Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

[TLB]

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.

One the justices would have to expire, IMO. None of the 6 will be retiring under Biden.

 

[TLB]

I've never heard of a firm jettisoning attorneys for representing school shooters; rapists or people caught fishing without a license.

Or pedophiles or serial killers... I'm sure they can find another firm willing to work with winners or even found their own firm.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Or pedophiles or serial killers... I'm sure they can find another firm willing to work with winners or even found their own firm.

They already did.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

One the justices would have to expire, IMO. None of the 6 will be retiring under Biden.

The D's already tried to arrange that by stalling protecting the supremes from upgraded protection.

 

[TLB]

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 Bush and Gore were both neocon enough that the Iraq war happens either way. The vast majority of Dems also supported the war and both parties are riddled with neocons. The military complex is going to default into hawk mode. Of course, we'll never know for sure...

 

[safetyfirst2125]

One the justices would have to expire, IMO. None of the 6 will be retiring under Biden.

Pretty sure that option is on the table

 

[Dench]

I think Bush and Gore were both neocon enough that the Iraq war happens either way. The vast majority of Dems also supported to the war and both parties are riddled with neocons. The military complex is going to default into hawk mode. Of course, we'll never know for sure...

The war was certainly pushed on us. There was so much BS evidence and other fake made up stuff to justify it that it looks like the entire US government wanted it. So they made up a story to justify it.

 

[Waher]

The war was certainly pushed on us. There was so much BS evidence and other fake made up stuff to justify it that it looks like the entire US government wanted it. So they made up a story to justify it.

Looking at Libya and Syria under Obama there's zero way Gore wouldn't have been every bit of a warmonger as Bush.

 

[MaverickNH]

Gonna start parking the car in the garage - I don't want pig shit dropping on it.

However… “…the AG's office concludes that the existing statutory requirement "that a public-carry license applicant provide proof of 'good moral character' remains constitutional,"

State Attorney General Suggests Considering Applicants' Ideological Viewpoints in Denying Carry Licenses

Friday, the day after the New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen Supreme Court decision, the California Attorney General wrote a letter to

reason.com

 

[Hoover]

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.

States definitely change. As recently as (I believe) 2012, West Virginia had 2 dem senators, 3 or the 4 congressional seats were dem, AG, Gov, etc and state legislature all dem controlled. Now the GOP has all congressional seats, all state wide seats, a super majority in the legislature, etc. the only one left is Manchin. It went for from all dem to one of the most GOP in the country in less than 10 years

Manchin will probably retire because he’s up in 2024 when the dem POTUS candidate will lose WV at least 70-30. He’d need 20-25% of the voters to vote for him after voting for all GOP in other elections. Similar to what Scott brown needed in 2012. Obama won Massachusetts by 23% or so and brown lost to warren by 7%. It’s very difficult to get so many ticket splitters and Manchin is going to need a lot more than brown needed.

 

[M1911]

Never stopped a Democrat from winning in this state though.

That's because, as you know, the MA electorate is, on average, left of center.

 

[M1911]

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

Once again, and now I'm shouting: HEALEY WOULD BE LOBBYING THE LEGISLATURE FOR MORE GUN CONTROL BILLS -- A MODERATE LIKE BAKER WOULDN'T.

Baker (and other moderate Republicans) are more often closer to our views than Democrats. But conservatives are so intent on punishing heretics that they will cut off their nose to spite their face.

 

[Picton]

However… “…the AG's office concludes that the existing statutory requirement "that a public-carry license applicant provide proof of 'good moral character' remains constitutional,"

State Attorney General Suggests Considering Applicants' Ideological Viewpoints in Denying Carry Licenses

Friday, the day after the New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen Supreme Court decision, the California Attorney General wrote a letter to

reason.com

Okay.

If they want to play that game? They're roping 1A into this issue, in addition to 2A and 14A. Go for it, CA.

 

[M1911]

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.

MA Presidential election results:

1988: MA went for Dukakis (D)
1992: MA went for Clinton (D)
1996: MA went for Clinton (D)
2000: MA went for Gore (D)
2004: MA went for Kerry (D)
2008: MA went for Obama (D)
2012: MA went for Obama (D)
2016: MA went for Clinton (D)
2020: MA went for Biden (D)

Massachusetts voters are left of center. That will not change for decades.

There are swing states that can tilt left or right, depending up the political climate and the candidate. MA isn't one of those.

 

[M1911]

I think Bush and Gore were both neocon enough that the Iraq war happens either way. The vast majority of Dems also supported the war and both parties are riddled with neocons. The military complex is going to default into hawk mode. Of course, we'll never know for sure...

I disagree. https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/gore_text092302.html

Even if he did, he wouldn't have created Gitmo (you argue whether that would have been a good thing or a bad thing). No, I'm not saying I would have preferred Gore over W. I am saying that Gore's policies would have been a lot closer to the progressive left than W's.

 

[Dench]

Once again, and now I'm shouting: HEALEY WOULD BE LOBBYING THE LEGISLATURE FOR MORE GUN CONTROL BILLS -- A MODERATE LIKE BAKER WOULDN'T.

Baker (and other moderate Republicans) are more often closer to our views than Democrats. But conservatives are so intent on punishing heretics that they will cut off their nose to spite their face.

I don't think one less person lobbying for what the hivemind wants really makes a difference.

Not sure what you mean by Baker and "moderate." He appears to be a moderate (D). If that's what you mean, then yes absolutely.

 

[SteelShooter]

MA Presidential election results:

1988: MA went for Dukakis (D)
1992: MA went for Clinton (D)
1996: MA went for Clinton (D)
2000: MA went for Gore (D)
2004: MA went for Kerry (D)
2008: MA went for Obama (D)
2012: MA went for Obama (D)
2016: MA went for Clinton (D)
2020: MA went for Biden (D)

Massachusetts voters are left of center. That will not change for decades.

There are swing states that can tilt left or right, depending up the political climate and the candidate. MA isn't one of those.

unless, of course, we have been victims of ballot fixing and rigged elections.

 

[M1911]

unless, of course, we have been victims of ballot fixing and rigged elections.

Oh FFS. That's complete BS and you know it. MA voters, on average, are left of center. End of story.

 

[sieveboy]

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

I’d think human right is more basic, obvious and fundamental.

 

[safetyfirst2125]

However… “…the AG's office concludes that the existing statutory requirement "that a public-carry license applicant provide proof of 'good moral character' remains constitutional,"

State Attorney General Suggests Considering Applicants' Ideological Viewpoints in Denying Carry Licenses

Friday, the day after the New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen Supreme Court decision, the California Attorney General wrote a letter to

reason.com

“…the AG's office suggests that people who hold certain ideological viewpoints should be disqualified:

Existing public-carry policies of local law enforcement agencies across the state provide helpful examples of how to apply the "good moral character" requirement.

The Riverside County Sheriff's Department's policy, for example, currently provides as follows: "Legal judgments of good moral character can include consideration of honesty, trustworthiness, diligence, reliability, respect for the law, integrity, candor, discretion, observance of fiduciary duty, respect for the rights of others, absence of hatred and racism, fiscal stability, profession-specific criteria such as pledging to honor the constitution and uphold the law, and the absence of criminal conviction.

As to how law enforcement is to figure out such matters, the AG's office has some advice: Among other things,

As a starting point for purposes of investigating an applicant's moral character, many issuing authorities require personal references and/or reference letters. Investigators may personally interview applicants and use the opportunity to gain further insight into the applicant's character. And they may search publicly-available information, including social media accounts, in assessing the applicant's “character.”


Sounds an awful lot like China’s social credit scoring system to me Bob. Only those who adhere to the regimes points of view need apply. We can’t have our political enemies owning guns when the shooting starts, now can we?

 

[AHM]

However… “…the AG's office concludes that the existing statutory requirement "that a public-carry license applicant provide proof of 'good moral character' remains constitutional,"

State Attorney General Suggests Considering Applicants' Ideological Viewpoints in Denying Carry Licenses

Friday, the day after the New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen Supreme Court decision, the California Attorney General wrote a letter to

reason.com

Note well: Eugene Volokh isn't just some member of the Hair Club for Civil Rights.
He's contributed amicus briefs to 1A SCOTUS cases
(and I think has been on some cases' legal teams - at least as advisor).

If Cali tried pulling that "good moral character == woke anti-racist" crap,
there is a very good chance he'd be in on the 1A aspects of the suit.

Looking at Libya and Syria under Obama there's zero way Gore wouldn't have been every bit of a warmonger as Bush.

I disagree. https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/gore_text092302.html

Even if he did, he wouldn't have created Gitmo ...

Puh-leeze; watch Gore in action:

Extraordinary rendition § Historical cases

The American Civil Liberties Union alleges that extraordinary​

rendition was developed during the Clinton administration. CIA​

officials in the mid-1990s were trying to track down and​

dismantle militant Islamic organizations in the Middle East,​

particularly Al Qaeda.​

​

According to Clinton administration official Richard Clarke:​

​

'extraordinary renditions', were operations to apprehend​

terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost​

always without public acknowledgment of the host government ...​

The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House​

Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to​

explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to​

be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting,​

having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped​

the arguments on both sides for Gore: 'Lloyd says this. Dick​

says that.' Gore laughed and said, 'That's a no-brainer. Of​

course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a​

covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.'​

That's because, as you know, the MA electorate is, on average, left of center.

Pass the voter-ID ballot referendum and see what happens.
IIRC, even in Mass 60%-70% of voters want a photo ID law,
and I doubt that number is decreasing...

Oh FFS. That's complete BS and you know it. MA voters, on average, are left of center. End of story.

So the state won't push back on voter ID because they have nothing to hide,
and subsequent election results with be statistically indistinguishable from
what came beforehand.

Pay no attention to the fact that I've heard Donks plan their voter fraud in public.

 

[ReggieB9mm]

A civil right is not inalienable, a human right is.

 

[MaverickNH]

Okay.

If they want to play that game? They're roping 1A into this issue, in addition to 2A and 14A. Go for it, CA.

That said, the former Cali AG Xavier Becerra was unable to seize guns from more than 10% of those that had their firearms permits revoked due to felony conviction and other disqualifying causes. He wanted $100s of millions more that he never got before he left to join Biden’s administration.

The $$$ it would take to implement a “moral character” investigation operation would be even more cost-prohibitive. The SCOTUS decision also noted that lengthy permitting delays or fees were also not kosher. I expect most CA issuing authorities will just do a NICS and issue, once any fingerprinting/training requirements are satisfied.

”We’ll stop infringing rights of the people when we’re good and ready” is a poor attitude for any AG…

 

[rep308]

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.

States do change, growing up in the 70s-80s there were conservative Dems like Ed King now the state has changed in you have to be a screaming lib Dem to be taken seriously. MA unfortunately has gone from left leaning to solidly full blown lib.

 

[Waher]

That's because, as you know, the MA electorate is, on average, left of center.

We keep hearing that, but this state also voted against gay marriage. There's a major push in this state for people to just fit in and go with the flow along the path of least resistance. I happen to think if a lot of the non-voters in this state bothered voting it might be closer to a 50/50 split than we think. It's just the more conservative population of the state is so demoralized they don't bother voting.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

MA Presidential election results:

1988: MA went for Dukakis (D)
1992: MA went for Clinton (D)
1996: MA went for Clinton (D)
2000: MA went for Gore (D)
2004: MA went for Kerry (D)
2008: MA went for Obama (D)
2012: MA went for Obama (D)
2016: MA went for Clinton (D)
2020: MA went for Biden (D)

Massachusetts voters are left of center. That will not change for decades.

There are swing states that can tilt left or right, depending up the political climate and the candidate. MA isn't one of those.

Also the ONLY state that went for McGovern back in 1972.

 

[Dench]

States do change, growing up in the 70s-80s there were conservative Dems like Ed King now the state has changed in you have to be a screaming lib Dem to be taken seriously. MA unfortunately has gone from left leaning to solidly full blown lib.

MA is in the "do liberal things for reasons" phase.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

That said, the former Cali AG Xavier Becerra was unable to seize guns from more than 10% of those that had their firearms permits revoked due to felony conviction and other disqualifying causes. He wanted $100s of millions more that he never got before he left to join Biden’s administration.

The $$$ it would take to implement a “moral character” investigation operation would be even more cost-prohibitive. The SCOTUS decision also noted that lengthy permitting delays or fees were also not kosher. I expect most CA issuing authorities will just do a NICS and issue, once any fingerprinting/training requirements are satisfied.

”We’ll stop infringing rights of the people when we’re good and ready” is a poor attitude for any AG…

They are already doing things like defining "Any arrest withing the past 5 years, regardless of disposition" as evidence of bad moral character.

 

[safetyfirst2125]

“…the AG's office suggests that people who hold certain ideological viewpoints should be disqualified:

Existing public-carry policies of local law enforcement agencies across the state provide helpful examples of how to apply the "good moral character" requirement.

The Riverside County Sheriff's Department's policy, for example, currently provides as follows: "Legal judgments of good moral character can include consideration of honesty, trustworthiness, diligence, reliability, respect for the law, integrity, candor, discretion, observance of fiduciary duty, respect for the rights of others, absence of hatred and racism, fiscal stability, profession-specific criteria such as pledging to honor the constitution and uphold the law, and the absence of criminal conviction.

As to how law enforcement is to figure out such matters, the AG's office has some advice: Among other things,

As a starting point for purposes of investigating an applicant's moral character, many issuing authorities require personal references and/or reference letters. Investigators may personally interview applicants and use the opportunity to gain further insight into the applicant's character. And they may search publicly-available information, including social media accounts, in assessing the applicant's “character.”


Sounds an awful lot like China’s social credit scoring system to me Bob. Only those who adhere to the regimes points of view need apply. We can’t have our political enemies owning guns when the shooting starts, now can we?

Oh, and what other “publicly available information” is out there?

Your political donations. (Look yourself or your coworkers up now at FEC.gov under “individual contributions”)

Your political party affiliation (most states).

 

[JoseyWales]

I followed one links with an article on Bruen at the Firearms Policy Coalition site. And thought about buying a t-shirt and noticed they had a good quote on their store front: And who will take the millions of AR-15s owned by millions of people—the same police who are afraid of just one?