Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

[Eli]

I'm no law expert, but does justice Thomas opinion challenge the MA approved handgun roster and AWB?

in his opinion, he references "common use firearms" multiple times, going as far as to say that common use forearms for defense can not be reuglated

ARs are the most common rifle in America, does that make the AR a common use firearm? and if yes, dead that mean that the SC has ruled that they can't be unduly regulated?

the same applies to handguns not on the approved, like Glocks.

Am I getting ahead of myself? Or is this a good angle to challenge MAs unconstitutional laws?

 

[evalance]

someone call chief of police in boston yet

 

[Mesatchornug]

I'm no law expert, but does justice Thomas opinion challenge the MA approved handgun roster and AWB?

in his opinion, he references "common use firearms" multiple times, going as far as to say that common use forearms for defense can not be reuglated

ARs are the most common rifle in America, does that make the AR a common use firearm? and if yes, dead that mean that the SC has ruled that they can't be unduly regulated?

the same applies to handguns not on the approved, like Glocks.

Am I getting ahead of myself? Or is this a good angle to challenge MAs unconstitutional laws?

It doesn't answer you directly. There are others in the middle of fighting similar cases who will have probably answers soon. Some (e.g., MD, CA) might be imminent, but are more likely next year.

 

[whatluck]

I'm no law expert, but does justice Thomas opinion challenge the MA approved handgun roster and AWB?

in his opinion, he references "common use firearms" multiple times, going as far as to say that common use forearms for defense can not be reuglated

ARs are the most common rifle in America, does that make the AR a common use firearm? and if yes, dead that mean that the SC has ruled that they can't be unduly regulated?

the same applies to handguns not on the approved, like Glocks.

Am I getting ahead of myself? Or is this a good angle to challenge MAs unconstitutional laws?

Maybe. Don't hold your breath. If you actually value freedom, then move somewhere that's actually, you know......free

 

[Picton]

It doesn't answer you directly. There are others in the middle of fighting similar cases who will have probably answers soon. Some (e.g., MD, CA) might be imminent, but are more likely next year.

This.

I think people are optimistic. Not in the short term, but in the medium term. Thomas' reasoning will make it easier to challenge AWBs and mag restrictions, but those cases may take time to work their way through the courts.

 

[M1911]

I'm well aware that he is NO GOOD! I don't doubt for a second that he will lower himself to get money when needed, just like the other no good RINO, Mittens Romney! They both suck!

Who would you rather have as governor? Baker? Or Maura Healey?

The chance of a conservative getting elected governor in MA is zero. It simply won't happen. So your choice is a moderate like Baker or a liberal like Healey. ETA: or a whacko progressive like Sonia Chang-Diaz (who thankfully dropped out of the race). Hello governor Maura!

 

[AHM]

They know now that an arrest based on ”restricted” carry cannot stand. That’s as of now, already, regardless of what state law or your CoP’s policies say. Meaning, could they arrest you? Sure. Would their case go anywhere? Nope.

Hey, it might go all the way to the Supreme Court.
Each one must pick their own battles.

Leges non facimus, sententias modo urgemus

This ruling does not hold this - Place of carry is specifically called out as not being a covered subject.

So easy to understand yet you don’t?

“... Put simply, there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a “sensitive place” simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department.”

And dig the new NYS FAQ.

Wondering now if open carry will now be a thing in MA, since the main jist behind why no one did previously is that there was concern over the CoP considering you to be unsuitable at renewal, since OC is not illegal in MA.

The main concern around here has always been
some snowflake calling 911 about a man with a gun.
Even the death of suitability won't change that.
There is still great risk of getting a ride you can't beat.

Then you put them on notice that while they are discussing legal options with their attorney you will be discussing your options with your attorney. Put it in writing and cc the select board or city council. The police dept. will play games but you will get the attention of the people who hold the purse strings.

Is this before or after he actually hires an actual competent firearms attorney
and gets advice on this scheme?

Will the attorney say, "if you fück around, you will find out",
or will they say, "go to town - my youngest's tuition bill comes due next month,
and you won't believe what they're charging for diesel down at the yacht club."?

The justices have seen the erosion of law and order. They winessed the lawless agencies of the federal government collude to illegally frame a sitting Predident, with zero ramufications. I believe those on the right know they are one of the last institutions that can save this country. Or perhaps I'm just being a faggot.

Getting moved to safe houses after brooming Roe v. Wade
is gonna cause some agonizing reappraisals.

Pretty much if items are in common use by police/military I don't see how they can be banned. Maybe cane swords, poison darts, or other kind of 'assassin' hidden weapons that have 'no military purpose' per previous SCotUS rulings can be banned.

Holding out for zoobow open carry.

It is unlikely MA courts are going to interpret the SCOTUS decision as changing anything about "suitability", and only accepting that the "special need" criteria no longer applies.

The question is whether Federal courts will invalidate suitability
as being impermissibly subjective (and perhaps even impermissibly vague).

 

[Coyote33]

The butthurt on their faces is priceless.

Not only do they look unhappy or sad, they look downright angry and mad. Crazy.

 

[pastera]

So easy to understand yet you don’t?


“Respondents’ argument would in effect exempt cities from the Second Amendment and would eviscerate the general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense that we discuss in detail below. See Part III–B, infra. Put simply, there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a “sensitive place” simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Po- lice Department.”

But that's not the question I answered
You talk about making NYC a sensitive place where no carry is possible
The post I responded to spoke about ending the status quo where a state license is not valid for NYC where a city specific permit is required.
NY will still be able to regionalize their permit scheme until that specific topic is brought before the courts.

 

[LTCRN]

Who would you rather have as governor? Baker? Or Maura Healey?

The chance of a conservative getting elected governor in MA is zero. It simply won't happen. So your choice is a moderate like Baker or a liberal like Healey.

Unfortunately, we in the firearms world in Assachusetts, have little to no choice to vote for whoever has the title of Republican next to their name in this state. We can only hope and pray that more good than bad will come from voting for and electing them into office.

 

[TLB]

The Ghost of Donald Trump is haunting the Dems and we must thank Cocaine Mitch for denying a hearing to Garland. Trump will be in the Dems heads for 20 years or more. I'm watching Fox and seeing these old DB's and these castrated men having breakdowns is wonderful to watch. Why are men pro abortion? Good little lefty pukes? What an embarrassment. Elections have consequences, right Barry!

One argument is "if the lefties want to reduce their numbers, let them".

 

[Glocklike tendencies]

The issue is not of open carry will become legal - it already is, but if LTC holders will be able to open carry with fear of an adverse suitability decision.

It is unlikely MA courts are going to interpret the SCOTUS decision as changing anything about "suitability", and only accepting that the "special need" criteria no longer applies. But, some things become simpler - for example, we no longer have to worry about standing when bringing an LTC case because "the applicant has not applied for the minimal license(s) that would permit having a handgun in the home" which until the decision was the only clearly recognized Heller right.

they did specifically mention the word "suitable" in the court ruling though.?.....so, maybe?

 

[Hoover]

This stuff is all pure gold!!



Now is the time to bring on the lawsuits, while they are looking the other way.


Again, bring on the lawsuits for the first part of this decision. Then quickly follow-up with the above.

Follow FPCs Twitter account, they have plenty of lawsuits pending and they’ve already submitted requests to to consider the NYSRPA decision in pending cases, etc.

FPC and 2nd amendment foundation are going to be very active.

 

[Glocklike tendencies]

taken from page 10 of the opinion
"officer denies a permit. New York is not alone in requiring a permit to carry a handgun in public. But the vast majority of States—43 by our count—are “shall issue” jurisdictions, where authorities must issue concealed-carry licenses whenever applicants satisfy certain threshold requirements, without granting licensing officials discretion to deny licenses based on a perceived lack of need or suitability.1 Meanwhile, only six..."

 

[Hoover]

they did specifically mention the word "suitable" in the court ruling though.?.....so, maybe?

Any “suitability” cannot be arbitrary. The NYSRPA decision removed the arbitrariness of the license process

 

[Glocklike tendencies]

Any “suitability” cannot be arbitrary. The NYSRPA decision removed the arbitrariness of the license process

cannot be arbitrary; meaning what? they can still use it or can not use it against an applicant?

 

[Picton]

taken from page 10 of the opinion
"officer denies a permit. New York is not alone in requiring a permit to carry a handgun in public. But the vast majority of States—43 by our count—are “shall issue” jurisdictions, where authorities must issue concealed-carry licenses whenever applicants satisfy certain threshold requirements, without granting licensing officials discretion to deny licenses based on a perceived lack of need or suitability.1 Meanwhile, only six..."

This.

"May-issue" will go away. Licenses won't.

And yes, it'll take a little time for the legislatures to figure out the wording.

 

[Glocklike tendencies]

obviously asking for opinions, as we dont know how things will actually get interpreted once our lower courts get to it.
will shall issue really be shall issue in MA?
we shall see.............

This.

"May-issue" will go away. Licenses won't.

And yes, it'll take a little time for the legislatures to figure out the wording.

 

[Picton]

cannot be arbitrary; meaning what? they can still use it or can not use it against an applicant?

There are things they'll be able to use against an applicant, but those things will have to be enumerated and transparent, and should align with the way firearms were regulated "historically" rather than just "because muh PuBLiCk SayFtEE."

A denial won't be able to be predicated on any official's arbitrary decision.

 

[Glocklike tendencies]

There are things they'll be able to use against an applicant, but those things will have to be enumerated and transparent, and should align with the way firearms were regulated "historically" rather than just "because muh PuBLiCk SayFtEE."

A denial won't be able to be predicated on any official's arbitrary decision.

but what is "arbitrary" will still be decided by the MA court which can be arbitrary itself. they will believe what a chief licensing officer says..................

 

[Picton]

but what is "arbitrary" will still be decided by the MA court which can be arbitrary itself. they will believe what a chief licensing officer says..................

Well, no.

I think Thomas' analysis is clear. It's not kosher anymore for anyone's discretion to determine RKBA for a given citizen. The LO will not be able to use his or her judgement at all. They'll be bound by whatever specific criteria the legislature determines in whatever new legislation gets passed to comply with SCOTUS, but those criteria will have to have some quantifiable basis on historical precedent, relative to the ways guns have been regulated in the past. Meaning, "when the Constitution was written, debated, and ratified."

That's my take, anyway. Licenses won't be able to be turned down by anyone, provided the applicant meets certain fairly liberal (small L) requirements that everyone has access to and that are clearly defined. In other words, "shall-issue."

ETA: Obligatory IANAL. Nobody really knows these answers yet until they are legislated, then litigated.

 

[TLB]

Democrats controlled Virginia completely in 2021. If they could rig votes, they would have rigged VA.

Virginia lacks a large BDC where this type of shit happens. Virginia Beach has 450,000 people. Big whoop. The election rigging is a cancer in the true BDCs.

 

[crispnipz]

It’s easy for me to say about another guy’s license, but I’d agree.

They know now that an arrest based on ”restricted” carry cannot stand. That’s as of now, already, regardless of what state law or your CoP’s policies say. Meaning, could they arrest you? Sure. Would their case go anywhere? Nope.

AFAIK you don't actually get arrested if caught carrying on a restricted LTC, it's a fine and, at least prior to this case opinion, would have almost always resulted in the license being revoked.

 

[Glocklike tendencies]

Well, no.

I think Thomas' analysis is clear. It's not kosher anymore for anyone's discretion to determine RKBA for a given citizen. The LO will not be able to use his or her judgement at all. They'll be bound by whatever specific criteria the legislature determines in whatever new legislation gets passed to comply with SCOTUS, but those criteria will have to have some quantifiable basis on historical precedent, relative to the ways guns have been regulated in the past. Meaning, "when the Constitution was written, debated, and ratified."

That's my take, anyway. Licenses won't be able to be turned down by anyone, provided the applicant meets certain fairly liberal (small L) requirements that everyone has access to and that are clearly defined. In other words, "shall-issue."

ETA: Obligatory IANAL. Nobody really knows these answers yet until they are legislated, then litigated.

what you say sounds good to me!!!.....in theory, i really hope it will actually be "shall issue", no discretion if you are not a PP and fulfill the requirements (letters, safety course, etc.) like other shall issue states.

 

[Mesatchornug]

Well, no.

I think Thomas' analysis is clear. It's not kosher anymore for anyone's discretion to determine RKBA for a given citizen. The LO will not be able to use his or her judgement at all. They'll be bound by whatever specific criteria the legislature determines in whatever new legislation gets passed to comply with SCOTUS, but those criteria will have to have some quantifiable basis on historical precedent, relative to the ways guns have been regulated in the past. Meaning, "when the Constitution was written, debated, and ratified."

That's my take, anyway. Licenses won't be able to be turned down by anyone, provided the applicant meets certain fairly liberal (small L) requirements that everyone has access to and that are clearly defined. In other words, "shall-issue."

ETA: Obligatory IANAL. Nobody really knows these answers yet until they are legislated, then litigated.

Right.

It's possible they develop some checklist of quantifiable bars to pass that get applied to everyone (e.g., when was your last moving violation, how many in 5 years; have you ever had LE called to your address; do you have aggressive bumper stickers on your car) that could make things tighter across the Commonwealth for a period. Some of those might find themselves in court.

We'll have to see.

 

[Picton]

it will actually be "shall issue", no discretion if you are not a PP and fulfill the requirements (letters, safety course, etc.) like other shall issue states.

Yes. I think that is CLEARLY what SCOTUS' intent was in this ruling. I hope I'm right.

 

[Picton]

It's possible they develop some checklist of quantifiable bars to pass that get applied to everyone (e.g., when was your last moving violation, how many in 5 years; have you ever had LE called to your address; do you have aggressive bumper stickers on your car) that could make things tighter across the Commonwealth for a period.

This. I'd change "possible" to "likely," but they'll need to be careful in threading that needle if they want to avoid an injunction, thanks to the new strict scrutiny test.

But that "solution" by the state would kinda-sorta meet the letter of Thomas' opinion, since they'd be enumerated and not arbitrary.

Again, IANAL. My guess is that those seven states' governors and attorneys general are Zooming today, trying to all get close to the same page.

 

[TLB]

I hope these idiots are met by an army of armed Patriots:


View: https://twitter.com/OurRightsDC/status/1540375717963337731?t=3pi1dzE0uiVldOqia-wIOg&s=19

Sounds like a target rich environment.

 

[Coyote33]

Then you put them on notice that while they are discussing legal options with their attorney you will be discussing your options with your attorney. Put it in writing and cc the select board or city council. The police dept. will play games but you will get the attention of the people who hold the purse strings.

You should most certainly include the Finance Committee here!!!

The most encouraging part of this ruling for me was Justice Thomas’ commentary that the court is ready to start knocking down other 2A cases. That is pretty mind blowing. What the heck happened to SCOTUS for this change of attitude and what took them so long?

Was Roberts in the way and now he’s outnumbered?

In case you missed it:

View attachment 630405

a mob of rowdy hooligans camping and chanting by the windows of their private residences, perhaps?
and i bet the leak done by some socialist rat in their court did not help much neither.

Yup, and yup.

Also, having Roe vs. Wade take the front burner was good cover for the proper timing to release this. I don't think this timing was by accident.

 

[El_Guapo77]

pepperidge farms remembers

I'm no law expert, but does justice Thomas opinion challenge the MA approved handgun roster and AWB?

in his opinion, he references "common use firearms" multiple times, going as far as to say that common use forearms for defense can not be reuglated

ARs are the most common rifle in America, does that make the AR a common use firearm? and if yes, dead that mean that the SC has ruled that they can't be unduly regulated?

the same applies to handguns not on the approved, like Glocks.

Am I getting ahead of myself? Or is this a good angle to challenge MAs unconstitutional laws?

It's a good question I think down the road it could . I could be wrong but I think there is a case in ca pertaining to thier roster