Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

Waher said:
www.thetruthaboutguns.com

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 www.thetruthaboutguns.com
Seems like a good reason to abolish Bar associations and their government condoned monopoly on professional licensure for the legal profession.
Click to expand...
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 requirement that an individual establish proper cause to obtain a license.
Click to expand...

Love how in the same paragraph they managed to highlight how f*cking retarded they are (red) and lie about people being able to get a gun permit.
 
Broccoli Iglesias said:
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". [rofl]
Click to expand...
It's not a guarantee you won't see it before it sees you.

I swore off anything bigger than .45 caliber when I saw what the price was just for the bullets to reload, let along factory ammo. The .45 is enough, more than enough IMO for anything near us. Really, 10mm is my go to given it weighs less than a revolver and holds 15 rounds.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
Suitable is still open to interpretation, as long as it does not include special social status or need as part of the determination.
Click to expand...
Disagree, Moreover, the Second Amendment guarantees an “individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” id., at 592, and confrontation can surely take place outside the home. Pp. 23–24.
 
pastera said:
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.
Click to expand...
The state directs NYC and Nassau residents to apply to their own jurisdictions.
(And if their licensing schemes don't pass the sniff test,
maybe they'll get out of the business and leave it to the state).

But can you cite a passage in the state licensing law
which says that state permits are not valid in NYC?

GlockJock said:
I've told this here before, I'll tell it again: Two friends of mine are both MA State Police Troopers...Both - BOTH - say quite firmly/honestly/matter of factly that (to quote one directly, and affirmed by the other one, when asked about Open Carry etc, quote) "I don't give a fuq WHAT anyone else thinks. If I see you or anyone walking down the street with a gun? You're going down on the ground, on your knees, with your hands in plain sight until I can figure out EXACTLY what the fuq is going on..." (end of quote).
Click to expand...
🤷‍♂️

JBT's gonna JBT.

I've got 99 problems,
but swanning about open carrying in front of Mass State Troopers isn't one of them.

beaker said:
I wonder what the commies in CA and NY will be scheming up to attempt to get around it...
Click to expand...
I'ma go out on a limb here.

The only thing the SCOTUS 6 would find sweeter than smacking down
some hair-brained California law that spits in the face of one of their decisions,
is a smackdown that reverses a 9th Circuit ruling.

Waher said:
The Commonwealth may go full retard 1998 again, void all licenses, and require reapplication under whatever new horseshit criteria they bake up on a conference call with Bloomberg out of pure spite.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be surprised if some Green town police chiefs
just bulk-filed renewals for that.

42! said:
They aren't required by law in MA, but the suitability risk was there. With the current "risk to public safety" for suitability, you'd have no problem beating a denial based on this in the courts, if the courts followed the law, which they don't.

But as far as a legit references requirement and the SCOTUS ruling, I think it could survive as long as it is applied to everyone and it's nothing more than knowing someone. Not an arbitrary character reference.
Click to expand...
The ruling may well have dealt a fatal blow to police chief issuance
as anything more than a figurehead role.

Any valid reason for blocking an applicant
is going to have to be based on some criterion
examining the applicant's criminal and medical records -
not based on the mythical knowledge of unsuitable-yet-not-criminal history
that chiefs bring to the table.

Perhaps the applications will still be submitted to the towns,
but how would the towns use references to enforce explicit objective criteria,
very much like the Prohibited Person rules?

If someone gives a bad reference,
does the applicant have the right to grill them in court?

drgrant said:
I can see MA banning open carry and getting away with it (if someone decides to push the envelope that far) as more legal ping pong happens, unless theres something in this ruling that specifically says that banning OC is an infringement.
Click to expand...
The ruling allows that either OC or CC could legally be mandated,
and then throws down that a state would have to be batsh¡t crazy to mandate OC
given all the Snowflake-Americans out there.

Hey, if a trend of snowflakes SWATting mandatory open carriers develops,
I could imagine this court deciding that it was an infringement after all
to force gun owners to risk SWATting or incessant Terry Stops.

drgrant said:
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.
Click to expand...
BTW (in contrast to my comment above about the SCOTUS 6 vs. 9th Circuit),
Caetano is remarkable for two reasons:
  1. SCOTUS took the time to issue a perfunctory unanimous decision that "we meant what we said".
  2. SCOTUS grabbed the case directly from the SJC - it didn't even touch the 1st Circuit beforehand.
I have to wonder whether that left a mark on both the SJC ("don't think we're not watching you"),
and the 1st Circuit ("don't screw things up and make us come after you").

Broccoli Iglesias said:
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?
Click to expand...
Hiking our club's fire roads today, we saw what was apparently a very ill fox kit.
(Charcoal colored, rough fur, nearly ratty tail).
I heard it shuffling about in the leaves downhill of the road.
It was making an amount of noise a squirrel or chipmunk
would consider unseemly. I'm seldom that alert - just lucked out.

I advanced on the road to directly uphill of it,
as it shambled downhill, but never got a photo before
it disappeared behind a boulder.

It never noticed us (I'd say its movements were "preoccupied"),
but I've seen enough rabies videos to know there's no staying for
photos if the animal spots you.

I wasn't carrying for two good reasons - only had some pepper spray.
Once it became invisible a couple of dozen feet downhill,
we made good time striding past it and got out of Dodge.

The Struggle is Real.
 
T-Unit said:
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."
Click to expand...

If the police are harassing people for carrying , it wouldn’t be licensing related. What would happen in those cases are lawsuits and the agencies those cops working for paying large judgements.

The democrat run federal DOJ constantly investigate police departments, find violations of civil rights and poor police practices and sue them. The feds have a huge budget and local police do not have those financial resources even state cops so they often settle with the DOJ and consent to the feds requirements. A GOP controlled DOJ could play the same game and go after cops who abuse peoples constitutional rights.
 
JRT said:
Massachusetts AG Healey has an opinion.

AG Healey Statement on SCOTUS Decision to Strike Down New York's Concealed-Carry Gun Licensing Law

www.mass.gov www.mass.gov
Click to expand...

No statement advising police chiefs how to follow the opinion, only lies bout the Us history of regulation.

“Centuries of law and tradition have recognized that the U.S. Constitution allows states to enact policies regulating the carrying of firearms in public places that are tailored to local public safety concerns. Today’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen flouts that law and tradition by holding that New York could not constitutionally require citizens to demonstrate a special need before they could receive a license to carry firearms in public for self-defense.”

The opinion allows local regulations, the ban which was basically the law in the 6 states is not constitutional.
 
Hoover said:
No statement advising police chiefs how to follow the opinion, only lies bout the Us history of regulation.

“Centuries of law and tradition have recognized that the U.S. Constitution allows states to enact policies regulating the carrying of firearms in public places that are tailored to local public safety concerns. Today’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen flouts that law and tradition by holding that New York could not constitutionally require citizens to demonstrate a special need before they could receive a license to carry firearms in public for self-defense.”

The opinion allows local regulations, the ban which was basically the law in the 6 states is not constitutional.
Click to expand...
That was the most non-statement statement I’d ever read. She does say this though,

"I stand by our commonsense gun laws and will continue to vigorously defend and enforce them.”
Click to expand...

It appears she want to fight this and lose like some sort of Custer's last stand. It will play well with her fans I suppose.
 
Hoover said:
No statement advising police chiefs how to follow the opinion, only lies bout the Us history of regulation.

“Centuries of law and tradition have recognized that the U.S. Constitution allows states to enact policies regulating the carrying of firearms in public places that are tailored to local public safety concerns. Today’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen flouts that law and tradition by holding that New York could not constitutionally require citizens to demonstrate a special need before they could receive a license to carry firearms in public for self-defense.”

The opinion allows local regulations, the ban which was basically the law in the 6 states is not constitutional.
Click to expand...
I read it as "We have a long history of infringement under the name of democracy"
 
JRT said:
Massachusetts AG Healey has an opinion.

AG Healey Statement on SCOTUS Decision to Strike Down New York's Concealed-Carry Gun Licensing Law

www.mass.gov www.mass.gov
Click to expand...

Yeah but is the crime of carrying outside the house prosecutable or not because I would think that the left is going to get slammed really hard by going after people. Besides gang bangers almost always get the gun charges dropped. Instead they go for the drug charges. She can jam people up but in the end SCOTUS is going to toss her into the volcano.
 
Hoover said:
No statement advising police chiefs how to follow the opinion, only lies bout the Us history of regulation.

“Centuries of law and tradition have recognized that the U.S. Constitution allows states to enact policies regulating the carrying of firearms in public places that are tailored to local public safety concerns. Today’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen flouts that law and tradition by holding that New York could not constitutionally require citizens to demonstrate a special need before they could receive a license to carry firearms in public for self-defense.”

The opinion allows local regulations, the ban which was basically the law in the 6 states is not constitutional.
Click to expand...

Looks like she still insists on sticking with "shall issue" rules to me... she knows best and all that.

"Under Massachusetts law, individuals are required to have a license to carry a firearm in order to carry a firearm in public. Massachusetts law prohibits some applicants from receiving a license based on criminal history and other factors. For applicants not categorically prohibited from obtaining a license, Massachusetts police chiefs have the authority to issue firearm licenses based on the suitability of the applicant to carry a firearm. Police chiefs also have discretion to set conditions on firearms licenses, including restrictions around the licensee’s ability to carry a firearm outside of the home".
 
JRT said:
Massachusetts AG Healey has an opinion.

AG Healey Statement on SCOTUS Decision to Strike Down New York's Concealed-Carry Gun Licensing Law

www.mass.gov www.mass.gov
Click to expand...
That tradition goes back more than 700 hundred years in England and pre-dates the founding of the United States.
Click to expand...

Cool, the traditon of slavery goes back over 2K years. Are we bringing it back?

I love the mental gymnastics these people need to do to try to justify their unconstitutional bullsh*t.
 
Last edited:
Picton said:
Maura's a politician. She'll say stuff that politicians say.

Sure she'll "try" to enforce this. But she won't be AG for much longer, and she's well aware of that. She's not the one who'll have to deal with the bulk of the fallout, at least not as AG.
Click to expand...
It will be worse, she will be supreme leader of MA.

And who will replace her?

Remember who Maura replaced.
 
Picton said:
Maura's a politician. She'll say stuff that politicians say.

Sure she'll "try" to enforce this. But she won't be AG for much longer, and she's well aware of that. She's not the one who'll have to deal with the bulk of the fallout, at least not as AG.
Click to expand...
In fact, I'm sure she hopes this buys her points in the election. Though, as governor, is probably a different kettle of fish to tell the feds that the Commonwealth refuses to be bound by SCOTUS.
 
crimeresearch.org

The Lawyers who won the Landmark Supreme Court victory protecting the Second Amendment were told to no longer do such cases or leave their law firm

After the 2020 presidential election, President Trump found that all the best lawyers were forced to not take the cases because their firms gave them the ultimatum: withdraw from representing Trump…
crimeresearch.org crimeresearch.org

“We are blessed to have represented before the Supreme Court a wide variety of clients, from large corporations and religious orders to criminal defendants and Native American groups. After we prevail before the high court, we generally receive a round of congratulatory messages from law-firm colleagues for a job well done, especially when we have helped our clients vindicate their fundamental constitutional rights.

This time around, we received a very different message from our law firm. Having just secured a landmark decision vindicating our clients’ constitutional Second Amendment rights in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, we were presented with a stark choice—withdraw from representing them or withdraw from the firm. There was only one choice: We couldn’t abandon our clients simply because their positions are unpopular in some circles.”

Pressure from other clients to drop legal teams that defend the 2ndA. Private law firms have every right to respond to customer demands, or even take a financial hit to drop clients they prefer to not represent. It become unacceptable only when government influences such decisions, as when Obama pushed banks and credit firms to not serve firearms-related customers.

With the Left losing on the judicial side and an impending flip of the House and/or Senate, “We the People” will find them using any and every means to achieve their ends by subversion of our political system. Their ends justifies any means.

One commenter likens law firms that defend prep-2nd clients to slaver traders LOL!!!
 
Last edited:
safetyfirst2125 said:

3. The Right to Bear Arms Is Not a Second-Class Right​

Justice Thomas, writing for the majority, began the court’s opinion by noting that since Heller and McDonald, the lower courts have “coalesced around a ‘two-step’ framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny.” That framework, in general, began by asking whether the challenged law regulates activity falling outside the scope of the Second Amendment, as originally understood. If outside the scope of the Second Amendment, the regulation passes constitutional muster, and no further analysis is required.

If, however, the regulated activity falls within the general parameters of Second Amendment protection, courts applying the two-step analysis ask “how close the law comes to the core of the Second Amendment right and the severity of the law’s burden on that right.” Here, Justice Thomas noted that “Courts of Appeals generally maintain ‘that the core Second Amendment right is limited to self-defense in the home.’” Other laws affecting the right to bear arms—because they were not considered “core”—received less protection, with lower courts applying “intermediate scrutiny” and considering “whether the Government can show that the regulation is “substantially related to the achievement of an important governmental interest.”

Thursday’s opinion expressly rejected that two-part approach, stating that “despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many.” Instead, the Supreme Court held “that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.” Thus, under Bruen, to survive a Second Amendment challenge, the government must do more than “simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest.” Rather, the government must affirmatively prove “that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

In reaching this conclusion, the Supreme Court stressed that “the constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right,” subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” “We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need,” the court noted.

“That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense,” the high court stressed.

4. The Right to Self-Defense Is Not Limited to the Home​

After rejecting the two-step approach to the Second Amendment, the court considered whether New York’s “may issue” permitting regime “was consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” That detailed analysis marched the reader through centuries of history, from medieval England through the early 20th century.

While Justice Thomas’s opinion hit several high points, the “short prologue” he provided to his analysis of the Civil War and antebellum time periods proved most powerful:


From there, the majority opinion in Bruen thoroughly analyzed the “historical tradition of firearm regulation” before holding “the Second Amendment guaranteed to ‘all Americans’ the right to bear commonly used arms in public subject to certain reasonable, well-defined restrictions.” “To confine the right to ‘bear’ arms to the home would nullify half of the Second Amendment’s operative protections,” the court stressed, adding that “confining the right to ‘bear’ arms to the home would make little sense given that self-defense is ‘the central component of the [Second Amendment] right itself,’ and “confrontation can surely take place outside the home.”

In sum, then, the Bruen decision did three important things: First, it expressly rejected the two-part test invented by the lower courts over the 30-some years since Heller and McDonald. Second, the Supreme Court made clear the controlling question is whether the regulation at issue “is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Third, the Bruen court made clear that the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to bear arms exists outside the home.

(snip)​

Click to expand...
I am generally encouraged by this all, but predict Mass.gov will double down
 
Rob Boudrie said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

She missed the part about. The right to keep and bear ARMS !
 
T-Unit said:
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.
Click to expand...
[rofl][rofl]

If you need more lube for all that fapping, 🦎 has some.

✊💦
 
Picton said:
I am heartened that NJ and CA are already starting to bow to the inevitable. I don't think all of them will, but it's a start.

I've got a friend who's a New Yorker. She's hearing things, too. Good things for our side.
Click to expand...
It will be like trying to take the cat to the vet.
There will be crying , struggling , scratching and clawing, but they are going in the end.

New York's over the top d-baggery blew it up for gun grabbers in other states , pushing the matter may end up blowing it up more if it ends up in front of the supremes again.
You have to wonder if there might have been phone calls to certain people telling them to sit down and shut up with the "We'll defy the supreme court" rhetoric.
 
drgrant said:
The thing is though you know darn well some of these a**h***s will try anything, even if its legally dumb./risky Unless some big dick swinging anti factions come along and go "stop, shut up, stop doing things, before you make it worse for everyone tactically" etc
Click to expand...
Ok so dumb this down for me. In the past these idiots would try legally risky/dumb things because there was no real consequence for them in doing so. Hasn't this decision kind of changed that whereas now it is pretty clear such F***ery would get them slapped into the next zip code.
 

Similar threads

Garland v. VanDerStok
Replies
0
Views
115
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
127
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
457
Mark from ?
M
Back
Top Bottom