Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

Hot off the G.O.A.L. presses...


Massachusetts’ Government Officials Vow to Enforce Anti-Civil Rights Laws After SCOTUS Ruling
Gun Owners’ Action League (GOAL) has received numerous inquiries concerning the state of Massachusetts gun laws following the historic civil rights ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). The case, New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, ruled against state and local governments requiring a reason or special purpose for lawful citizens to exercise their Second Amendment Civil Rights. The court cited the Fourteenth Amendment in making it clear that so-called, may issue, suitability, and special requirements are unacceptable.

Many of the questions GOAL has been getting circle around whether the specific laws in the Commonwealth that are in obvious violation of this ruling are still going to be enforced. Well, it appears we have our answer to that question.

In spite of this landmark civil rights ruling, both Governor Baker and Attorney General Healey have declared that the State laws in place prior to the SCOTUS ruling will continue to be enforced.

In order to determine the safest course of action for our members, and for GOAL, we have been working with other advocacy groups and attorneys in the Commonwealth to figure out what this ruling means for Massachusetts. Even though the ruling seems clear in its intent, the effects on the Commonwealth’s licensing scheme and on current license holders are not-especially given the statements by our Governor and Attorney General on the matter. Therefore, before we can offer any information to our members on what the ruling does, we need to make sure to do our due diligence and ensure that anything we release to our members is accurate and legal. In the meantime, thank you to all of our members for your continued support and patience allowing GOAL to do what we do best.

Baker - “The Baker-Polito Administration is proud of the Commonwealth’s nation-leading gun laws and history of enacting bipartisan gun reform legislation. The Court’s ruling on New York’s licensing law has no immediate effect on the Commonwealth’s gun laws, which all remain in place," the statement reads.

Healey - “In a country flooded with firearms, today’s reckless and anti-democratic decision poses a grave danger to Americans as they go about their daily lives in public spaces like supermarkets, hospitals, and playgrounds. Gun violence is a public health epidemic, and I remain committed to doing everything I can to keep our residents and our communities safe. Massachusetts has one of the lowest gun death rates in the country because we know that strong gun laws save lives. I stand by our commonsense gun laws and will continue to vigorously defend and enforce them.”
 
Isn't it the COPs who are tacking on the extra requirements e.g. letters of reference and those actual letters are not required by law?
Yes and no.

The letters of reference are not required by law but the state for non residents all town I believe use the same application.

Same with the town who require an essay for requesting a LTC.
 
A young person in my home town applied for her LTC and was asked to write a letter. This was a couple years ago. This is someone I've known for decades.

The chief declined the first letter saying it only qualified them for a restricted license. The second letter didn't work either and the chief called to chat.

The third letter worked. In this letter this young person mentioned that they are gay and live in fear of violence as reported frequently in the press. That worked.

Aren't we all at risk of violence these days???
 
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.
U couldn’t say it any more perfect might just start carrying rather have it on me then to regret not having it if something happened
Post up when/if you hear back from Comm2A or anyone else you've contacted. Your town's LO is trying to use the path of least resistance, and is assuming you'll go along because before last Thursday, applicants did have to go along.

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]
waiting on a email or call back from comm2a to see what they say it’s crazy even after the ruling what there trying to do to me and many others
 
A young person in my home town applied for her LTC and was asked to write a letter. This was a couple years ago. This is someone I've known for decades.

The chief declined the first letter saying it only qualified them for a restricted license. The second letter didn't work either and the chief called to chat.

The third letter worked. In this letter this young person mentioned that they are gay and live in fear of violence as reported frequently in the press. That worked.

Aren't we all at risk of violence these days???
Ah yes. The protected class card.

Pretty clear that MA will have to be dragged into compliance via legal action.
 
It will be interesting to see if there is any pushback from the "special people" who already have NYC "Special full carry" permits and will now find that they suddenly have junior varsity versions of their former license.

As to Comm2A - I expect the board (I'm on it) to meet by the end of next week. We may for strategic reasons be limited as to how much we can publicly announce in the very short term.
 
A young person in my home town applied for her LTC and was asked to write a letter. This was a couple years ago. This is someone I've known for decades.

The chief declined the first letter saying it only qualified them for a restricted license. The second letter didn't work either and the chief called to chat.

The third letter worked. In this letter this young person mentioned that they are gay and live in fear of violence as reported frequently in the press. That worked.

Aren't we all at risk of violence these days???
Or all applicants are gay.😂
 
Or all applicants are gay.😂

When my son attended DLI (Defense Language Institute) the housing was sparse. However, if you declared you were gay and in a committed relationship you could get off base housing. And, no, you could not be asked to prove you were gay...

So many people got married for the wrong reason. Of the 20 or so he knew that got married, only 1 is still married.

Off base housing is not a good reason to get married... but maybe a good way to get a firearms license!

:)
 
A young person in my home town applied for her LTC and was asked to write a letter. This was a couple years ago. This is someone I've known for decades.

The chief declined the first letter saying it only qualified them for a restricted license. The second letter didn't work either and the chief called to chat.

The third letter worked. In this letter this young person mentioned that they are gay and live in fear of violence as reported frequently in the press. That worked.

Aren't we all at risk of violence these days???
According to Bill Maher, we will all be gay in 2054.
 
I think any live fire qualification more stringent than what is required for cops wouldn’t pass legal muster.

This story was related to me by a member of the Armed Services. This guy was considered the armorer for his unit. Cleaned and lubed all rifles and sighted them in.

A soldier comes up to him and says she was told her gun is not sighted properly. The guy checks it and it is fine. Then the same thing happened a bunch more times.

Turns out if a soldier failed the the shooting test the only acceptable way to get a retry was to blame the equipment. So that's what they did and why soldiers kept coming back to get their guns "fixed". Because the leadership of the unit were rated on what percentage of the soldiers passed the shooting qualifications, well, this is how they gamed the system.
 
The only hope is getting a court to agree that (a) deprivation of a constitutional right is punishment, and (b) punishment for things like not-guilty verdicts violates the constitution on that basis.

The suitability standard already changed once (it's now dangerousness), however, the courts continued using the Moyer standard because they liked it better.
(Perhaps in response; perhaps not), I've been meaning to mention that:

Note that the "history" in the SCOTUS ruling's "history and text" criterion
is the history that the court's been briefed on in a case.
This places a premium on 2A attorneys researching the legal record
(which they appear to have done an excellent job of so far).

And it implies to me that the 6-3 court has sent a message to the gun-grabbers
that SCOTUS don't owe them the duty of pulling anti-gun counterpoints out of the justices' own grommets
in order to conduct "balanced" deliberations. If there's some case out there
supporting the anti- side which a conservative justice knows of,
the new standard of scrutiny places them under no obligation
to be a devil's advocate and chirp up with it themselves.
They might do it out of collegiality, but no guarantees.

That's not totally out of character for appeals courts.
They're not normally interested in hearing of evidence
about the original case which is not preserved in the trial court's records.


It could be relevant here because there is probably some very relevant SCOTUS case law
about the distinction between arrests and convictions.

Note also, that it should be an easy lift for 2A counsel to point out if/whenever
these desperate additions to denial criteria include arrest lookback periods
which exceed the statute of limitations for the arrest's charges.

If the statute of limitations for prosecuting someone for a crime is 4 years,
but the gun-grabbers want to disqualify them if they had an arrest within 5 years,
that should be a non-starter right there. If the State doesn't care enough about the
crime to pursue it within a certain time, then they have no business claiming that
the unproven allegations are too horrific to permit gun ownership.


If a state's ironclad "speedy trial" deadlines (e.g. six months)
are much shorter than the statute of limitations (e.g. 4-5 years),
then there may even be an argument that any arrest lookback
greater than (e.g.) half a year is unconstitutional.

Furthermore, it ought to count for something if lack of prosecution
sprang from a dismissal of charges with prejudice,
or grand juries returning No True Bill.


To the degree that my musings here have any value,
I hope this post is from my keyboard to Comm2A counsels' ears.

Sounds ripe for racism. But, that's not surprising.
Gun Control
Is
Jim Crow

(This time I added italics.
I like it).

I also saw that but couldn’t read it. Talk about racism. The real question is California ready for more guns it’s got nothing to do with Black people.
Interesting that the (pirated) copy of the op-ed does mention the
Black Panthers, which was gonna be my point.

The LA Times publishing that seems to show a remarkable lack
of self-awareness. They wouldn't do it if they didn't think it would
help the anti's. But the massive overreach and failure under Biden
have more and more Blacks seriously questioning
whether they want to be taken for granted by Donks
(with nothing to show for it but crumbs for entitlement payments
and implosion of their culture
) for the next half dozen decades.

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.
An easy substantive response:
"Since the law provides that you determine the meaning of my LTC restrictions -
not an arresting jurisdiction, not a prosecutor, and not even a trial court -
if you want print a new LTC, then I want you to give me a signed and dated letter
defining my license restrictions as: NONE".

It may not need to cost that much. I'm sure you're keeping an eye on this thread:
An inference:
If @Wramos93 hasn't priced hiring a lawyer to press the matter promptly,
then he hasn't received any actual legal advice.

New York is calling an "extraordinary session" of the legislature to be convened to add a live-fire training requirement ...
They may manage to screw that up.

When Bell Canada complained that people were violating telecom tariffs
by directly connecting non-Bell modems to the phone lines,
the Canadian regulator said, "OK; give us a technical spec that customer equipment must meet".
Bell drafted specs that no cost-effective device on earth could meet.
The regulators promptly tested all of Bell's data-sets,
which of course failed royally (<- this being Canada).
At which point Bell slunk off and wrote a valid spec...

In the modestly possible event they mandate training or performance
above the police academy's,
smart attorneys will be able to use that to their clients' advantage down the road.
(Whether criminal defenders or aggrieved plaintiffs' counsel).

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
If you try and carry outside your restrictions,
you won't pull it off.

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.
How many of the Nine privately don't think Donk operatives
in battleground states' key dumpster-fire cities
committed massive voting fraud?
How many of the Nine privately don't think the Deep State is running almost everything?

The Six may have concerns far beyond the level of mere tweaks to the Federalist Papers.


Mass transit? <Bleep> that noise.
More finance corporations move to Newark in 3...2...1...
 
1656448779188.png
The special people are going to kicked off their elite licensing perch and subject to restrictions designed to make a carry permit in NY nothing more than something you keep in you wallet while you leave your gun at home.

I dont see how that will stand given how many people in NYC use public transportation. Name another state where legally carrying is banned on public transit.
It was banned in GA until a few years ago.

Properly framed, a federal challenge will focus not only on the definition of "sensitive place", but if "sensitive place' was being uses as a proxy for a ban, as well as one level of heightened police protection is required in such locales.
 
Last edited:
This story was related to me by a member of the Armed Services. This guy was considered the armorer for his unit. Cleaned and lubed all rifles and sighted them in.

A soldier comes up to him and says she was told her gun is not sighted properly. The guy checks it and it is fine. Then the same thing happened a bunch more times.

Turns out if a soldier failed the the shooting test the only acceptable way to get a retry was to blame the equipment. So that's what they did and why soldiers kept coming back to get their guns "fixed". Because the leadership of the unit were rated on what percentage of the soldiers passed the shooting qualifications, well, this is how they gamed the system.
How long ago was this? Whose army?

Because that’s not the way the US Army does it. Soldiers zero their own rifles before qual.
 
Hot off the G.O.A.L. presses...


Massachusetts’ Government Officials Vow to Enforce Anti-Civil Rights Laws After SCOTUS Ruling
Gun Owners’ Action League (GOAL) has received numerous inquiries concerning the state of Massachusetts gun laws following the historic civil rights ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). The case, New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, ruled against state and local governments requiring a reason or special purpose for lawful citizens to exercise their Second Amendment Civil Rights. The court cited the Fourteenth Amendment in making it clear that so-called, may issue, suitability, and special requirements are unacceptable.

Many of the questions GOAL has been getting circle around whether the specific laws in the Commonwealth that are in obvious violation of this ruling are still going to be enforced. Well, it appears we have our answer to that question.

In spite of this landmark civil rights ruling, both Governor Baker and Attorney General Healey have declared that the State laws in place prior to the SCOTUS ruling will continue to be enforced.

In order to determine the safest course of action for our members, and for GOAL, we have been working with other advocacy groups and attorneys in the Commonwealth to figure out what this ruling means for Massachusetts. Even though the ruling seems clear in its intent, the effects on the Commonwealth’s licensing scheme and on current license holders are not-especially given the statements by our Governor and Attorney General on the matter. Therefore, before we can offer any information to our members on what the ruling does, we need to make sure to do our due diligence and ensure that anything we release to our members is accurate and legal. In the meantime, thank you to all of our members for your continued support and patience allowing GOAL to do what we do best.

Baker - “The Baker-Polito Administration is proud of the Commonwealth’s nation-leading gun laws and history of enacting bipartisan gun reform legislation. The Court’s ruling on New York’s licensing law has no immediate effect on the Commonwealth’s gun laws, which all remain in place," the statement reads.

Healey - “In a country flooded with firearms, today’s reckless and anti-democratic decision poses a grave danger to Americans as they go about their daily lives in public spaces like supermarkets, hospitals, and playgrounds. Gun violence is a public health epidemic, and I remain committed to doing everything I can to keep our residents and our communities safe. Massachusetts has one of the lowest gun death rates in the country because we know that strong gun laws save lives. I stand by our commonsense gun laws and will continue to vigorously defend and enforce them.”
Traitors need to be treated like traitors.
 
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.
Yup , I'm surprised other 2A unfriendly states haven't told them to STFU.
The next smackdown might be even worst for them.

Reminds me of when we were kids and used to party in the woods.
Not saying there was underage drinking or anything , but there was underage drinking.
There was always , ALWAYS the one dickhead who would do something stupid to draw the cops attention to the spot and blow it.
 
Hot off the G.O.A.L. presses...


Massachusetts’ Government Officials Vow to Enforce Anti-Civil Rights Laws After SCOTUS Ruling
Gun Owners’ Action League (GOAL) has received numerous inquiries concerning the state of Massachusetts gun laws following the historic civil rights ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). The case, New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, ruled against state and local governments requiring a reason or special purpose for lawful citizens to exercise their Second Amendment Civil Rights. The court cited the Fourteenth Amendment in making it clear that so-called, may issue, suitability, and special requirements are unacceptable.

Many of the questions GOAL has been getting circle around whether the specific laws in the Commonwealth that are in obvious violation of this ruling are still going to be enforced. Well, it appears we have our answer to that question.

In spite of this landmark civil rights ruling, both Governor Baker and Attorney General Healey have declared that the State laws in place prior to the SCOTUS ruling will continue to be enforced.

In order to determine the safest course of action for our members, and for GOAL, we have been working with other advocacy groups and attorneys in the Commonwealth to figure out what this ruling means for Massachusetts. Even though the ruling seems clear in its intent, the effects on the Commonwealth’s licensing scheme and on current license holders are not-especially given the statements by our Governor and Attorney General on the matter. Therefore, before we can offer any information to our members on what the ruling does, we need to make sure to do our due diligence and ensure that anything we release to our members is accurate and legal. In the meantime, thank you to all of our members for your continued support and patience allowing GOAL to do what we do best.

Baker - “The Baker-Polito Administration is proud of the Commonwealth’s nation-leading gun laws and history of enacting bipartisan gun reform legislation. The Court’s ruling on New York’s licensing law has no immediate effect on the Commonwealth’s gun laws, which all remain in place," the statement reads.

Healey - “In a country flooded with firearms, today’s reckless and anti-democratic decision poses a grave danger to Americans as they go about their daily lives in public spaces like supermarkets, hospitals, and playgrounds. Gun violence is a public health epidemic, and I remain committed to doing everything I can to keep our residents and our communities safe. Massachusetts has one of the lowest gun death rates in the country because we know that strong gun laws save lives. I stand by our commonsense gun laws and will continue to vigorously defend and enforce them.”
That must be a typo.
Charlie Baker is a Republican and far better for our rights than Democrat Maura Healy would be. [puke]
 
Back
Top Bottom