If they go the route of having police and other authorities harass people for carrying, then I can see SCOTUS at some point saying "if this is the shit you're gonna do now that you shall issue, then to avoid any undo harassment we're going to outlaw all licensing requirements. Constitutional Carry bitches."
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/Pioneer Valley Arms February Giveaway ***Smith & Wesson SD9VE 9MM***
Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread
- Thread starter soloman02
- Start date
I can see that happening in an alternate reality. Not so much in this one though.
That's what just happened. States and lower courts ignored McDonald, Heller, and Caetano, so SCotUS had to make it even clearer to the insubordinates. If the same blowhards ignore SCotUS again the Supremes very well could pull Alito's quote from Caetano,
to rule, "nope Constitutional carry it is".
Beretta92FS
NES Member
If I read it right, even strict scrutiny is out. There is no more scrutiny. The court said that they "reject the two-step approach".
Thomas set this one up beautifully, and this ruling will be used to strike down other gun restrictions, including AWB, magazine limits and roster lists.
If the existence of other states having a shall issue permit system was cited as a reason to do away with may issue states, then the same argument applies at least to magazine capacity. I get the feeling that SCOTUS wanted to rule in Heller/McDonald that a person has the right to possess a firearm in the home, now with NYSRPA v Bruen they've ruled that right to possess (at least a handgun) also applies outside the home. Now there is no reason to say that whether it's in the home or outside the home that capacity of magazines need be regulated, not when way more than half the states have not only a shall issue license scheme, but also no regulations on magazine capacities.
AWB is a no brainer as I see the SCOTUS hammering not just AWB down, but state bans on NFA items. The 14th Amendment just doesn't allow it.
I don't think we're ever going to see NFA registration be struck down, maybe the $200 tax as it will look like a poll tax. Time will tell.
The only time I consider open carry superior to concealed is specifically when I'm out in the woods or any other rural area where I don't expect to encounter people. This is where wildlife is a much clearer danger to me and where I need the fastest draw possible, also with likely a larger pistol given I want more velocity with a longer barrel and a long sight radius to improve accuracy. Other than that, conceal carry all the way.
Not so much open harassment but laws designed to intimidate people into not carrying or not obtaining a license. By not outright outlawing licensing they still left the door wide open for lots of shenanigans/BS
Would not shock me if the supremes have to do a "fix your shit or we'll f*** it up" bow shot thing like they did with the stun guns in MA.
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
Constitutional Carry = How it should be. ALL 50 states.
Given how the states didn't change things even after Caetano (Rhode Island was still outlawing them until ordered by a court), I don't see them changing course, especially NYS.
We already saw how the Left operates with the Dobbs decision, they could have taken the loss and limited abortion to 16 weeks, but the Left plays a zero sum game, their mentality is they can never take a loss. This is what sets them up to keep losing.
Give it 5 years, maybe 10, and I see SCOTUS ruling constitutional carry for all 50 states.
Rob Boudrie
NES Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 48,980
- Likes
- 36,477
Suitable is still open to interpretation, as long as it does not include special social status or need as part of the determination.
Yes, and SCOTUS (as I understand it) is saying that's exactly what has to change. No? That the state has to spell out what that means (and it better not be too restrictive), then hold its agents to it?
I think that's what the ruling says.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2010
- Messages
- 2,310
- Likes
- 7,307
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2019
- Messages
- 417
- Likes
- 781
“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 li- censing officials discretion to deny licenses based on a per- ceived lack of need or suitability.1 Meanwhile, only six
States and the District of Columbia have “may issue” licens- ing laws, under which authorities have discretion to deny concealed-carry licenses even when the applicant satisfies the statutory criteria, usually because the applicant has not demonstrated cause or suitability for the relevant license. Aside from New York, then, only California, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, and NewJersey have analogues to the “proper cause” standard.2 All of these “proper cause” analogues have been upheld by the Courts of Appeals, save for the District of Columbia’s, which has been permanently enjoined since 2017.”
what this will mean for MA, who knows!!!!!
States and the District of Columbia have “may issue” licens- ing laws, under which authorities have discretion to deny concealed-carry licenses even when the applicant satisfies the statutory criteria, usually because the applicant has not demonstrated cause or suitability for the relevant license. Aside from New York, then, only California, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, and NewJersey have analogues to the “proper cause” standard.2 All of these “proper cause” analogues have been upheld by the Courts of Appeals, save for the District of Columbia’s, which has been permanently enjoined since 2017.”
what this will mean for MA, who knows!!!!!
Intermediate and strict scrutiny are out, Thomas said the court is rejecting those standards. He said clearly the 2nd amendment should be viewed through the text and history from when the 2nd was enacted.
Rob Boudrie
NES Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 48,980
- Likes
- 36,477
The left is no stranger to ignoring stare decisis.
Heller established the 2A right in the home.
When McDonald was decided regarding incorporating the right acknowledged in Heller, Sotomayorr voted against is saying she could find nothing in the constitution supporting the right to own a handgun ... as if McDonald was never decided.
Same game on both sides; different specifics and players.
Heller established the 2A right in the home.
When McDonald was decided regarding incorporating the right acknowledged in Heller, Sotomayorr voted against is saying she could find nothing in the constitution supporting the right to own a handgun ... as if McDonald was never decided.
Same game on both sides; different specifics and players.
Dench
NES Member
And after McDonald the common use statement in Heller goes ignored still.
These cases mean zero when they go ignored.
When this case started we were hoping for text and history, would settle for strict scrutiny, and realistically thought we might get a narrow only affects NYC but try again using the precedent later somewhere else in the country ruling. We never thought Constitutional Carry was going to be a possibility. Then at some point we got greedy chasing unicorns thinking Constitutional Carry MIGHT happen, and lo and beyond we get the text and history standard we were hoping for in the first place. It is a win, the question is can we get it enforced.
Where this was really a 14A case, I think it will have more legs than we may think due to the equal protection under the law angle. I think we very well may see states which choose to still issue permits be required to provide them at no direct cost to applicants. The first jurisdiction that tries to pull a 10k permit fee or some other bullshit to try and 1934 NFA style tax permits out of existence will blow it up for the others.
don't know what I was thinking, you are correct, the FID is shall and the ltc is may
Tartakovsky
NES Member
In all fairness, the universe we’re in now has a significant conservative SCOTUS majority of Constitutional justices, a justice dept that is encouraging leftists to rage outside SCOTUS justices’ front doors, blatantly breaking the law with no recourse, one leftist just arrested for the attempted murder of a SCOTUS judge, and Congressmen, Senators and state Goverrnors, Mayors, AGs and DAs saying they’ll ignore SCOTUS, as well as SCOTUS Clerks undermining the court by leaking draft opinions they find unfavorable. You don’t think all that shit is emboldening the court? If I’m the conservative justices, I’m mad as hell right now.![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
In what parallel universe does that SCOTUS exist?
I dont.
Tartakovsky
NES Member
But based on facts. These guys won't touch cases that can have a huge impact on the 2A and some people think they will go after all licensing?... that is just too funny.
We got lucky with the NY case.
I dont see them changing.
I'd just carry a rifle at that point.
It all has the potential to snowball. If the local authorities pull shit to harass people with the carry licenses/permits and SCOTUS has told them not to because it's a right, then SCOTUS will rectify the situation by striking down licensing requirements. Then, if states ignore that ruling and have police arrest people for carrying without licenses, that's a civil rights violation and grounds for the President to declare an Insurrection and deploy the military to arrest politicians in those states.
That won't happen under President Biden, but under President Trump or Desantis... they would gladly deploy the Army to drag Maura out of her house at 5 AM in her pajamas and ship her off to Guantanamo Bay as an enemy combatant.
Anytime the court's power is threatened and government threatens not to enforce their rulings, the court will strike with a vengeance. Having sitting justices on the court be threatened by mobs outside their homes, an attempted murder of one of them, along with all the calls for violence and the ruling the court made, including the meek John Roberts, to say what they did in NYSRPA and basically set the grounds for almost all gun control regulations to be struck down shows how pissed they are and what lengths they will go.
This was a warning not just to the Democrats, but to the lower courts as well. Keep up with this bullshit and the Supreme Court will make their lives a living Hell.
You worry about a bunch of stuff that is complete useless.
If Wildlife attacks you, chances are you won't have much time to react, and in many cases might not even know the animal is there. So a bigger, heavier gun, which is also slower to draw, is your go to weapon while saying you want to draw fast?
The best gun to carry in thst situation is one you practice with A LOT. Still, good luck hitting a dangerous animal charging at you in the forests of New England.
I will give you credit, at least you didn't mention carrying one of those snub nose 500 SW that are the biggest POS for self defense, sold to city bois as "bear survival".
After Bruen, NY State Bar Association Vows to Work to Continue to Violate New Yorkers' 2A Rights - The Truth About Guns
New York’s common sense and century-old law on concealed carry permits struck an appropriate balance between preserving Second Amendment rights and preventing weapons from being procured by those who should not have them. The reality is that most gun permits were, in fact, granted even under the...
www.thetruthaboutguns.com
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2018
- Messages
- 95
- Likes
- 121
As I understand it, through the years the Court has applied a piecemeal approach to incorporating the Bill of Rights against the states, including individual provisions only when a relevant case came before them. That's why Thomas refers to individual rights in the passage you quoted, instead of just referring to the Bill of Rights or "constitutional rights" in general.
However, constitutional law is damn tricky even at the best of times, and I am not a lawyer, just an interested layman. So you could well be right and I could be wrong.
Similar threads
