Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

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

Which, I think, would satisfy the letter, but certainly not the intent.

They're so petty. They're setting themselves up for a Caetano-type smackdown.
 
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.
Post-election posturing is not proof of what his policy would have been. There is nothing to gain by agreeing with your rival. The best bet is to disagree and hope they fail. I believe Gore's hand picked staff would have encouraged him to go there based on recommendations from the intelligence community and the military complex which had unfinished business there.

Again, we'll truly never know. I don't disagree that Gore was more progressive in general, though.
 
They are already doing things like defining "Any arrest withing the past 5 years, regardless of disposition" as evidence of bad moral character.

Yes, good point. That issuing authority has been especially stringent in license denials 2020 forward, to no effect on crime. I doubt violent crime in SFO dropped - they just stopping counting crimes as crimes.

D18F07E2-AA6F-42DF-8D3E-990E28AB0F77.jpeg
 
I can’t wait for the AWB stuff - hard to say how any of that stuff is going to stand given that along with mag bans it all stood based on that two step BA which is explicitly called out in this ruling.

Someone mentioned earlier the potential impact on knives, which are arms. Anyone have any thoughts on if anything will change down the road on this front? It’s outrageous you can’t carry auto knives in MA. I would think a permitting process would have to exist, versus 100% ban
 
I can’t wait for the AWB stuff - hard to say how any of that stuff is going to stand given that along with mag bans it all stood based on that two step BA which is explicitly called out in this ruling.

Someone mentioned earlier the potential impact on knives, which are arms. Anyone have any thoughts on if anything will change down the road on this front? It’s outrageous you can’t carry auto knives in MA. I would think a permitting process would have to exist, versus 100% ban
AWB, SBRs, suppressors, “machine guns”, body armor, knives, etc etc etc.
 
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,"


The the CA AG may think he’s cute but that won’t fly. Thomas and the majority were very clear, no arbitrary gun laws, period. May issue is dead and any shall issue needs to have definitive regulations that are on the judgement of a bureaucrat. If they pass a law saying a misdemeanor conviction within 5 years is disqualifying, that may be allowed but anything needs to be expressly in the law and not subjective

I think CAs disqualification for any arrests in the previous 5 years will lose in court. An arrest needs probable cause. That’s far short of a conviction.

Thomas and the majority said 1 step, text and history. These new, creative. “solutions” are not going to pass the new standard odd review
 

Yes, good point. That issuing authority has been especially stringent in license denials 2020 forward, to no effect on crime. I doubt violent crime in SFO dropped - they just stopping counting crimes as crimes.

View attachment 630758

This is SF. This guy is a liberal and even with his experiences probably still voted for pelosi, biden, etc afterwards


A LOT of crime never gets reported because it’s an incredibly arduous process and nothing will happen to the perps. Read this guys tweets, funny, sad, infuriating in one.

SF is a very dangerous city. In polling something close to half say they plan to leave because the city has gone downhill so far.
 
This is SF. This guy is a liberal and even with his experiences probably still voted for pelosi, biden, etc afterwards


A LOT of crime never gets reported because it’s an incredibly arduous process and nothing will happen to the perps. Read this guys tweets, funny, sad, infuriating in one.

SF is a very dangerous city. In polling something close to half say they plan to leave because the city has gone downhill so far.
Even San Francisco’s recently ousted district attorney Chesa Boudin admitted that he didn’t report it when his car was broken into.
 
The the CA AG may think he’s cute but that won’t fly. Thomas and the majority were very clear, no arbitrary gun laws, period. May issue is dead and any shall issue needs to have definitive regulations that are on the judgement of a bureaucrat. If they pass a law saying a misdemeanor conviction within 5 years is disqualifying, that may be allowed but anything needs to be expressly in the law and not subjective

I think CAs disqualification for any arrests in the previous 5 years will lose in court. An arrest needs probable cause. That’s far short of a conviction.

Thomas and the majority said 1 step, text and history. These new, creative. “solutions” are not going to pass the new standard odd review

I agree.

But it'll all take awhile, like the AWB/off-list/mag ban stuff. It'll be the reason Thomas' opinion will turn out to be the gift that keeps on givin.'
 
If you have 2 hours; Grab a cold one or two, a pipe or smoke of your choice and sit back and give Andrew a chance.

Very informal.

ETA: He is still understandable if you speed up the playback. Oh, this will be PART 1, of many.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHefXgxxsBs
 
Last edited:
with the ruling any advice on removing my target and hunting restrictions ?
SCotUS says these restrictions are unconstitutional. Whether the local authorities will still attempt to enforce unconstitutional restrictions is unknown. Some states look like they are throwing in the towel, MA's AG is throwing a tantrum stating nothing has changed.

Pretty much until it is tested in court or an official declaration by the Commonwealth or your licensing authority is made we don't know.

Now if you want to draw a test case and open carry through Brookline wearing an appropriately stylish yarmulke, well that would help despite the potential legal and mortal peril to yourself from the Brookline PD. /please don't do that without consulting a good firearms attorney first
GadsdenKippah-300x288.jpg

TZP_KippahActual-011.jpg
 

Joint Public Defender Statement on U.S. Supreme Court Ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen

(New York, NY) – Black Attorneys of Legal Aid, The Bronx Defenders, Brooklyn Defender Services, Monroe County Public Defender, Ontario County Conflict Defender’s Office, Ontario County Public Defender, Oneida County Public Defender, Wayne County Public Defender, and St. Lawrence County Public Defender released the following statement in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in NYSRPA v. Bruen:

“New York enacted its firearm licensing requirement in the early 20th century to prevent immigrants and people of color from possessing guns. Since its enactment, the law has justified discriminatory policing and criminalization of Black and brown people living in urban low-income communities. As public defenders, we represent too many people of color who face years in prison not for shooting, but for simply possessing an unlicensed gun — something that is legal in close to half of the country. New Yorkers prosecuted for simple gun possession are branded “criminals” and “violent felons” for life, facing mandatory prison sentences, separation from their communities and families, and an inability to maintain stable employment and housing. That is why we and other public defenders across the state filed an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to put an end to New York’s discriminatory gun licensing scheme. Today’s ruling strikes down the carry provision of the law; however, it fails to address the discriminatory nature of the underlying gun licensing scheme and the criminalization of Black and brown New Yorkers.

We share in the collective horror at the recent tragedies in Buffalo, Uvalde, and Tulsa and the deep concerns about gun violence. And we acknowledge the overdue need to seriously address gun violence in this country. We are also concerned about the violence perpetuated against Black and brown people in urban areas of New York State who are criminalized and incarcerated for unlicensed gun possession while unlicensed gun possession in white rural communities frequently goes unaddressed.

The people we represent, whose stories we told in our brief, did not hurt anyone. Like all gun owners, they had many different reasons to own a gun. Some had traveled from places where unlicensed gun possession is common and legal. Some had survived gun violence themselves and had a gun to protect themselves and their families. Some live in communities where they do not trust and cannot rely on the police. And yet, the police have unfettered discretion in deciding who can get a license and protect themselves.

Over 90% of the people prosecuted for unlicensed gun possession in New York City are Black and brown. These are the people impacted by New York’s discriminatory gun licensing scheme, which has fueled the criminalization and incarceration of young New Yorkers of color. As the last two years have shown us, even short periods in New York City jails can be a death sentence.

Gun regulation need not mean funneling low-income Black and brown people into the criminal legal system. Today, we call on the legislature to design new gun regulations that are rooted in equity, not racism and to address the mass criminalization and incarceration of people of color for unlicensed gun possession. We look forward to working with the legislature to chart a new course in addressing gun violence – one that does not perpetuate racial discrimination and harm.”
 
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.
I agree, strike while the iron is hot, the Left always does.
 
I'm guessing that the restrictions in MA slowly and quietly disappear since they blatantly violate the ruling.

The suitability/may issue part, I'm not so sure they will without a fight.
 
I'm guessing that the restrictions in MA slowly and quietly disappear since they blatantly violate the ruling.

The suitability/may issue part, I'm not so sure they will without a fight.
being currently restricted to target and hunting and told its how the chief does it ! being patient to get mylicense un restricted
 
Clown world.
So when the Supreme Court manufactures rights out of thin air it’s a good thing. But when the Supreme Court reaffirms existing rights it’s a bad thing.

I didn’t realize Healey went both ways…. I heard she was on a fur burger diet only
She must have had her strap-on too tight, or her butt plug too deep.
 
didnt find much but ill keep scrolling the thread

That's because nobody really knows.

My advice, on Thursday and now, is to go ahead and carry: if you're caught, I doubt the CoP would know what to do with you in the current uncertainty.

But, like I also said earlier, that's easy for me to say. You're the one taking the risk. Depending on where you live and your chief's proclivities, giving them a call might sort it out. But be prepared for them not to have a new policy in place for awhile.
 
Back
Top Bottom