Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

Dadstoys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
18,856
Likes
19,750
Location
North Shore
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!
Either Charlie or Maura would sign any anti gun bill that hit their desk.
Change my mind.
 

Picton

NES Member
Rating - 100%
35   0   0
Joined
Sep 17, 2012
Messages
23,401
Likes
39,429
Location
MA
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.

Yeah, I assume that at times like this, these governors and state leaders all call each other and try to figure out what to say. It's obvious that Maura wasn't sitting in on that call.
 

SteelShooter

NES Member
Rating - 100%
31   0   0
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
10,781
Likes
5,385
Location
MA
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.
Who is going to prosecute any state that doesn't comply? Merrick?
 

steve8140

NES Member
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
983
Likes
1,355
Location
Free America
Maura is just buying time. She knows her time is limited as AG before she takes the Governors office and it won’t really be her problem when that happens.

By the time any lawsuits take place she will be gone from AG, one of the justices will be retired and replaced by FJB replacement pick which puts the court back to a 5-4 conservative majority instead of 6-3.
 

TLB

Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
8,665
Likes
9,326
Location
Heading for greener pastures
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.
The pro 2A judges were waiting for the opportunity to have the votes and opinions to do what they needed to support the 2A. With Kennedy as the pivotal vote, this case wasn't ever getting written up this way. I think more will follow, now. There is no reason to punt on important 2A cases. The time is now.
 

pastera

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Nov 17, 2011
Messages
8,382
Likes
9,398
Location
Taunton
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?


🤷‍♂️

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/re...kVAb8Of_oDwpykGwVxjLfR-LAh_OtNXBoCQlAQAvD_BwE

NY Pistol License is not valid in NYC but an NYC license is valid across the state.
 

Bladerunner

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
2,306
Likes
7,273
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".
You forgot the part that says you have to suck the chiefs ding dong as the final licensing hurdle.
 
Last edited:

Waher

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 2, 2014
Messages
24,991
Likes
49,800
Location
☦️ Boston Gun & Rifle and Braintree Rifle & Pistol
Last edited:

Picton

NES Member
Rating - 100%
35   0   0
Joined
Sep 17, 2012
Messages
23,401
Likes
39,429
Location
MA
I hope Comm2A is now formulating a legal attack on the consumer protection list of handguns not for sale as well as going after Maura's law changing edict on the ban of AR-15 sales.

I think CA already has a similar list, with a legal challenge already pending.

As for the edict? Nothing about last Thursday's ruling changes it. It was never law. People have been disobeying it since the day she "issued" it, with no repercussions.
 

pastera

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Nov 17, 2011
Messages
8,382
Likes
9,398
Location
Taunton
Maura is just buying time. She knows her time is limited as AG before she takes the Governors office and it won’t really be her problem when that happens.

By the time any lawsuits take place she will be gone from AG, one of the justices will be retired and replaced by FJB replacement pick which puts the court back to a 5-4 conservative majority instead of 6-3.
Which conservative is signaling retirement?
 

Rob Boudrie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
42,905
Likes
24,544
I've never heard of a firm jettisoning attorneys for representing school shooters; rapists or people caught fishing without a license.
 

Rob Boudrie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
42,905
Likes
24,544

Rob Boudrie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
42,905
Likes
24,544

Waher

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 2, 2014
Messages
24,991
Likes
49,800
Location
☦️ Boston Gun & Rifle and Braintree Rifle & Pistol
I've never heard of a firm jettisoning attorneys for representing school shooters; rapists or people caught fishing without a license.
Remember the lawyers that dared to represent Trump or his companies? The left is getting very active in making sure BAD THINK and UNPERSONS can't obtain legal representation to seek justice in a court of law
Gonna start parking the car in the garage - I don't want pig shit dropping on it.
iu
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
13,326
Likes
6,629
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".
I read it as "We have a long history of infringement under the name of democracy"
That was the most non-statement statement I’d ever read. She does say this though,



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.

I interpret that as each of you do, she’s going to do everything possible to negate the decision.
 

pastera

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Nov 17, 2011
Messages
8,382
Likes
9,398
Location
Taunton
This is accurate, however, the OP asked for a link to the law, not a third party summary. I used live in NY and had an upstate pistol permit. "Not valid in NYC unless endorsed by the commissioner of that city" was printed on the permit.

The link I posted is a reliable reference.
If the OP wants to see the exact statute, he can sift through NY law himself.

That NYPL is invalid for carry in NYC is well known among the gun people as a pint of trivia. The legal basis for that restriction is only relevant to those directly effected by it so we simply don't care.
 

Waher

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 2, 2014
Messages
24,991
Likes
49,800
Location
☦️ Boston Gun & Rifle and Braintree Rifle & Pistol
I interpret that as each of you do, she’s going to do everything possible to negate the decision.
I'm going to laugh my ass off if she gets prosecuted by Rachel Rollins for the blatant §1983 violation because of the beef they have with each other.
Sotomayor in a thong bikini. Get that out of your mind the rest of today ha ha ha
l8L2GG4T_o.jpg

You didn't say which Sotomayor so...
Have the Mass chiefs of police association chimed in yet?……. recently they were bragging about how Massachusetts licensing system was a model that other states should follow.
The are on their boats at their second homes for the weekend and will submit whatever Bloomberg faxes them at 5am on Monday.
 
Last edited:

Dench

NES Member
Rating - 100%
122   0   0
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
25,101
Likes
23,412
Location
FL
So if you combine this ruling with the new red flag law, I guess the net is: easier to get, but easier to take away.

In the end it's still much easier to take than it is to get, specifically for states that require licensing.

This case is and will be trivially easy for the left to ignore/side step. And I suspect the shit they pull to do just that will negatively impact ALL of us to the point where this case is much more of a drag than it is a benefit.

As long as they can remove arms from people who've never been convicted, can control specific firearm types and can control when and where you can actually carry... were still in rough waters.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
13,326
Likes
6,629
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.

Where they’ll absolutely try to push the issue is CA and NY. Some in MA, CT, NJ, MD will try but I don’t think they’ll be as active. CA especially is where most of the gun control ideas originate, they’re very active with gun and ,any other issues. Their legislature seems to much more active than other states passing laws of all types. The Ma legislature is lazy as heck. It seems like they go into an extended session every year just to pass the budget. That idiot linsky has had moronic gun control bills every year and they assign them to committees and they never reappear.

CA seems to be passing a new gun control bill at least once a year and really pushing how strictly they regulate. NJ seems to pass something every few years. MA has crap gun laws but it’s much better than CA and better than NJ, etc.

Trump turned the 9th circuit from a 21-8 dem to GOP nominee judge court to a 16-13. The landscape in that court is much different than when most of the CA gun control was passed. CA has some off the chart liberal loons though. Between LA and SF/Oakland area, they have a lot of ayanna pressley, squad crew type liberals so they will try to out do each other.
 

M1911

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
27   0   0
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
39,907
Likes
8,474
Location
Near Framingham
Either Charlie or Maura would sign any anti gun bill that hit their desk.
Change my mind.
The difference is that Maura would actively lobby the legislature to pass an anti gun bill. Baker wouldn’t.

You are making exactly the same mistake that progressives made during the Bush v Gore campaign in the 2000 presidential election. “There is no difference between Gore and Bush” they claimed, so they voted for Nader instead, who more closely matched their leftist views. As a result, Bush was elected. Then came the Iraq invasion and they realized there really is a difference between a Democrat and a Republican.

Is Baker a conservative? No. He’s not. But he also isn’t left wing Democrat.

The late columnist Mark Shields was known to point out that politics should be about finding converts, not punishing heretics. Both the Democratic and Republican parties are currently fixated on punishing heretics.

In MA, about 10% of the voters are registered Republicans and 32% registered Democrats. Only 18% of the MA State House are Republicans. In the last presidential election, Biden got 66% of the vote in MA while Trump got 32% of the vote. MA voters will not elect a conservative to a state-wide office. It won’t happen. In a choice between a liberal Democrat and a moderate Republican, a moderate Republican will be closer to our views more often than the Democrat. But our current MA Republican Party is delusional and is focusing on punishing heretics. The result is that they are pushing a conservative candidate for Governor who has aligned himself with Trump. At best, Diehl will get 30% of the vote (I predict a lot less because Diehl is a moron). Our next Governor will be Maura Healey and then the Republicans who spitefully railed at Baker will realize that just like there really was a big difference between Gore and Bush, there really is a big difference between Healey and Baker. Of course, by that time it will be too late because they’ve spent the last 6 years destroying the Republican Party in Massachusetts.
 
Top Bottom