Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

Dadstoys said:
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.
Click to expand...
The anti 2A states that have money are willing to blow some on legal challenges, but small states like RI, Delaware, Maryland are just gonna put up with it figuring not that many are going to bother getting a license to make it worth bothering with.

Why NJ caved so quickly beats me, that state is as anti 2A as it gets.

NYS it makes sense that since it's driven by NYC they'll fight to the last breath. Same with Mass and Boston.
 
Picton said:
So, mostly for fun, I dropped a dime on Maura with Rachel Rollins' office. You can submit a criminal complaint here. I figure I pay taxes to fund the US Attorney; might as well use her.

I wrote the following:

"Pursuant to the Bruen ruling that invalidates discretionary firearms licensure schemes in NY and seven other states (including Massachusetts), the state AG's office must change its licensing regulations. They have chosen not to comply, despite having had four days to do so. Indeed, the AG's office has made an explicit statement that their policies will not change.

"I'm curious how long the Supreme Court, through your office, intends to tolerate their insolence. Thank you!"

ETA: Oops. Shoulda said "six other states."
Oh well.
Click to expand...

Well. I didn't get an awesome response.

We are in receipt of your complaint form dated June 27, 2022.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office prosecutes federal criminal offenses and represents the United States of America in certain civil matters. It is not an investigative agency. Please contact the Massachusetts State's Attorney General's Office at 617-727-2200 regarding your inquiry.

Thank you,

Duty Paralegal

...pussies.
 
T-Unit said:
The anti 2A states that have money are willing to blow some on legal challenges, but small states like RI, Delaware, Maryland are just gonna put up with it figuring not that many are going to bother getting a license to make it worth bothering with.

Why NJ caved so quickly beats me, that state is as anti 2A as it gets.

NYS it makes sense that since it's driven by NYC they'll fight to the last breath. Same with Mass and Boston.
Click to expand...
I find their terms acceptable.
 
What I don't understand is they overturn roe v Wade and courts are already ruling on certain state laws regarding abortion. When it comes to gun laws how come nothing is quick?...why are no judges immediately forcing states to comply? Everything seems to take forever where as other issues judges rule within days.
 
Waher said:
LA Times is a cesspool of racism
la_times_black_people_guns_06-27-2022.jpg
Click to expand...
Fox making hay about it:
greencobra said:
article says it all...typical l.a. times think piece.
www.foxnews.com

After Supreme Court ruling, LA Times asks if California is 'ready' for more Black gun owners

The Los Angeles Times featured what some considered an alarming headline in a column asking whether California is prepared to see more Black people carrying guns.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com
Click to expand...
 
Picton said:
Well. I didn't get an awesome response.

We are in receipt of your complaint form dated June 27, 2022.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office prosecutes federal criminal offenses and represents the United States of America in certain civil matters. It is not an investigative agency. Please contact the Massachusetts State's Attorney General's Office at 617-727-2200 regarding your inquiry.

Thank you,

Duty Paralegal

...pussies.
Click to expand...

I sent a reply...

The Attorney General is in violation of a SCOTUS decision.

Given her job and its impact on US citizens in MA, how is she not committing a federal criminal offense?

...but I'm sure nothing will happen with it. When the person I'm talking to is simply signed "duty paralegal," I know exactly how important my concerns are to them.
 
Picton said:
Well. I didn't get an awesome response.

We are in receipt of your complaint form dated June 27, 2022.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office prosecutes federal criminal offenses and represents the United States of America in certain civil matters. It is not an investigative agency. Please contact the Massachusetts State's Attorney General's Office at 617-727-2200 regarding your inquiry.

Thank you,

Duty Paralegal

...pussies.
Click to expand...
Am surprised they didn't refer you to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Of course that would have been just about as awesome a response as the one you got. [laugh]
 
Picton said:
I sent a reply...

The Attorney General is in violation of a SCOTUS decision.

Given her job and its impact on US citizens in MA, how is she not committing a federal criminal offense?

...but I'm sure nothing will happen with it. When the person I'm talking to is simply signed "duty paralegal," I know exactly how important my concerns are to them.
Click to expand...
Hah with that message you are now on the "official watch list" or pseudo "to be red flagged list". It was good knowing you [rofl]
 
Picton said:
I sent a reply...

The Attorney General is in violation of a SCOTUS decision.

Given her job and its impact on US citizens in MA, how is she not committing a federal criminal offense?

...but I'm sure nothing will happen with it. When the person I'm talking to is simply signed "duty paralegal," I know exactly how important my concerns are to them.
Click to expand...
As a staunch defender of Civil Rights, you would think the US Attorney’s office would be right on this!
 
Mark from MA said:
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.
Click to expand...
My problem is just that I’ve had friends get stop with t&h restriction and nothing has happened but with my luck I might get my license revoked but if I did the amount of money I’d have never o spend to get it back is insane probably
 
AHM said:
(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.


Gun Control
Is
Jim Crow​

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


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.


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".


An inference:
If @Wramos93 hasn't priced hiring a lawyer to press the matter promptly,
then he hasn't received any actual legal advice.


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).


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


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.

I was told this by a lawyer
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Picton said:
I sent a reply...

The Attorney General is in violation of a SCOTUS decision.

Given her job and its impact on US citizens in MA, how is she not committing a federal criminal offense?

...but I'm sure nothing will happen with it. When the person I'm talking to is simply signed "duty paralegal," I know exactly how important my concerns are to them.
Click to expand...
Tell them you insist on talking to them in person and will be stopping by. That ought to make things interesting.
 
T-Unit said:
Name another state where legally carrying is banned on public transit.
Click to expand...
All of them, if you're on Amtrak.

It's been a frequent restriction in the modern shall-issue states, but not all of them kept it. Missouri house and senate both passed HB52 of 2021 to allow it, but I can't find where the governor took any action.
 
Earth to GOAL:

Why is this NOT ON TWITTER????? Or am I missing it? Looking at @GOALupdate https://twitter.com/GOALupdate

That is where everything related to this case is happening right now.

It is where this is being fought for "mindshare" right now.


enbloc said:
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.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Coyote33 said:
Earth to GOAL:

Why is this NOT ON TWITTER????? Or am I missing it? Looking at @GOALupdate https://twitter.com/GOALupdate

That is where everything related to this case is happening right now.
Click to expand...

I got it via GOAL-Alerts and it is available on GOAL.org halfway down the page...

There are a total of 3 Alerts on there currently.
 

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