Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

I read it as being remanded to the next lower level of court, but then again, they could just remand it back to the district. Which might prolong the foot dragging a few years long as a district decision would only affect the district.

There is still a lot of litigation to come as states like MA, NJ, IL, NY, CT, MD, and even VT litigate different issues. VT has a 15 round limit and some of the others have all laws covering every one of the bad "gun control" laws.


Hoover said:
I’m note sure if they go back to the circuit courts of appeals or the district courts. The district court for Duncan v bonta was roger benetiz in San Diego, a bush appointee. He ruled the mag limit didn’t meet intermediate or strict scrutiny and this was unconstitutional. If it returns to him, he already heard from the parties in their briefs and already wrote a comprehensive opinion. He can reissue that decision fairly quickly with minimal changes.

If it goes to the 9th 3 judge panel rather than the district court, is it a new panel or the previous who is already familiar with all the facts. That 3 judge panel was a 2-1 decision upholding the district court ruling

Still in the 9th are ripped v bonta, Miller v bonta, and others. Everything from handgun rosters to microstamping to AWB and mags. Pretty much every area has a pending case in the 9th. And the 9th is a 16-13 GOP judge to dem judge court, it’s not the 21-8 court pre 2017
Click to expand...
 
PappyM3 said:
My question for legal experts: With states doing emergency sessions to circumvent the SCOTUS decision, what level of probability is there that people can seek an injunction from the SCOTUS against those new laws? Many of the new laws seem to still be contrary to the ruling.


I am nearly certain they they will keep their original rulings and say “there is no original text or history showing use or protection of high capacity magazines or assault weapons”. These lower courts are that insolent.

Despite Thomas clearly stating that the 2A applies to modern guns just the same as historic guns from the 18th century.
Click to expand...

An injunction would come from the district court in the offending state. Whoever loses that injunction can appeal to the circuit court then SCOTUS


Remember the courts who decided these cases with intermediate scrutiny are not the same court now. Judges have retired and died, so the make up the circuit courts has changed The 9th was a far left circuit 21 of the 29 judges were carter, Clinton and Obama nominated. Now it’s 16-13 and the trump judges are very conservative. The 2nd and 3rd circuit have majority GOP nominee now, trump flipped them

Judges and retire or take senior status. Retire is retire, they are off the court. Senior status allows a full time judge to replace them on the circuit but they remain a judge and hear a smaller case load. So the 16-13 in the 9th is active judges. A 3 judge panel may have some senior status judges on it. If a case goes en banc where all judges in a circuit rule on a case, only active judges participate in en banc.

The 9th has 10 randomly picked active judges and the chief judge sit on en banc not all judges because the 9th is so much larger than other circuits. The 1st circuit (MA, ME, NH, RI and Puerto Rico) has 6 active judges, the 9th 29. The 9th is almost twice as large as the next biggest.

en.m.wikipedia.org

United States courts of appeals - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
 
Chevy 2 65 said:
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
Click to expand...
Wilmington, DE public housing's ban on guns resulted in federal rulings that guns can't be banned from .gov subsidized housing.
 
jhblaze1 said:
The 9th overturned the mag ban once in Duncan v Bonta and only reversed it when appealed en banc. I think there's a decent chance they'll overturn it.

Someone needs to challenge CA's microstamping BS next.
Click to expand...

I watch all the CA cases and was paying attention to Duncan all along. The 2-1 win in the circuit was great but we knew that asshat Sidney Thomas would ask for en banc. The day they draw the names for the en banc, 10 random judges and Thomas as the chief, and there was a majority dem appointed, it was clear they’d reverse the district and panel decisions and SCOTUS would be the next step.

There are some really a hole judges on the 9th Active and recently senior status berzon, fletcher, paez, graber, Thomas, freidland. The Clinton ones were the worst, 4 just retired and Thomas is this year.
 
Garys said:
I read it as being remanded to the next lower level of court, but then again, they could just remand it back to the district. Which might prolong the foot dragging a few years long as a district decision would only affect the district.

There is still a lot of litigation to come as states like MA, NJ, IL, NY, CT, MD, and even VT litigate different issues. VT has a 15 round limit and some of the others have all laws covering every one of the bad "gun control" laws.
Click to expand...

There is also some potential for states to delay things by taking strategic losses without appealing. They take the L on magazine size, don't appeal so it doesn't affect any other states, and come up with some other nonsense to hurt us that we now have to challenge again. DC did this with their good cause requirement and it took years extra to get to this point where SCOTUS ruled on it.

If the states keep adding more BS that won't stand but takes 2 years to get a ruling on during which time they have created more nonsense we could be at this for a generation just trying to get the basics dealt with. We have to hope they are stupid and try to defend their laws to a point where we can get good rulings killing them.
 
The decision that came out today about the EPA overstepping it's authority, basically agencies can't change policies as if they were making laws as things must be codified, basically kicking chevron in the gonads, does that kick Healy in the butt by interpreting the law on her own?
 
firestorm said:
There is also some potential for states to delay things by taking strategic losses without appealing. They take the L on magazine size, don't appeal so it doesn't affect any other states, and come up with some other nonsense to hurt us that we now have to challenge again. DC did this with their good cause requirement and it took years extra to get to this point where SCOTUS ruled on it.

If the states keep adding more BS that won't stand but takes 2 years to get a ruling on during which time they have created more nonsense we could be at this for a generation just trying to get the basics dealt with. We have to hope they are stupid and try to defend their laws to a point where we can get good rulings killing them.
Click to expand...
Maybe.
How long do you think it takes for SCOTUS to take away their toys?
 
firestorm said:
We have to hope they are stupid and try to defend their laws to a point where we can get good rulings killing them.
Click to expand...
I do not hold out much hope on that one. They have been much more strategic in the last decade or so.

Like changing the micro stamping laws and even repealing some laws so that there was no standing to bring them to the SC.

Or the AG here not prosecuting anyone for breaking her AWB ruling. So it remains because no one had standing to bring a case and most people obey it because they do not want to be the test case.
 
bfm said:
Or the AG here not prosecuting anyone for breaking her AWB ruling. So it remains because no one had standing to bring a case and most people obey it because they do not want to be the test case.
Click to expand...
Id say she got a good 2 years out of her publicity stunt, for the general public. Lot of people here didn't do a thing because they knew it was unprosecutable. So it works for a while until people realize there is no teeth behind it.

And yes....many dealers are pants shitters for sure. Their business their choice.

The whole thing is done to muddy the waters and scare tactic.........it works to some extent and they know it. Its a game they always played and will continue to.
 
Mesatchornug said:
Maybe.
How long do you think it takes for SCOTUS to take away their toys?
Click to expand...

The court isn’t 4-4 with Kennedy being an arbitrator rather than a judge. This is a solid 6-3 court on 2A issues so there is no question in justices minds about taking a case without knowing where Kennedy may decide. They all trust each other and know where each stands. Because of that it’s not going to be 12 years until SCOTUS takes another 2A case if the lower courts ignore Heller, McDonald and NYSRPA.

I’m sure SCOTUS would be happy if lower courts follow their guidance and rule on text and history, saves them the effort of taking up the cases. If they don’t, they will be quick to smack them down.
 
Taipan01 said:
The decision that came out today about the EPA overstepping it's authority, basically agencies can't change policies as if they were making laws as things must be codified, basically kicking chevron in the gonads, does that kick Healy in the butt by interpreting the law on her own?
Click to expand...

The majority didn’t mention chevron once, the dissent did some. The opinion was a major question doctrine ruling, it didn’t really touch on chevron (unfortunately). Major questions doctrine basically means the bureaucracy can’t make major regulations unless it’s clear congress delegated them the power to do so.

What it did mainly is clip the EPAs wings regarding “climate change “. What Obama couldn’t get through congress is what he tried to do through the EPA. There were huge regulations, not something minor.
 
Garys said:
They are remanding the cases back for the lower courts to fix their own erroneous decisions.
Click to expand...

From this it looks like the case will go back to the circuit court panel who heard the case originally. The 9th circuit magazine case was a bush and trump judge in the 2-1 majority ruling upholding the district court which found the mag limits unconstitutional. They can basically re publish their previous majority decision with a mention to NYSRPA as the whipped cream lol


The AWB case from the 4th circuit is Bianchi v Frosh. The 3 judge panel there had to uphold the AWB because the 4th circuit court of appeals decided a previous AWB case (Kolbe vs Hogan) en banc. They upheld it without a thought. The lawsuit was designed by FPC to get to the Supreme Court because the previous case was already decided by the 4th, it would be rubber stamped and appealed to SCOTUS quickly.

The 3 judge panel who will get the AWB in the 4 are Thacker (Obama) Richardson (trump and traxler (Clinton). Traxler wrote the dissent in Kolbe vs hogan, he would have struck the AWB down as unconstitutional.

So it looks like that will be a favorable panel.


View: https://twitter.com/fedjudges/status/1542549448458371074?s=20&t=RemVPkwvlWF07Q3Fyn5o9g
 
Last edited:
Hoover said:
The court isn’t 4-4 with Kennedy being an arbitrator rather than a judge. This is a solid 6-3 court on 2A issues so there is no question in justices minds about taking a case without knowing where Kennedy may decide. They all trust each other and know where each stands. Because of that it’s not going to be 12 years until SCOTUS takes another 2A case if the lower courts ignore Heller, McDonald and NYSRPA.

I’m sure SCOTUS would be happy if lower courts follow their guidance and rule on text and history, saves them the effort of taking up the cases. If they don’t, they will be quick to smack them down.
Click to expand...
I would assume that back channel communications have already conveyed to the lower courts receiving GVRs what the majority expects the outcome of each case to be.
Each of these cases were granted Cert -: I'm pretty certain SCOTUS can take the case back up if due respect to their authority is not given.
 
Hoover said:
From this it looks like the case will go back to the circuit court panel who heard the case originally. The 9th circuit magazine case was a bush and trump judge in the 2-1 majority ruling upholding the district court which found the mag limits unconstitutional. They can basically re publish their previous majority decision with a mention to NYSRPA as the whipped cream lol


The AWB case from the 4th circuit is Bianchi v Frosh. The 3 judge panel there had to uphold the AWB because the 4th circuit court of appeals decided a previous AWB case (Kolbe vs Hogan) en banc. They upheld it without a thought. The lawsuit was designed by FPC to get to the Supreme Court because the previous case was already decided by the 4th, it would be rubber stamped and appealed to SCOTUS quickly.

The 3 judge panel who will get the AWB in the 4 are Thacker (Obama) Richardson (trump and traxler (Clinton). Traxler wrote the dissent in Kolbe vs hogan, he would have struck the AWB down as unconstitutional.

So it looks like that will be a favorable panel.


View: https://twitter.com/fedjudges/status/1542549448458371074?s=20&t=RemVPkwvlWF07Q3Fyn5o9g
Click to expand...




Magazine limit case from the 3rd circuit, NJ was a 3 judge panel matey (trump), Jordan (w bush) and Roth (HW bush, she’s 87 years old). It was a 2-1 anti 2A opinion with matey in the dissent. His dissent uses similar words as Thomas used in NYSRPA.

I’m cautiously optimistic but I think we may see the CA and NJ mag limits and MD AWB fall in the next 6 months. Those decisions would only be binding within those circuits but it will be something that gets the attention of other circuits. Those states will need to suck it or appeal and allow SCOTUS to make it nationally binding. The states will get pressure to not appeal if they lose
 
AHM said:
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.
Click to expand...
Like I was saying: Shinn v. Ramirez

LittleCalm said:
I understood that the proposed NY law would also ban carry in any private business unless that business specifically states that carry is permitted.
Click to expand...
Until it's smacked down, think of it as Nature's Way of bringing clarity and light
to you guys who would try and stop an armed holdup of a 7-11
that doesn't even want you there packing heat -
instead of making a beeline for the exit or the milk cooler.

(How often do cops Terry Frisk innocent bystanders who witness a violent crime?
Especially the bystanders who bail ASAP like Hoboken cockroaches do
as soon as you turn on the kitchen light at midnight).

Rob Boudrie said:
All those "special people" with hens teeth permits are going to find THEIR rights aren't as safe as they thought they were.
Click to expand...
Imagine all the important people with sekrit Delaware gun permits
having to publish their permit info in the classified ads...
 
One thing that gets overlooked out here in CA is the castle doctrine too. You plug a home invader and the cops just come collect the body.

ktla.com

Moreno Valley homeowner ‘justified’ for shooting intruder, sheriff says

A homeowner who shot an intruder early Wednesday morning in Moreno Valley is unlikely to face criminal charges after the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department determined he was justified in s…
ktla.com ktla.com

A homeowner who shot an intruder early Wednesday morning in Moreno Valley is unlikely to face criminal charges after the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department determined he was justified in shooting the alleged suspect.
Click to expand...
vs MA where a security guard shoots a guy in the process of stabbing a doctor to death at a hospital and he gets dragged thru the legal system for 2 years.


I predict a sharp decline in crime in LA over the next handful of years.
 
Public housing wins prior to this ruling which I think will influence rulings on other public places:

Safe at Home: Delaware Court Overturns Gun Ban

dasal.org dasal.org
affordablehousingonline.com

Federal court overturns gun bans in Public Housing

A federal District Court judge recently ruled that banning the lawful possession of firearms by Public Housing residents is unconstitutional. In a case brought against
affordablehousingonline.com affordablehousingonline.com
www.saf.org

Second Amendment Foundation

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a federal lawsuit against the Warren County, Illinois Housing Authority, seeking an injunction against the WCHA’s ban on personally-owned firearms by residents of government-subsidized housing.
www.saf.org www.saf.org
www.washingtonexaminer.com

Court halts public housing gun ban, big win for Ill. rape victim

A federal court on Thursday cleared the way for an Illinois rape victim to have a gun in her public housing apartment to protect herself from further domestic violence, the latest judicial victory for Second Amendment advocates.
www.washingtonexaminer.com www.washingtonexaminer.com
 
June4th said:
He is as sympathetic a defendant as it gets for rights of CCW and self defense. The case laughs at NYC’s attempt to make the transit system GFZ.
Click to expand...

firestorm said:
If the states keep adding more BS that won't stand but takes 2 years to get a ruling on during which time...
Click to expand...
... during which time Biden can appoint more of HIS judges.



T-Unit said:
Makes you wonder if the door to door confiscations will be sped up after a Black Swan event....
Click to expand...
In case anyone else was wondering:
The black swan theory or theory of black swan events is a metaphor that describes an event that comes as a surprise, has a major effect, and is often inappropriately rationalized after the fact with the benefit of hindsight
Click to expand...
 
Coyote33 said:
Who is saying this will happen? Where are they saying it?
Click to expand...
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...
Dennis in MA said:
Yeah. What T-dog said 10 min after I went to bed, you night owls.

The Supremes have made 3 or 4 MAJOR 2A decisions in the last 20 years. Tell me how many have been listened to. None. Ergo, every one of them goes a bit farther. At some point, they're gonna go into the "fine, you lose it all - you can't be trusted to protect your citizens' rights."
Click to expand...

Oh, OK. So 2 guys on this forum/chatroom/BBS are saying it. What I was looking for was if it was someone in some official capacity was saying this.
 
Dennis in MA said:
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.





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.
Click to expand...
Four of the top five are owned by Meta. Four of the next five are controlled by the CCP. So according to this list 80% of the top ten social media sites on the planet are controlled by Mark Zuckerberg or Xi Jinping. Really loving my lack of accounts on those platforms.
 
omega42 said:
Four of the top five are owned by Meta. Four of the next five are controlled by the CCP. So according to this list 80% of the top ten social media sites on the planet are controlled by Mark Zuckerberg or Xi Jinping. Really loving my lack of accounts on those platforms.
Click to expand...

View: https://youtu.be/FCcdr4O-3gE
 

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