Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

[omega42]

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

That statement asserts that gun regulations should be left to the states. The link on her web page currently sits right next to one slamming SCOTUS for turning abortion regulation back to the states. She is obviously no stranger to cognitive dissonance.

If Maura wants to play hardball with the Supreme Court, she is going to get her ass spanked by Clarence Thomas.

Thanks for that image.

 

[Hoover]

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.


You didn't say which Sotomayor so...

The are on their boats at their second homes for the weekend and will submit whatever Bloomberg faxes them at 5am on Monday.

Rollins and Healy hate each other? I really shocked a woman who road rages at the South Bay shopping plaza and screams at a woman reporter trying to ask a question of a public official would have trouble getting along with others.

Regardless of political views, Rollins has Zeno place in a position of power. She is an angry, vindictive nut with a personali agenda. She is completely unfit for any prosecution position.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

(I predict a lot less because Diehl is a moron).

Never stopped a Democrat from winning in this state though.

 

[Picton]

Thanks for that image.

There are times I'd sell my soul for the ability to be good with photoshop.

 

[AHM]

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

www.mass.gov

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

"... For applicants not categorically prohibited from obtaining a license, Massachusetts police chiefs have had the authority to issue firearm licenses based on the suitability of the applicant to carry a firearm. Police chiefs also have had discretion to set conditions on firearms licenses, including restrictions around the licensee’s ability to carry a firearm outside of the home".

FTFY, bitch.

It will be worse, she will be supreme leader of MA.

And who will replace her?

Remember who Maura replaced.

Marsha Healy will be replaced by Marsha Ryan.

All you need to know about Marsha Ryan
is that her cunning scheme for fighting fentanyl trafficking
is to collect home-made quilts and distribute them
to the children of the (frequently dead) addicts.

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

Before

Wonder if that would be clean enough to qualify as a Comm2A test case,
or if they'd prefer someone who didn't troll the police before getting busted.

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

What state law says that?

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.

(Did the state law empower that condition?
It may of course be there as some "home rule" deal,
or it may be akin to eFA-10 fields demanding info with no basis).

 

[Picton]

I watch MTP sometimes, because it's useful to know what the mainstream is focusing on.

Chuckles is about to discuss Bruen in a few minutes, for those interested. So far, it's been 45 minutes on abortion and Jan 6th.

 

[Waher]

Rollins and Healy hate each other? I really shocked a woman who road rages at the South Bay shopping plaza and screams at a woman reporter trying to ask a question of a public official would have trouble getting along with others.

Healey cleared Rollins of the road rage incident. They don't like each other going back to when Rollins was just an activist. I think Healey sees her as a political threat but couldn't turn the screws over the road rage incident due to being part of the same team (D). Healey is favored by the Clinton/Bloomberg crew while Rollins is an Obama/Soros pawn, so their political patrons are rivals within the larger crime family. That's without getting into whatever personality conflicts exist and Healey's affiliations with personnel which prosecuted relatives/friends of Rollins in the past.

 

[Dench]

The difference is that Maura would actively lobby the legislature to pass an anti gun bill. Baker wouldn’t.

He'd probably sign it though while touting it as a bipartisan effort and example of cooperation.

 

[Hoover]

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.

I think it was William F Buckley who advised voting for the most conservative electable candidate. Id love Mike lee, Ted Cruz, DeSantis, rand Paul, etc as MA senators or governors but there is zero chance that happens for several decades or more.

I really don’t understand deihls thought process. Like you I can only assume he’s a moron or mentally screwed up because he actively campaigns on being a trump republican. Warren crushed him in 2018 and yet he seems to be running the same campaign again.

Baker is terrible and far from a conservative but look at his covid restrictions vs CA or NY. Baker ended statewide covid crap long before CA and NY. I think there’s a good chance Healy brings back masks in January when the covid numbers go up as it’s a season virus and will have a season like the flu.

Deval closed all public roads during a hurricane. Healy will do the same micro managing of people, she’s a far left activist

 

[Hoover]

I watch MTP sometimes, because it's useful to know what the mainstream is focusing on.

Chuckles is about to discuss Bruen in a few minutes, for those interested. So far, it's been 45 minutes on abortion and Jan 6th.

Chuck Todd is probably even more biased than stefanopolous. Todd was on several dem campaigns and his wife was employed by the DNC. He’s so invested in the issues, the partisanship is very evident

 

[Picton]

Chuck Todd is probably even more biased than stefanopolous. Todd was on several dem campaigns and his wife was employed by the DNC. He’s so invested in the issues, the partisanship is very evident

It was about a three-minute segment, and now they're back to abortion again.

The thrust of today's episode: the Republicans did a much better job than the Democrats at laying the groundwork to overturn Roe in SCOTUS and the states. His "coverage" of Bruen was to point out that although the case was an NYS issue, it now threatens mag bans and AWB in many other states.

There was a map with different-colored states. Lol.

 

[Roadglide]

Wonder if that would be clean enough to qualify as a Comm2A test case,
or if they'd prefer someone who didn't troll the police before getting busted

I dont know what they would get busted for by simply playing the same game they are. Having said that you're probably right, I'm sure an attorney would prefer a call prior but I think you're giving these cities and towns too much credit. Ive worked for and had an up close and personal look at these people and how they operate through many contract negotiations and my own personal fight with select boards and city councilors. These people aren't hard to negotiate with and push back on if need be. Believe me when I tell you, these people didn't land these positions because they are intelligent or legally savvy. They are there because the overwhelming majority of people they represent are dumber than they are.

 

[sieveboy]

Either Charlie or Maura would sign any anti gun bill that hit their desk.
Change my mind.

I’ll take Charlie the waffle man with butter and syrup over tyrant lesbian Satan incarnate any day.

 

[Waher]

It was about a three-minute segment, and now they're back to abortion again.

The thrust of today's episode: the Republicans did a much better job than the Democrats at laying the groundwork to overturn Roe in SCOTUS and the states. His "coverage" of Bruen was to point out that although the case was an NYS issue, it now threatens mag bans and AWB in many other states.

There was a map with different-colored states. Lol.

Makes me think Bloomberg & Giffords don't have a unified legal strategy and set of talking points yet.

Which is odd why they seem so flat footed about this and the abortion ruling. It's as if they were overly confident the intimidation campaign against the court was going to work to flip Roberts & Kavanaugh or something.

Maybe Bloomberg & Gifford's arrogance finally caught up to them? Or they were too busy on vacation... just seems odd.

 

[safetyfirst2125]

I watch MTP sometimes, because it's useful to know what the mainstream is focusing on.

Chuckles is about to discuss Bruen in a few minutes, for those interested. So far, it's been 45 minutes on abortion and Jan 6th.

Democrats are calling for actual insurrection in response to a legitimate court’s decision, while crying about a fake insurrection in response to a crooked election.

Their irony meters are broken..

 

[Picton]

Makes me think Bloomberg & Giffords don't have a unified legal strategy and set of talking points yet.

Which is odd why they seem so flat footed about this and the abortion ruling. It's as if they were overly confident the intimidation campaign against the court was going to work to flip Roberts & Kavanaugh or something.

Maybe Bloomberg & Gifford's arrogance finally caught up to them? Or they were too busy on vacation... just seems odd.

Chuckles was extremely innocuous, by MTP standards. Literally just a rundown of a lot of the implications we've been talking about here.

They do seem flat-footed. I want to hope that's because Thomas' reasoning was so tight.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

FTFY, bitch.

Anyone who can find a suitable Shakespeare quote at a moment like this is pretty good in my book!

 

[TLB]

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.

Yeah, we have been doing it wrong forever, so that must continue!

 

[VetteGirlMA]

I think it was William F Buckley who advised voting for the most conservative electable candidate. Id love Mike lee, Ted Cruz, DeSantis, rand Paul, etc as MA senators or governors but there is zero chance that happens for several decades or more.

I really don’t understand deihls thought process. Like you I can only assume he’s a moron or mentally screwed up because he actively campaigns on being a trump republican. Warren crushed him in 2018 and yet he seems to be running the same campaign again.

Baker is terrible and far from a conservative but look at his covid restrictions vs CA or NY. Baker ended statewide covid crap long before CA and NY. I think there’s a good chance Healy brings back masks in January when the covid numbers go up as it’s a season virus and will have a season like the flu.

Deval closed all public roads during a hurricane. Healy will do the same micro managing of people, she’s a far left activist

Nothing lasts forever and the left despite all their huffing and puffing will eventually lose Massachusetts. They will eventually do something that ires enough of the public where people say, enough already.

 

[Roadglide]

Maybe Bloomberg & Gifford's arrogance finally caught up to them?

This I think the only thing they can do now is double down on stupid.

 

[AHM]

Anyone who can find a suitable Shakespeare quote at a moment like this is pretty good in my book!

Sorry, I can probably only fling <bleep> from a top-ten list.

 

[Cap'n Mike]

California AG Cancels "Good Cause" for Concealed Carry

The California Attorney General told authorities to no longer require proof of good cause for the issuance of a public-carry license.

www.independentsentinel.com

View: https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status/1540501223543021576

There will be much more of this.
These politicians banging the table about the SCOTUS decision being wrong are just grandstanding.
They will not hold press conferences admitting they are in compliance, but they will quietly go along.

 

[chuckules]

Nothing lasts forever and the left despite all their huffing and puffing will eventually lose Massachusetts. They will eventually do something that ires enough of the public where people say, enough already.

I do know that time changes everything, but I'm having trouble imagining what it would take to change the lock they have on this state. Major national cultural shift I think. Still having trouble with the imagination.

I think the pace we'd talking about on this one is more historical, like it used to be solidly Republican*, not just voted for Reagan once in a landslide

* (was it even such in the first half of the 20th century at all? I think it was)

 

[Picton]

There will be much more of this.
These politicians banging the table about the SCOTUS decision being wrong are just grandstanding.
They will not hold press conferences admitting they are in compliance, but they will quietly go along.

I imagine this as the kind of situation where Maura is telling one of her deputies to call DAs' assistants and tell them to freeze prosecutions for now. Then those ADAs are calling police captains and lieutenants, telling them that "for the time being," going after LTC violations is "not a prosecutorial priority."

Maura, the actual DAs, and the CoPs won't have to say or do much publicly. The change will largely happen behind the scenes in a state like ours, I suspect.

 

[AHM]

I do know that time changes everything, but I'm having trouble imagining what it would take to change the lock they have on this state. Major national cultural shift I think. Still having trouble with the imagination.

The far side of a cratering state high-tech economy and collapsing Hub infrastructure might do it.
I mean post-bankruptcy, etc.

Companies are moving the hell out of Chicago.
If Mass becomes a bad enough environment,
companies can bail outta here, too - whether to
Texas, Florida, the Research Triangle or just the land around Pease.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

I do know that time changes everything, but I'm having trouble imagining what it would take to change the lock they have on this state. Major national cultural shift I think. Still having trouble with the imagination.

I think the pace we'd talking about on this one is more historical, like it used to be solidly Republican*, not just voted for Reagan once in a landslide

* (was it even such in the first half of the 20th century at all? I think it was)

Something stupid and let's be honest with every passing day the left is more and more desperate and therefore willing to do something stupid to the point where enough people say enough is enough. A Saco and Venzetti v2. They'll make it happen, they're too stupid to back off. When that happens MA will turn red because too many people are not going to want to be associated with cruelty.

 

[AHM]

Something stupid and let's be honest with every passing day the left is more and more desperate and therefore willing to do something stupid to the point where enough people say enough is enough. A Saco and Venzetti v2. They'll make it happen, they're too stupid to back off. When that happens MA will turn red because too many people are not going to want to be associated with cruelty.

I dunno; Mass residents' wallets speak louder to themselves
than their souls.

 

[safetyfirst2125]

A few interesting notes from FPC:

1) When analyzing Second Amendment claims, lower courts cannot use a "two-step" approach or apply weak "tiered" scrutiny. Instead, the courts will have to perform a historical analysis and determine if the conduct or instrument is protected. If it is protected, and the person is not prohibited under constitutional standards, the challenger should win. This test applies beyond carry cases, and will be important in our lawsuits challenging bans on so-called "assault weapons," handgun "rosters" and microstamping, and other cases seeking to enjoin unconstitutional restrictions on protected firearms and conduct.

2) Today's decision means that if states restrict firearm carry to only those who first obtain a license, then the person must be allowed to carry unless prohibited from exercising Second Amendment rights under constitutional standards.

3) As a practical matter, this decision is likely to mean that peaceable people must be allowed to carry in most public places. The Court said, "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." Under the Court's analysis, there would seem to be a limited number of places where governments may be able to impose location-based restrictions, but the decision does appear to leave untouched specific questions of what those are. We will be actively litigating such restrictions and look forward to restoring the human right to bear arms.

4) The Court expressly held that “when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.”

5) This decision is binding on all lower courts. Current and future cases filed in various jurisdictions will address enforcement of similar laws and other restrictions. And while the remedies in the case apply directly to the parties, governments and law enforcement throughout the nation would be wise to immediately consider this binding decision, end enforcement of their unconstitutional policies and practices, and stop violating fundamental human rights.

6) Under the text-based (informed by history) test announced in Bruen there should be no question that non-general taxes and fees directed at arms are suspect and ripe for challenge.

7) As a practical matter, we anticipate that jurisdictions hostile to the human right to keep and bear arms will place obstacles in the way of applicants. However, when they do, we want people to reach out and let us know by filing a report with our FPC 2A Hotline at 2Ahotline.com: FPC Legal Action Hotline - Submit a Report. Governments that continue to deny the right to carry will be sued.

From: BruenFAQ.org - FPC's NYSRPA v. Bruen FAQ and 'Splainer

 

[JoseyWales]

A few interesting notes from FPC:

1) When analyzing Second Amendment claims, lower courts cannot use a "two-step" approach or apply weak "tiered" scrutiny. Instead, the courts will have to perform a historical analysis and determine if the conduct or instrument is protected. If it is protected, and the person is not prohibited under constitutional standards, the challenger should win. This test applies beyond carry cases, and will be important in our lawsuits challenging bans on so-called "assault weapons," handgun "rosters" and microstamping, and other cases seeking to enjoin unconstitutional restrictions on protected firearms and conduct.

2) Today's decision means that if states restrict firearm carry to only those who first obtain a license, then the person must be allowed to carry unless prohibited from exercising Second Amendment rights under constitutional standards.

3) As a practical matter, this decision is likely to mean that peaceable people must be allowed to carry in most public places. The Court said, "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." Under the Court's analysis, there would seem to be a limited number of places where governments may be able to impose location-based restrictions, but the decision does appear to leave untouched specific questions of what those are. We will be actively litigating such restrictions and look forward to restoring the human right to bear arms.

4) The Court expressly held that “when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.”

5) This decision is binding on all lower courts. Current and future cases filed in various jurisdictions will address enforcement of similar laws and other restrictions. And while the remedies in the case apply directly to the parties, governments and law enforcement throughout the nation would be wise to immediately consider this binding decision, end enforcement of their unconstitutional policies and practices, and stop violating fundamental human rights.

6) Under the text-based (informed by history) test announced in Bruen there should be no question that non-general taxes and fees directed at arms are suspect and ripe for challenge.

7) As a practical matter, we anticipate that jurisdictions hostile to the human right to keep and bear arms will place obstacles in the way of applicants. However, when they do, we want people to reach out and let us know by filing a report with our FPC 2A Hotline at 2Ahotline.com: FPC Legal Action Hotline - Submit a Report. Governments that continue to deny the right to carry will be sued.

From: BruenFAQ.org - FPC's NYSRPA v. Bruen FAQ and 'Splainer

I wish they said "civil right" instead of "human right".

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I imagine this as the kind of situation where Maura is telling one of her deputies to call DAs' assistants and tell them to freeze prosecutions for now. Then those ADAs are calling police captains and lieutenants, telling them that "for the time being," going after LTC violations is "not a prosecutorial priority."

Assuming you are referring to violation of restrictions, it never was.
The real penalty was always LTC revocation - FAR more likely than the state pursuing the civil penalty.