Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

Waher said:
Delaware did that to intimidate minorities into not getting permits. It is probably the most hardcore racist state in the union that no one pays attention to because of being as small and insignificant as Rhode Island save for the corporate tax haven.
Click to expand...
If FPC or similar starts a case, I'll throw money at it in a second. That's insane
 
Waher said:
Delaware did that to intimidate minorities into not getting permits. It is probably the most hardcore racist state in the union that no one pays attention to because of being as small and insignificant as Rhode Island save for the corporate tax haven.
Click to expand...

Delaware is and was quietly racist. biden bragged about it back in the 1980s. And of course biden has been a racist his entire
I’ve so he fits the state.
 
Hoover said:
Yep.

Also, these circuit courts rehearing the cases are MUCH more 2A friendly than they were 5 or 10 years ago. Trump and the GOP senate loaded the courts with very pro 2A judges.
Click to expand...
I actually argue that they didn't specifically nor intentionally do any such thing. What they did do, was their damn duty and put bodies in the seats. The number of vacant posts was huge prior to the Trump Tweet Era.

Saying stuff like "They Loaded The Courts with {pro X}" is disingenuous and easily take out of context. We can't afford that sort of language.

But I get it. And ya. Probably the judges snagged are gonna tend to be more constitutionally aware.

Can we go with "constitutionally sensitive"? Or maybe "constitutionally inclined" vs " pro 2a"?
 
Waher said:
Delaware did that to intimidate minorities into not getting permits. It is probably the most hardcore racist state in the union that no one pays attention to because of being as small and insignificant as Rhode Island save for the corporate tax haven.
Click to expand...
The Dems still clinging to their KKK roots. A little surprising, actually.
 
fshalor said:
I actually argue that they didn't specifically nor intentionally do any such thing. What they did do, was their damn duty and put bodies in the seats. The number of vacant posts was huge prior to the Trump Tweet Era.

Saying stuff like "They Loaded The Courts with {pro X}" is disingenuous and easily take out of context. We can't afford that sort of language.

But I get it. And ya. Probably the judges snagged are gonna tend to be more constitutionally aware.

Can we go with "constitutionally sensitive"? Or maybe "constitutionally inclined" vs " pro 2a"?
Click to expand...

It was a casual way of saying they confirmed a lot of judges to open seats. I doubt anyone took it differently and if they did, who cares. Some anti c9ming to this site isn’t a concern.

The reason why so many seats were open was because McConnell didn’t give Obama picks hearings. Obama only got 2 circuit court of appeals nominees confirmed in his last 2 years. If the GOP takes the seat this November they’ll slow walk all nominations again. Dems started it with bush nominees in 2001-2002.
 
jhblaze1 said:
CA not wasting any time f***ing around

ktla.com

California moves to limit where firearms may be carried and who can have them

Days after the U.S. Supreme Court allowed more people to carry concealed weapons, California lawmakers on Tuesday moved to limit where firearms may be carried and who can have them, while strugglin…
ktla.com ktla.com

What I bolded......wtf does that mean?
Click to expand...
Facebook posts. Instagram. Text messages. Only fans logs. Web browser history. ISP DNS queries. Of course.
 
Mesatchornug said:
NY: walk, bike, or take a cab (NB: Uber/Lyft officially prohibit firearms). You have no right to the subway, peasant.
Click to expand...
Crap.. I can't find it. But somewhere there was something on long island trying to classify bike transportation as sanctioned public transportation. This happened a few times; once to try and provide maintenance of bikes to be covered by state funds, and somewhen else to tax ownership of bikes.

Both would be interesting in this public transportation ban on firearms.
 
Picton said:
Didn't the SCOTUS opinion specifically say that it would not be permissible to designate an entire subway system as "sensitive?" Or am I misremembering?
Click to expand...
The example the cited was designating all of NYC because of the NYPD. Which could be applied to transit systems with transit police.

Which reminds me, why is Amtrak a GFZ? It shouldn’t be post this ruling.
 
Coyote33 said:
I'm not sure if you could be any more wrong.
Click to expand...

Short of a few people and the MSM, no one cares. Twitter is the 15th most used social media platform. 15th.

buffer.com

21 Top Social Media Sites to Consider for Your Brand -

Knowing the most popular social media sites will allow you to maximize your brand reach on social media, engage with the right people, and achieve your social media goals.
buffer.com buffer.com

Just a shade over Reddit for crying out loud.

SFC13557 said:

New York Gun Permit Bill Would Require In-Person Training and Mental Health Records Check​

In response to last week’s Supreme Court ruling, legislation negotiated by Gov. Kathy Hochul is expected to quickly become state law.​

And so it begins.

From today's WSJ.

"New York’s political leaders want to require people applying for concealed weapons permits to attend in-person training sessions and let officials access their mental health records during a background check, according to people briefed on a bill that will be presented to lawmakers Wednesday.

The bill, set to be voted on Thursday, is a response to last week’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down New York’s permitting scheme for concealed weapons. New York was one of a half-dozen states, including California and New Jersey, whose rules were called into question by the 6-3 ruling.

New York’s legislation would also prohibit the possession of guns in government buildings, court houses, hospitals, schools and other “places where children gather,” the people briefed on the bill said. Possession of a handgun in a private business would be banned unless the business expressly allowed people to carry.
The proposal is expected to pass both houses of New York’s Democratic-controlled legislature and quickly be signed into law by Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul, who negotiated the details with legislative leaders over the weekend.

The Supreme Court invalidated New York’s requirement that people demonstrate “proper cause”—held by courts to mean demonstrating “a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community”—to receive a concealed carry permit. The court ruled that the permitting regime gave officials too much discretion in determining whether to grant a permit, and that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.

Democratic officials in the affected states all said they would update their laws to clarify the handgun permitting process and to spell out “sensitive places” where all weapons are prohibited.

Last week, California Gov. Gavin Newsom said he planned to sign a package of 16 gun-related bills already advancing through the legislature. Several of those bills passed this week and await the Democrat’s signature, including one that would allow individuals and public prosecutors to sue gun manufacturers and sellers for harm caused by their products when they fail to follow state gun laws and another that would put further restrictions on so-called ghost guns, which people can assemble out of parts at home, without a serial number.

On Tuesday, a state senator also introduced a proposal that would tighten the state’s concealed carry regulations, including requiring applicants disclose all arrests and restraining orders as well as provide three personal references. It would also bar concealed carry from areas such as schools, medical facilities, government buildings and bars.

New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy on Friday said he would support legislation that expands the list of people and locations where carrying guns is prohibited. Talks with state lawmakers are ongoing, a spokeswoman said.

Ms. Hochul proclaimed a special session of the state Legislature for Thursday to consider new firearms regulations. She said Monday that the measure would also increase requirements for storage to receive a pistol permit and ban handguns from public transportation.

New York’s existing licensing process would be changed to require in-person training and to require applicants to sign a waiver that would let officials review an applicant’s mental-health-care records, the people briefed on the negotiations said.

The legislation’s text hasn’t been completed and some provisions could change before Thursday’s session, the people said. Democrats who control the state Assembly and Senate were scheduled to be briefed on the bill during private conferences on Wednesday, legislative officials said.

State Sen. Zellnor Myrie, a Democrat from Brooklyn who supports laws to curb gun violence, said he wanted to ensure that a new licensing process didn’t have a disparate impact on any particular group, like racial minorities.

“Some of this is us foraging into new territory, but doing so in a way that still follows the spirit of this ruling,” he said.

Republicans in the state cheered the Supreme Court ruling last week, and several said they didn’t see the need for additional legislation. Assemblyman Kieran Michael Lalor, a Republican from the Poughkeepsie area, said new requirements would simply burden law-abiding gun owners.

“The bad guys who commit these crimes do not follow the laws. They’re not going to sign a waiver. They’re not going to go to a training course before committing a murder,” he said of the new proposals."

Christine Mai-Duc and Deanna Paul contributed to this article.
Click to expand...

jhblaze1 said:
CA not wasting any time f***ing around

ktla.com

California moves to limit where firearms may be carried and who can have them

Days after the U.S. Supreme Court allowed more people to carry concealed weapons, California lawmakers on Tuesday moved to limit where firearms may be carried and who can have them, while strugglin…
ktla.com ktla.com

What I bolded......wtf does that mean?
Click to expand...

Great! Another SC challenge and they get pissed enough to create National Con-Carry.

They continue to double down on the stupid. Keep it up, fuzzballs.
 
Coyote33 said:
Who is saying this will happen? Where are they saying it?
Click to expand...
Because at some point the Supremes are going to understand that allowing any sort of license scheme (that criminals and crazies don't obey) gives the states that had a may issue scheme to continue to abuse people and attempt to skirt equal protection. To stop the courts from having their time wasted and further protect the right to carry without infringement outside the home Scotus will do away with all licensing for carrying.

We already have 26 states with the permitless carry law and it has demonstrated that it doesn't turn into the wild west.
 
T-Unit said:
Because at some point the Supremes are going to understand that allowing any sort of license scheme (that criminals and crazies don't obey) gives the states that had a may issue scheme to continue to abuse people and attempt to skirt equal protection. To stop the courts from having their time wasted and further protect the right to carry without infringement outside the home Scotus will do away with all licensing for carrying.

We already have 26 states with the permitless carry law and it has demonstrated that it doesn't turn into the wild west.
Click to expand...
OK, I get that. I'm just wondering who is saying this now about this current business. Is it someone in the Supreme Court? Or is it just you two? Sounded like, and still sounds like conjecture, unless maybe one of the justices was saying this or something like that. The fact that nobody can answer seems to confirm this.
 
T-Unit said:
Because at some point the Supremes are going to understand that allowing any sort of license scheme (that criminals and crazies don't obey) gives the states that had a may issue scheme to continue to abuse people and attempt to skirt equal protection. To stop the courts from having their time wasted and further protect the right to carry without infringement outside the home Scotus will do away with all licensing for carrying.

We already have 26 states with the permitless carry law and it has demonstrated that it doesn't turn into the wild west.
Click to expand...

I think Bruen is the last major firearms case SCOTUS will take for at least a decade.

They will wait to see the impact of the ruling on the lower courts, and on the legal system as a whole. Bruen was a sweeping, comprehensive ruling that will take many years for the courts to explore. I don't see an obvious way for the US Supreme Court to strike down permits/licenses completely, either, especially when Bruen reaffirmed the right of states to impose licensing in some form.

To strike down licensing would be to argue against themselves. I'm not clear why they would do that.
 
Picton said:
I think Bruen is the last major firearms case SCOTUS will take for at least a decade.

They will wait to see the impact of the ruling on the lower courts, and on the legal system as a whole. Bruen was a sweeping, comprehensive ruling that will take many years for the courts to explore. I don't see an obvious way for the US Supreme Court to strike down permits/licenses completely, either, especially when Bruen reaffirmed the right of states to impose licensing in some form.

To strike down licensing would be to argue against themselves. I'm not clear why they would do that.
Click to expand...
I agree that they'll let the lower courts deal with the challenges at the outset, but a state like Delaware forcing people to advertise in a newspaper as part of an application process is total baloney and SCOTUS knows that. They said what is allowed under shall issue criteria and the May Issue states are going to do everything 6 ways to Sunday to infringe upon it and deny applicants thru the process, make the process the denial.

Once the states demonstrate that, the only solution is removal of licensing processes.
 
T-Unit said:
Because at some point the Supremes are going to understand that allowing any sort of license scheme (that criminals and crazies don't obey) gives the states that had a may issue scheme to continue to abuse people and attempt to skirt equal protection. To stop the courts from having their time wasted and further protect the right to carry without infringement outside the home Scotus will do away with all licensing for carrying.

We already have 26 states with the permitless carry law and it has demonstrated that it doesn't turn into the wild west.
Click to expand...
Even if it did, it would still be in alignment with what the Framers' wanted for The People.
 
T-Unit said:
I agree that they'll let the lower courts deal with the challenges at the outset, but a state like Delaware forcing people to advertise in a newspaper as part of an application process is total baloney and SCOTUS knows that. They said what is allowed under shall issue criteria and the May Issue states are going to do everything 6 ways to Sunday to infringe upon it and deny applicants thru the process, make the process the denial.

Once the states demonstrate that, the only solution is removal of licensing processes.
Click to expand...
No.

There’s another solution, and historically it’s the one that’s always happened: a long, slow march through the courts, letting them sort things out organically.
 
jhblaze1 said:
CA not wasting any time f***ing around

ktla.com

California moves to limit where firearms may be carried and who can have them

Days after the U.S. Supreme Court allowed more people to carry concealed weapons, California lawmakers on Tuesday moved to limit where firearms may be carried and who can have them, while strugglin…
ktla.com ktla.com

What I bolded......wtf does that mean?
Click to expand...
Good more stupid shit to get knocked down...I hope ..

The proposed legislation would bar concealed weapons from schools and universities, government and judicial buildings, medical facilities, public transportation, any place where alcohol is sold and consumed, public parks and playgrounds, and special events that require a permit.

Huge issue with public places, government buildings belong to the people
 

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