Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

Using the 14th instead of just the 2nd amendment really was very clever of the court . So many cans, so many worms. this isn't necessarily a 2a issue now, its an equality issue. What a great stick in the eye by Thomas to his old nemesis, sleepy Joe. Good God, they even used the Dred Scott case to their advantage in their opinion. A very comprehensive ruling, the breadth of which I suspect will not be realized for some time.
 
Dadstoys said:
View attachment 629856
I'll make her a deal , if her protection detail is limited to muskets , i'll support her.
Click to expand...
I'm going to have to one up you on that.

Sure Kathy, I'm willing to go back to muskets so long as we wheel back all rights to May 29, 1790 when the Constitution was ratified. What were women's rights like back then again honey?
 
42! said:
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.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure Knuckledragger has spoken.
 
Christian said:
I'm going to have to one up you on that.

Sure Kathy, I'm willing to go back to muskets so long as we wheel back all rights to May 29, 1790 when the Constitution was ratified. What were women's rights like back then again honey?
Click to expand...

Not to mention that she said that on television, or maybe the Internet.
but it was 18th century Internet, so it's probably covered by the 1st Amendment.
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
With 351 licensing authorities in MA, Jason will still have plenty to do. Most are effectively 'shall' issue anyway. But there's still no limit on the kinds of shit they like to pull on applicant.
Click to expand...

Boston will be the big Kahuna to change.

A firefighter friend lives in Boston. He's an officer on the Boston Fire Department. He's a college graduate. He's an Army veteran with at least one tour in the sandbox. And he's one helluva good shot.

He often works the night shift and travels through some of Boston's most crime ridden neighborhoods to work. And he was given an LTC with target/sporting restrictions.

Me thinks Boston is in for a rude awakening. Sure they'll fight. But I don't see how they'll win.
 
I have not read this whole thread.

So as a NH resident, I still can't bring a gun into MA, right? But if I could, I would be allowed to conceal it. But, I'm not allowed a gun period, so concealing is a moot point other than to avoid getting caught. Right?

I did have a NH carry permit but it expired (seemed pointless here). If I renewed it, would it then be valid in MA?
 
Prepper said:
I have not read this whole thread.

So as a NH resident, I still can't bring a gun into MA, right? But if I could, I would be allowed to conceal it. But, I'm not allowed a gun period, so concealing is a moot point other than to avoid getting caught. Right?

I did have a NH carry permit but it expired (seemed pointless here). If I renewed it, would it then be valid in MA?
Click to expand...
These are good questions, but premature.

You’re WAAAAAY ahead of the states. They’ve got lots of shucking and jiving to do in the upcoming weeks if they want to avoid being taken to court. So just sit back and wait for your questions to be answered.
 
Prepper said:
I have not read this whole thread.

So as a NH resident, I still can't bring a gun into MA, right? But if I could, I would be allowed to conceal it. But, I'm not allowed a gun period, so concealing is a moot point other than to avoid getting caught. Right?

I did have a NH carry permit but it expired (seemed pointless here). If I renewed it, would it then be valid in MA?
Click to expand...
That is different. Just another issue that needs to be addressed. It's a right and you should be able to go to ANY state period.
 
beaker said:
Olbermann is a certified lunatic. He says what every other Demonrat Progressive thinks secretly and bides their time and slowly corrupts. ALso see how he demeans Barret calling her a paralegal, while the leftist SCOTUS judges are mostly not that bright. Olbermann can't even hold a job spewing leftist propaganda. lol.
Click to expand...
Don't overthink it, the man is 10lbs of shit in a 5lb bag, nothing less, nothing more.
 
richc said:
Boston will be the big Kahuna to change.

A firefighter friend lives in Boston. He's an officer on the Boston Fire Department. He's a college graduate. He's an Army veteran with at least one tour in the sandbox. And he's one helluva good shot.

He often works the night shift and travels through some of Boston's most crime ridden neighborhoods to work. And he was given an LTC with target/sporting restrictions.

Me thinks Boston is in for a rude awakening. Sure they'll fight. But I don't see how they'll win.
Click to expand...
I think the city's General Counsel is probably drinking heavily tonight and hoping some ultra left wing white shoe law firms are going to step in to do his/her job for them like they did for the Newton City Council when Newton decided to completely ignore state law, federal rulings, and state precedent to change their zoning post approval to unlawfully ban the Newton Firearms store.
 
Picton said:
I think Clarence Thomas started drafting this opinion around October 24, 1991. I think he's been adding stuff and polishing it ever since. It's a masterpiece.
Click to expand...
I just got to this in Alito's concurrence: "Like that dissent in Heller, the real thrust of today’s dissent is that guns are bad [...]." Ahh, yes, the "gunz r bad" doctrine. Does he read NES?

It's an accurate skewering of Breyer's dissent, though, which even on a casual reading seems sloppy. "I'm not going to relitigate Heller, but now I'm going to spend two pages relitigating Heller." Also its 52 pages consists of 30 pages of butthurt and 20 pages of actual cogent argument. Somebody let the clerks go on way too long on the basis of their feels.
 
AHM said:
An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights;it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office;it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.- Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)
Click to expand...
Has anyone ever used this against a gun grabbing "act"?


AHM said:
Not getting your money's worth from COM2A (sic)?
What's your call sign, big spender?
Click to expand...
Wait, are you referring to the FCC charging for a right to practice 1A with licenses?


Bladerunner said:
He must be sad, his customer base is about to get cut in half seeins how MA just went SHALL ISSUE.
Click to expand...
I'd say he is going to get VERY BUSY in the near future, with LOTS of people wanting to sue the state. Maybe things will calm down a bit in a couple years though.
 
Friday said:
Using the 14th instead of just the 2nd amendment really was very clever of the court .
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t call it clever. I would call it recognizing the fundamental core of discretionary licensing — it has long been aimed at disarming the poor and minorities.

Consider the following: a rich doctor who lives in Weston will get an unrestricted LTC easily (anyone who lives in Weston will get unrestricted). He can afford the cost of a safety course and can take the time off work for it. He can afford the application fee. None of those hurdles are hard for him. And his risk of getting shot as he drives his S-class Mercedes into the Boston hospital where he works and parks in the secure doctors’ parking lot is minimal.

In contrast, the Haitian nurse’s aide who works third shift in the same hospital and takes the T from Roxbury won’t get an unrestricted LTC from the Boston PD. The cost for the safety course and application fee are much harder for her to afford. She will have a hard time affording the time off from work. So she can‘t get one, even though she is at far higher risk than the doctor.

That’s how gun control works and why it is a fundamental violation of the 14th Amendment — the rich doctor gets his LTC, but the poor nurse’s aide is denied an LTC.

This type of inequality is evident everywhere there are discretionary licenses — from the lawyer fixer in Manhattan who bribed senior licensing officers in the NYPD to issue licenses to his clients all the way to Santa Clara County where the head of Apple’s executive security team made a huge donation to the Sheriff’s re-election fund in exchange for licenses for his security team members. The rich and powerful get licenses while the poor get effed — that is discretionary licensing in a nutshell, and it is a fundamental violation of the 14th Amendment. Equal protection under the law means everyone gets treated equally, but discretionary licensing fundamentally violates that.
 
Last edited:
No your NH permit would not be valid in MA. The decision wasn't about reciprocity.
Prepper said:
I have not read this whole thread.

So as a NH resident, I still can't bring a gun into MA, right? But if I could, I would be allowed to conceal it. But, I'm not allowed a gun period, so concealing is a moot point other than to avoid getting caught. Right?

I did have a NH carry permit but it expired (seemed pointless here). If I renewed it, would it then be valid in MA?
Click to expand...
 
Thinking, or perhaps over thinking, this decision a bit more, I have to wonder if both the Approved Firearms Roster and the AG's BS non list list are also on the block. Again "firearms in common use" seems to cover a lot of territory.

Then there are the knife laws...
 
bigbravehog said:
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.
Click to expand...
Why is he still examining? It is clear that "discretion" (=arbitraryness) is done.


Hoover said:
A good illustration of the courts and the balances

fingfx.thomsonreuters.com

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 fingfx.thomsonreuters.com
Click to expand...
Picton said:
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?
Click to expand...
I see there is a vacancy in Massachusetts.
 
Coyote33 said:
Has anyone ever used this against a gun grabbing "act"?
Click to expand...
It's what courts are supposed to say whenever anyone "violates"
a specific law that's been declared unconstitutional.

Coyote33 said:
Wait, are you referring to the FCC charging for a right to practice 1A with licenses?
Click to expand...
I'm referring to someone apparently complaining that
Comm2A didn't snap to attention in response to
his "let's you and Massachusetts have a lawsuit".

That's skinflinting so epic that under NES rules
he must be a ham radio operator.

M1911 said:
That’s how gun control works and why it is a fundamental violation of the 14th Amendment — the rich doctor gets his LTC, but the poor nurse’s aide is denied an LTC.
Click to expand...
quote-in-its-majestic-equality-the-law-forbids-rich-and-poor-alike-to-sleep-under-bridges-anatole-france-10-10-29.jpg
 

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
119
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