Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

PeterC said:
Once, many years ago, Haverhill MA tried to restrict my renewal to 'target and hunting'. So, I got a free 15 minute consult with a good attorney and got some good advice. I then went back to the Chief with "I talked to my attorney and he suggested this ...", no surprise, the police agreed, I met those conditions and I got my full, unrestricted permit. They didn't seem to be very pissed off at all.

It doesn't necesssarily have to result in a long, drawn out, expensive court confrontation.
Click to expand...
Long, drawn-out or not, you should not have to do that. You should not need a lawyer or a reason to own a gun. The sad truth is Massachusetts will simply ignore this ruling. For us, it will be business as usual. Massachusetts will spend millions of taxpayer dollars to fight this on a state and local level.
 
Waher said:
If the NFA fails the ATF's existence would be in question and the Treasury should have to refund every penny they collected on NFA tax stamps, fees, and the like.
Click to expand...
While the money should be returned, I think the general consensus would be to let it fall and lose the money it that was the only reason to keep it.
 
pastera said:
While the money should be returned, I think the general consensus would be to let it fall and lose the money it that was the only reason to keep it.
Click to expand...
SCOTUS undoes the NFA for Independence Day, and all it costs us is 88 years of sunk cost in the form of registration fees?
Ill-allow-it.gif

(sure, I have no skin in this game; but, let's overlook that for a second)
 
1903Collector said:
Are these to be heard next term (hopefully) or did I really miss something current term?
Click to expand...

These 4 cases were pending cert at SCOTUS and put on hold while NYSRPA was decided. Now SCOTUS needs to deny cert (let the lower court decision stand, vacate and remand to a lower court to redo based on NYSRPA or accept the case for the next term which starts in October.

There were dozens of other cases in district courts and appeals courts put on hold over the past 8 months pending NYSRPA decision. Those will all start up again and have NYSRPA as the law and standard of review to follow
 
jhblaze1 said:
CA not getting the hint

reason.com

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 reason.com
Click to expand...

If the licensing regulations are not definitive (not the subjective rules in MA, CA, NY, NJ, HI, MD) and reasonable, SCOTUS will slap them down if the lower courts don’t. The opinion was clear and pretty far reaching
 
When the 55MPH speed limit was repealed, did everyone who had to pay a traffic ticket get a refund? When Prohibition was repealed, did they let Al Capone out of prison?

Waher said:
If the NFA fails the ATF's existence would be in question and the Treasury should have to refund every penny they collected on NFA tax stamps, fees, and the like.
Click to expand...
 
If the magazine limits fail, I'll happily donate my pre ban 30 round magazines to a "magazine shoot" for NES green members. ;)

Mesatchornug said:
We can all have a toast about it - them, to their "lost profit;" us, to the market which doth provide; and everyone to increased human liberty.
Click to expand...
 
Garys said:
When the 55MPH speed limit was repealed, did everyone who had to pay a traffic ticket get a refund? When Prohibition was repealed, did they let Al Capone out of prison?
Click to expand...
State has the authority to set and change limits
Al Capone was snagged on tax evasion - he was still guilty even after the repeal.

The tax on certain items of the NFA possibly could be upheld as $200 isn't highly prohibitive in todays dollars but the registry will need to opened and state level prohibitions removed.
Under the text of Bruen, the NFA should be struck down but SCOTUS likely isn't going to take up anything related. It would need to be taken up in a very favorable circuit to have any chance of getting anywhere.
 
mcshooter said:
If they deem all mag restrictions unconstitutional, there will be a lot of happy MA folks
Click to expand...
I could cut my loaded mag stash in half with shiny new plastic magpul 20-rounders 👍

If the suppressor ban was overturned I could enjoy shooting without two sets of ears for the 308.

And not have to worry about going deaf if I chose it for home defense in the middle of the night and don’t put on the ears

Ah, one can dream.
 
Hoover said:
If the licensing regulations are not definitive (not the subjective rules in MA, CA, NY, NJ, HI, MD) and reasonable, SCOTUS will slap them down if the lower courts don’t. The opinion was clear and pretty far reaching
Click to expand...
agree...but the fact that Bonta is telling issuance authorities that "good moral character" DQs are skill ok is troubling if for no reason other than it will take someone having to battle it in court. In the meantime people who are "racist" or "fiscally unstable" can be denied.
 
kieron said:
Attleboro, Seekonk and Norton toeing the line. I thought Attleboro was more green than this...

Some Attleboro area police chiefs see little change on gun licenses, await state guidance

Some Attleboro area police chiefs say there are no immediate changes in how they issue gun licenses and that they are awaiting for state guidelines on the legal ramifications of
www.thesunchronicle.com www.thesunchronicle.com
Click to expand...
Except if those towns are already green and acting as shall issue there wouldn't be a change in how they issue.

Admittedly I don't know how green those towns are - if they aren't like Taunton then they should get a hard, fast and personally expensive smackdown
 
Bladerunner said:
Bottom line: Arbitrary magazine bans will not survive legal scrutiny from here on out. Any common use item, will also not survive prohibition.
Click to expand...
Agreed there is absolutely not way mag bans and AWBs can survive this ruling. That’s not to say things will change overnight, in fact it may take a number of years for states to be forced to comply via lawsuits, but it’s game over for both of those pieces of law.
 
pastera said:
Bruen eclipses the premise that a firearm need be or need not be a military weapon.
Miller should fall given the dicta in Bruen, McDonald and Heller

Edit to add my useless opinion of why Miller must fall:
Bruen calls out a standard above strict scrutiny - the state must show that a limitation is closely related to a historic limitation and is closely related to the state interest.

Items covered by Miller are available and the supply was not limited until 1986 however there is no significant history of the items contributing to illegal actions except for a simple prohibition of possession without the tax stamp. The state simply cannot justify the limitation. What could get us is the proliferation of Chinese giggle switches but that could be overcome by the fact that Miller is simply ineffective at its intended cause therefore doesn't overcome the burden to be narrowly tailored
Click to expand...

I've read the actual SCOTUS decision in US vs Miller, in fact I have a book on the decision. Was what relevant in the upholding of Miller's trial of possession of a sawed off shotgun is that at the time SCOTUS analyzed the NFA and said that since the military does not use sawed off shotguns then they qualify as unusual weapons that can be regulated. So in Miller's terms weapons that are used by the military are weapons that cannot be regulated. Of course in the years since Miller the military has short barrelled rifles, shotguns as well as silencers so the rationale behind upholding Miller is on flimsy ground. What is even perhaps more relevant is that by the time the case was brought to SCOTUS Miller had already died in prison. There was no one on the 'other side', the case was decided in a one sided decision. There is also a question of even basic standing by that point since the defendant who was claiming a 2A right wasn't even alive. But the court took the case anyways, took only testimony from one side and rendered the decision we have today. It's a perfect example of a decision resting on a flimsy legal argument.
 
VetteGirlMA said:
I've read the actual SCOTUS decision in US vs Miller, in fact I have a book on the decision. Was what relevant in the upholding of Miller's trial of possession of a sawed off shotgun is that at the time SCOTUS analyzed the NFA and said that since the military does not use sawed off shotguns then they qualify as unusual weapons that can be regulated. So in Miller's terms weapons that are used by the military are weapons that cannot be regulated. Of course in the years since Miller the military has short barrelled rifles, shotguns as well as silencers so the rationale behind upholding Miller is on flimsy ground. What is even perhaps more relevant is that by the time the case was brought to SCOTUS Miller had already died in prison. There was no one on the 'other side', the case was decided in a one sided decision. There is also a question of even basic standing by that point since the defendant who was claiming a 2A right wasn't even alive. But the court took the case anyways, took only testimony from one side and rendered the decision we have today. It's a perfect example of a decision resting on a flimsy legal argument.
Click to expand...
Fully agree
With Bruen the historical context of the 2nd is shown to encompass both military and non-military arms. Add to that context that the NFA simply taxed the possession because congress believed, on the record, that they could not completely ban the possession of covered items.
So the contemporary legal understanding of the 2A at the time was that NFA items could not be outright banned, the ban implemented in 1986 on new items entering into the registry fails scrutiny.
If congress then attempts to raise the stamp cost to prohibitive levels then equal justice comes into play.
 
kieron said:
Attleboro, Seekonk and Norton toeing the line. I thought Attleboro was more green than this...

Some Attleboro area police chiefs see little change on gun licenses, await state guidance

Some Attleboro area police chiefs say there are no immediate changes in how they issue gun licenses and that they are awaiting for state guidelines on the legal ramifications of
www.thesunchronicle.com www.thesunchronicle.com
Click to expand...
Jesus the stupidity. “I’m no legal expert but let me give you my legal opinion” says one chief. Do they even listen to themselves.
 
Hoover said:
State cops in mass seem to think they are superior beings and they have rights commoners don’t. It’s so common it must be something they teach at the academy
Click to expand...
By superior, do you mean being told that after you graduate from the MSP academy and become an official trooper, the rules of the road don't apply to you unless you get in an accident?
Or, as a spouse, girlfriend, boyfriend, you can expect to be a victim of domestic violence at some point during your relatives career. We want you come to report it to us first, we have an EAP (Employee Assistance Plan) in place, that can help you both get past this, we are here for you! This was told during orientation to the recruits and their families back in the early 2000's when Foley was at the top.
 

Similar threads

Garland v. VanDerStok
Replies
0
Views
119
lutstribe
L
Supreme Court decision on rifle bans
Replies
9
Views
741
Tartakovsky
Tartakovsky
Circuit Court Judge Strikes Down Illinois FOID Card Requirement for Guns in the Home
Replies
1
Views
132
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
464
Mark from ?
M
Back
Top Bottom