Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

Picton said:
It's a new world now, and your town's LO might need a phone call from a lawyer to let him know that. Then again, so might our state AG, so he's in good company. [banghead]
Click to expand...
It boggles my mind that the reaction from far more restrictive states (hey, NJ, looking at you) is pretty much "oh, OK", but in Massachusetts where at least a decent section of the population can already get an unrestricted LTC the AG is being a dolt about it.

Given our AG it's not that surprising, but still.
 
Mark from MA said:
Wrong answer.

His answer should have been carry anyway starting today, restrictions or not I have your back until they are removed from the document.

Honestly, if you carry now, and they try to do anything to you........now you have a big civil rights lawsuit. Those restrictions are null and void.

Not legal advice mind you.....but CLEO in every restricted town should be telling anyone that calls they are now unrestricted.
Click to expand...
I want to start carrying anyways but with my luck I’ll get stopped they will run my license and see it’s restricted I’m trying to join a gun club but it’s just not right I’ve come into too many close calls I actually was just in court because some guy tried to stab me and guess what of course I wasn’t carrying
 
amb said:
It boggles my mind that the reaction from far more restrictive states (hey, NJ, looking at you) is pretty much "oh, OK", but in Massachusetts where at least a decent section of the population can already get an unrestricted LTC the AG is being a dolt about it.

Given our AG it's not that surprising, but still.
Click to expand...

I keep reminding myself she's running for governor. So obviously she's got a reason to sound like Billy Badass.

But the way this is going, SCOTUS needs to be proactive in slapping down these jurisdictions.
 
Wramos93 said:
Man if it didn’t cost 4-5k to get a attorney I 100% will it’s stupid I have to wait 5 months then again it could be worst but still a criminal isn’t going to wait 5-6 months for me to wait to get my ltc unrestricted I’ve had way to many close calls
Click to expand...
Yeah, some parts of Medford can be scary. When I lived on Salem St a few years ago (right between the exit 32 I-93 rotary (now exit 23 I believe due to the dumb re-numbering) and the fire station), a delivery guy got stabbed near there. Another time I saw a guy either out of his mind or high on something running into traffic and fighting with motorists. Crazy that some officials are so gung ho about preventing you from protecting yourself.
 
crispnipz said:
Yeah, some parts of Medford can be scary. When I lived on Salem St a few years ago (right between the exit 32 I-93 rotary (now exit 23 I believe due to the dumb re-numbering) and the fire station), a delivery guy got stabbed near there. Another time I saw a guy either out of his mind or high on something running into traffic and fighting with motorists. Crazy that some officials are so gung ho about preventing you from protecting yourself.
Click to expand...
I live near by Salem st and I’m tired of walking my dog super fast because the local crack head is just patrolling the streets or the fears of getting stabbed
 
crispnipz said:
Yeah, some parts of Medford can be scary. When I lived on Salem St a few years ago (right between the exit 32 I-93 rotary (now exit 23 I believe due to the dumb re-numbering) and the fire station), a delivery guy got stabbed near there. Another time I saw a guy either out of his mind or high on something running into traffic and fighting with motorists. Crazy that some officials are so gung ho about preventing you from protecting yourself.
Click to expand...
It’s crazy because the licensing Leo is actually super chill I’m almost certain his hands are tied because of current chief in charge but it’s just unacceptable I almost just want to start carrying with the ruling but don’t wanna get my license revoked
 
Wramos93 said:
It’s crazy because the licensing Leo is actually super chill I’m almost certain his hands are tied because of current chief in charge but it’s just unacceptable I almost just want to start carrying with the ruling but don’t wanna get my license revoked
Click to expand...
Obviously, you're the only one who can decide what's right for you. Obviously some firearms are easier to conceal than others. Eventually, you just have to study your risk/reward and make your choices.

That said, if you don't already have a holster, it can't hurt to find one that works for you. At the very least, you can practice wearing it at home and on day trips to NH...
 
Mesatchornug said:
It may not need to cost that much. I'm sure you're keeping an eye on this thread:
www.northeastshooters.com

MA License Restrictions

The proper solution to the restriction issue is NOT necessarily to pressure places like Brookline to rollover, since that's a game of whackamole. The FRB has already made changes in response to the legal environment: 1. It updated their system to include nationality and naturalization # to...
www.northeastshooters.com www.northeastshooters.com
Click to expand...
I am thanks so much great forum
 
DispositionMatrix said:
New York is calling an "extraordinary session" of the legislature to be convened to add a live-fire training requirement and a list of "sensitive areas" where carry can be banned.
Click to expand...
NY Live Fire test has been released. Applicants must hit all three targets from 50yds. Rounds that hit anywhere outside of the A are not counted.

1656431817347.png
 
Wramos93 said:
It’s crazy because the licensing Leo is actually super chill I’m almost certain his hands are tied because of current chief in charge but it’s just unacceptable I almost just want to start carrying with the ruling but don’t wanna get my license revoked
Click to expand...

You might be right, but chill or not, they're both in violation of the US Constitution as of last Thursday.

By contrast, you, if you choose to carry for your own protection, are fully in line with the US Constitution.

Let your conscience and risk assessment be your guide.
 
Bladerunner said:
NY Live Fire test has been released. Applicants must hit all three targets from 50yds. Rounds that hit anywhere outside of the A are not counted.

View attachment 631530
Click to expand...

I take it for granted that this requirement applies equally to police officers and gangbangers also.
 
amb said:
It boggles my mind that the reaction from far more restrictive states (hey, NJ, looking at you) is pretty much "oh, OK", but in Massachusetts where at least a decent section of the population can already get an unrestricted LTC the AG is being a dolt about it.

Given our AG it's not that surprising, but still.
Click to expand...
She's an insufferable commie wratchet.
 
DispositionMatrix said:
New York is calling an "extraordinary session" of the legislature to be convened to add a live-fire training requirement and a list of "sensitive areas" where carry can be banned. They also will discuss adding an in-person interview requirement and a default ban on carry at private businesses unless those businesses opt in to allow carry.
NY lawmakers nearing agreement to amend concealed-carry law

NYC hasn't even begun, but the city will inherit whatever the state imposes and then add additional barriers to its Byzantine licensing scheme.

California is not going to comply, though they say they are by eliminating "good cause." They are bolstering their "good moral character" requirement to replace "good cause." They are also keeping subjective requirements and asking the applicant why he or she wants to carry. https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/legal-alert-oag-2022-02.pdf

My guess is Massachusetts will change nothing.
Click to expand...
They're just setting the stage for Scotus to strike down licensing schemes and make it nationwide constitutional carry. The whole point of striking down may issue is to remove the beurocracy and give people equal protection in if they're legal gun owners and (in applicable states) can pass a basic and fair live fire exam, not this "moral character" nonsense that still leaves the decision up to a beurocrat.
 
Wramos93 said:
It’s crazy because the licensing Leo is actually super chill I’m almost certain his hands are tied because of current chief in charge but it’s just unacceptable I almost just want to start carrying with the ruling but don’t wanna get my license revoked
Click to expand...
Totally understood.

However, if they revoke your license, because of restrictions you don't have to follow because of the new legal ruling...........Ummmm......that's not gonna pass muster.

Of course.......no one wants to be the test case, so i get it, and can get ugly and expensive before your vindicated.
 
Picton said:
I keep reminding myself she's running for governor. So obviously she's got a reason to sound like Billy Badass.

But the way this is going, SCOTUS needs to be proactive in slapping down these jurisdictions.
Click to expand...
I mean, we expected various states to play this game and have a "shall issue" scheme that is may issue by any other name and the reason why we said for the may issue states the only way there'd be fairness in conceal carry is to strike down all license schemes and totally remove all government involvment.

Maybe SCOTUS is willing to do that, but they wanted to give the may issue states a chance to fall in line for if they failed to then SCOTUS would go nuclear and make nationwide Constitutional Carry
 
T-Unit said:
They're just setting the stage for Scotus to strike down licensing schemes and make it nationwide constitutional carry. The whole point of striking down may issue is to remove the beurocracy and give people equal protection in if they're legal gun owners and (in applicable states) can pass a basic and fair live fire exam, not this "moral character" nonsense that still leaves the decision up to a beurocrat.
Click to expand...
Since its a Constitutional right, states should not be regulating, and any license should be like a drivers license, recognized Country wide.

Not that there should be any license for a Constitutional right mind you.....but I understand baby steps it takes to get there.
 
Mark from MA said:
Since its a Constitutional right, states should not be regulating, and any license should be like a drivers license, recognized Country wide.

Not that there should be any license for a Constitutional right mind you.....but I understand baby steps it takes to get there.
Click to expand...
It's also a possibility that the only way Thomad was going to get a majority to agree was by making shall issue the minimum standard as others weren't willing to go to full permitless carry.

If NY, CA, and Mass keep up the bullshit, even Roberts would be willing to crack the whip on them.
 
T-Unit said:
It's also a possibility that the only way Thomad was going to get a majority to agree was by making shall issue the minimum standard as others weren't willing to go to full permitless carry.

If NY, CA, and Mass keep up the bullshit, even Roberts would be willing to crack the whip on them.
Click to expand...

I betting that they (well, beyond maybe thomas, gorsuch, alito) didn't want to open the box that far. It would destroy the "reasonable restriction" logic altogether. Including background checks and other garbage
 
Mark from MA said:
Since its a Constitutional right, states should not be regulating, and any license should be like a drivers license, recognized Country wide.

Not that there should be any license for a Constitutional right mind you.....but I understand baby steps it takes to get there.
Click to expand...
If we're going to compare to drivers' licenses it seems there's some conversation to be had in parallels. (Bearing in mind this isn't my preference, just an hypothetical.)

So, you have the right to move about the country, but you don't have a right to drive an automobile, yes? This is (in my understanding) the argument for licensing drivers and coordinating the interstate compact that sees their recognition nationwide. Those agreements say it's incumbent on the driver to know the local laws, e.g., passing on the right, or right on red rules.

Similarly, one might say we have the RKBA, but that doesn't necessarily extend to all arms in all places. If we accept that, and assume the states behave reasonably, we might imagine a reasonable scheme for ensuring a person who avails himself of the right is doing it within the state's agreed structure. Then we could reasonably assume the states would, on their own accord, come to some agreement where they respect the LTCs of the other states.

If we hold to the ideal that that government is best which governs least, it seems appropriate for the feds to try to be hands-off here. They've been shown that their previously light approach was insufficient to endure our rights are protected, so they've now provided updated guidance. Small corrections seem better, even if it means we still have to get beat up a bit before we get where we're going.

The alternative is a fedgov that regularly takes too-big bites and we find ourselves fighting for 88 years to overturn another Miller Decision that went the wrong way.

Or maybe I need to go eat lunch and stop giving the state too much line.
 
drgrant said:
I betting that they (well, beyond maybe thomas, gorsuch, alito) didn't want to open the box that far. It would destroy the "reasonable restriction" logic altogether. Including background checks and other garbage
Click to expand...
Considering that those who legally own guns likely bought them after a background check, they've passed the reasonable restriction. Even range qualifications it's not like in 1790 you had to hit a target enough times to satisfy the requirement in order to carry a derringer, so no historical standard.

Also, we've got now over half the states with a permitless carry scheme and there isn't any more blood in the streets than before, nor is it the wild west.

Scotus has all the data it needs to make permitless the nee standard throughout the country.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
Idiot doesn't even know basic high school level history or badly flunked fractions and can't tell 1/4 from 3/5.

www.washingtonexaminer.com

WATCH: Whoopi warns Clarence Thomas of being deemed ‘quarter of a person’ again - Washington Examiner

In the first episode of The View since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, relegating the issue of abortion to the states, a livid Whoopi Goldberg warned Justice Clarence Thomas that he may be deemed a "quarter of a person" again, likely referencing when slaves were counted as three-fifths...
www.washingtonexaminer.com www.washingtonexaminer.com
Click to expand...

And this is the problem with many blacks in America.

Irish? Italian? Russian? Korean? All are AMERICANS first. Hell, even your citizenic Hispanics consider themselves "Americans." Whoopster??? Nope. She sees herself - and all black people - as NOT American. They are somehow SOMETHING ELSE. Ergo, equality and such will NEVER exist because she and others will NEVER stop pointing out the differences instead of focusing on similarities.

I mean, DAMN. Dudes that dress of like women are getting more assimilation than Whoopie. Whaddupwitdat?
 
amb said:
It boggles my mind that the reaction from far more restrictive states (hey, NJ, looking at you) is pretty much "oh, OK", but in Massachusetts where at least a decent section of the population can already get an unrestricted LTC the AG is being a dolt about it.

Given our AG it's not that surprising, but still.
Click to expand...
Our AG tried to reinterpret settled case law in 2016 from her position as AG... I'm not surprised.
 
These NY fags are the gift that keeps on giving. Digging the hole they are in even deeper. Sucks in the short-term, but longe-term, these unconstitutional infringements will be explictly barred by the courts. The faster these commies enact invalid laws, the faster the litigation can proceed.
 

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