.

:emoji_tiger:
 
weekendracer said:
They fact 'they' are worried about it gives me a glimmer of hope.
Click to expand...

Yup , it's a house of cards based on compliance through fear.
Just like Maura's B.S.
Start pulling cards out and it's going to collapse.
Nothing would tickle me more than if her little stunt was the card that brought the house down.
I want her remembered that way.
The one that took it a step too far.
 
Dadstoys said:
Yup , it's a house of cards based on compliance through fear.
Just like Maura's B.S.
Start pulling cards out and it's going to collapse.
Nothing would tickle me more than if her little stunt was the card that brought the house down.
I want her remembered that way.
The one that took it a step too far.
Click to expand...
*******
You are correct and it would be poetic justice if Maura and NYC were the cause of an anti-gun ruling that brought the whole charade to a close.
 
On October 15, 2019 SCOTUS issued:
The motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument is granted." "The motion of Neal Goldfarb for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument is denied."

Apparently SCOTUS does not want to hear from someone about linguistic interpretation that led to a wrong interpretation in Heller.
 
Goldfarb specializes in commercial litigation, he's not a 2A expert. I read (as much as I could stand) and it appears his position is that "people" is collective and the right to bear arms requires an active military or militia affiliation. Which, I recall, is what Heller refuted.

I'm not sure that telling the Court that got Heller wrong, especially when the Chief and several of the Associate Justices are still on the court, is the best way to approach this.

No wonder they denied his motion. Zzzzzzzzz.

doxdsgn said:
On October 15, 2019 SCOTUS issued:
The motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument is granted." "The motion of Neal Goldfarb for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument is denied."

Apparently SCOTUS does not want to hear from someone about linguistic interpretation that led to a wrong interpretation in Heller.
Click to expand...
 
Garys said:
Goldfarb specializes in commercial litigation, he's not a 2A expert. I read (as much as I could stand) and it appears his position is that "people" is collective and the right to bear arms requires an active military or militia affiliation. Which, I recall, is what Heller refuted.

I'm not sure that telling the Court that got Heller wrong, especially when the Chief and several of the Associate Justices are still on the court, is the best way to approach this.

No wonder they denied his motion. Zzzzzzzzz.
Click to expand...
I've had that argument with a very liberal family members friend at Christmas one year that "people" meant a collective and when I asked "Really, then why didn't the framers just use the word "militia" again? If that's really what the framers meant they would have just used militia again instead of people." Crickets.
 
Reading the First Amendment, does the use of "people" mean that only members of the militia or military can "peaceably assemble" and "petition for a redress of grievances?"

I know that in MA the Legislature and Courts like to give different meanings to the same word depending on "context." Which of course is the heart of the "living, breathing, Constitution" that the Left loves to use to twist the Constitution to support whatever new "right" they want to impose on us.

I'd guess that there are enough "originalists" on the Court to deny his motion to play word games.

Lokdog said:
I've had that argument with a very liberal family members friend at Christmas one year that "people" meant a collective and when I asked "Really, then why didn't the framers just use the word "militia" again? If that's really what the framers meant they would have just used militia again instead of people." Crickets.
Click to expand...
 
Lokdog said:
I've had that argument with a very liberal family members friend at Christmas one year that "people" meant a collective and when I asked "Really, then why didn't the framers just use the word "militia" again? If that's really what the framers meant they would have just used militia again instead of people." Crickets.
Click to expand...

The federalist papers clarifies exactly what they ment right from the framers mouths.
Any argument to the contrary is just bullshiting hoping to preach to the ignorant.
 
Lokdog said:
I've had that argument with a very liberal family members friend at Christmas one year that "people" meant a collective and when I asked "Really, then why didn't the framers just use the word "militia" again? If that's really what the framers meant they would have just used militia again instead of people." Crickets.
Click to expand...

'People' is found in the 1st:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Of Course the 2nd

In the 4th:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In the 10th:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Does "people" change meaning depending on the amendment it's in? Would they want it only to apply to the 'collective' in the 1st and 4th? Wouldn't think so.
 
Lokdog said:
I've had that argument with a very liberal family members friend at Christmas one year that "people" meant a collective and when I asked "Really, then why didn't the framers just use the word "militia" again? If that's really what the framers meant they would have just used militia again instead of people." Crickets.
Click to expand...

Another response is to ask the person to list all the other Collective Rights in the US Constitution.
There arent any.
 
BigGreen2000 said:
But seriously. Would a win in this case recognize an individual right to “bear arms” outside of the home, and thus make state CCW permits all “shall issue”?
Click to expand...
Even the enemy recognizes Heller protects handguns in the home, but that has not made the license necessary to do so "Shall issue" in places like MA and NYC.
 
doxdsgn said:
On October 15, 2019 SCOTUS issued:
The motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument is granted." "The motion of Neal Goldfarb for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument is denied."

Apparently SCOTUS does not want to hear from someone about linguistic interpretation that led to a wrong interpretation in Heller.
Click to expand...

Translation someone? English please
 
Both filed friend of the court briefs. The solicitor general, the US Govt representative, is being permitted time at the hearing. The other guy no.
 

Similar threads

Garland v. VanDerStok
Replies
0
Views
113
lutstribe
L
Supreme Court decision on rifle bans
Replies
9
Views
738
Tartakovsky
Tartakovsky
Supreme Court ending permits
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
Worcester State Court Gun Policy
Replies
12
Views
453
Mark from ?
M
Is it time yet for a "Why is there even a dealer classifieds" Megathread?
Replies
12
Views
266
Individualist
Individualist
Back
Top Bottom