Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

Hoover said:
That 9th panel can lift the stay immediately


The Massachusetts case from Comm2A was worman v Healy. It’s dead, it was appealed to SCOTUS a few years ago and denied. They’d need to file a new case.

Worman v. Healey - SCOTUSblog

Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court
www.scotusblog.com www.scotusblog.com
Click to expand...
Why was it denied ?
 
Chevy 2 65 said:
Why was it denied ?
Click to expand...
Something like 99% of cases filed with the supremes are denied cert.

It takes 4 justices to grand cert; 5 to win. So, in cases where the justices already know and care what the outcome will be, you won't get those 4 votes unless they are sure the case will go there way.
 
BTW, I believe he's a Statie now.


Picton said:
He wasn’t working there as a security guard. If he had been, even in MA, the case would have been very clear-cut.

He was just a bystander, a patient at a different clinic down the hall. Absolutely sucks what they did to him, but I wasn’t too surprised.
Click to expand...
 
Chevy 2 65 said:
Why was it denied ?
Click to expand...

@Rob Boudrie explained it well. It was decided in the summer of 2020, so before Barrett was on the court. If I remember correctly there were 9 2A cases pending cert at SCOTUS at that time and all were denied. Denial just means 4 justices didn’t agree to hear it. That may be for many reasons.
 
The individual involved in the MGL shooting was a Rule 400 Boston Housing Cop. VERY limited authority; pay barely above minimum wage with no police authority or powers when off duty and off of Boston public housing property. Even so, that was enough for the press to spin it as "off duty officer" so as not to implicitly endorse civilian carry. I don't think they actively pursued him for those two years (I don't think he was even charged), but they took a long time to officially clear him ... in the mean time he was a suspect in a homicide with all that entails.
 
Coyote33 said:
Sorry, I did not know much about it before this. I just did a quick "google" on it. Let us know what you find.

So there won't be a "re-file". Thanks. How does that change anything? Now they need to find a new case?

That too.
Click to expand...

The fastest we’ll see movement will be the existing cases which were remanded from SCOTUS back to the circuits and the cases in district and circuits which were on hold while NYSRPA was heard. Those cases have plaintiffs, have been assigned to a judge or circuit panel, briefs submitted etc. look at it like building a house. You need to hire a builder, submit the plans for the building permit, etc all before you break ground. That’s where a case in Massachusetts would be.

We should probably see things by the end of the year in the remanded cases since they already heard the cases and decided them. They need to review what’s already been done but now through that dictates of SCOTUS in the NYSRPA case. So no intermediate scrutiny, text and history only, much of which has been established by SCOTUS and dissents in previous 2A cases including Barrett’s dissent in a 7th circuit 2A case.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
The individual involved in the MGL shooting was a Rule 400 Boston Housing Cop. VERY limited authority; pay barely above minimum wage with no police authority or powers when off duty and off of Boston public housing property. Even so, that was enough for the press to spin it as "off duty officer" so as not to implicitly endorse civilian carry. I don't think they actively pursued him for those two years (I don't think he was even charged), but they took a long time to officially clear him ... in the mean time he was a suspect in a homicide with all that entails.
Click to expand...

I remember a few years ago people in Georgia, I think Atlanta, we’re waiting in line for the new air Jordan’s. The store had a discount for cash purchases or only accepted cash so they were definitely targets. People were waiting in the early morning so they would get them before they sold out.

Some thug tried to rob the people in line and someone was a CCW holder and shot the perp dead. The cops cleared the shooter before noon. I remember that case in the Boston theater district. The guy saved the doctors life and his own since he was attacked too yet they let him twist in the wind for at least 6 months. I think they were looking for some way to charge him because the DAs don’t want people to protect themselves. They don’t believe in self defense
 
.
T-Unit said:
I'm only saying this because the Left never surrenders and always pivots when they realize they're on a losing course. If they can't use legislative and judicial means to slowly destroy the 2nd Amendment, then they'll use force (after some major event) to take the guns and it will be done quickly.
Click to expand...

Lol @ black vans retard speak

If 2A dies it will be with a slow whimper not some faglaroid jingo dramatics.
 
jhblaze1 said:
I just came so hard.

He's already quadrupled the number of ccw licensees in LA County....and he's a dem....but they're trying to recall him because he won't agree to stop arresting criminals. The retard voters in LA want a sheriff just like Gascon.
Click to expand...

He always seemed so full of himself, though. ????

06921e37-f1ab-4396-bdbd-332ee336aea8.jpeg

Coyote33 said:
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.
Click to expand...

No one is going to SAY it. Why reveal your strategy before it's played out? Do I think it could happen? Probably a 15% chance. But the more the F with the rules, the more the SC is inclined to say, "You can't have nice things. We'll just decide this this way to get you the F out of the way."
 
Hoover said:
The fastest we’ll see movement will be the existing cases which were remanded from SCOTUS back to the circuits and the cases in district and circuits which were on hold while NYSRPA was heard. Those cases have plaintiffs, have been assigned to a judge or circuit panel, briefs submitted etc. look at it like building a house. You need to hire a builder, submit the plans for the building permit, etc all before you break ground. That’s where a case in Massachusetts would be.

We should probably see things by the end of the year in the remanded cases since they already heard the cases and decided them. They need to review what’s already been done but now through that dictates of SCOTUS in the NYSRPA case. So no intermediate scrutiny, text and history only, much of which has been established by SCOTUS and dissents in previous 2A cases including Barrett’s dissent in a 7th circuit 2A case.
Click to expand...
Which of these cases were in Massachusetts?
Is there a list of these somewhere?

Is the Morin vs. Lyver one of these, or is that different? Will that be ahead of these other ones from last week?

Thank you.
 
Last edited:
El_Guapo77 said:

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/MAguns/comments/volnqf/oh_boy/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share


Read this over on reddit very interesting
Click to expand...

I'm thinking about signing up to be a potential plaintiff for these consititutional rights violations:

ISSUE(S) & POSSIBLE CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS:*​
What issues are you concerned about, and/or how you have been affected or had your rights infringed? It's very helpful if you use examples like: "I want to be able to buy, possess, and carry handguns for self-defense," or "I want to be able to purchase semi-automatic firearms but I cannot because of a ban on so-called 'assault weapons'".​
  1. I can not purchase from MA gun stores:
  1. new Glocks (post-1998) because Glocks are "unsafe" yet MA police predominantly use/carry the same new Glocks.
  2. new ARs because of our AG Healey's edict regarding ARs.
  3. new standard capacity MAGAzines.
 
JoseyWales said:
I'm thinking about signing up to be a potential plaintiff for these consititutional rights violations:

ISSUE(S) & POSSIBLE CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS:*​
What issues are you concerned about, and/or how you have been affected or had your rights infringed? It's very helpful if you use examples like: "I want to be able to buy, possess, and carry handguns for self-defense," or "I want to be able to purchase semi-automatic firearms but I cannot because of a ban on so-called 'assault weapons'".​
  1. I can not purchase from MA gun stores:
  1. new Glocks (post-1998) because Glocks are "unsafe" yet MA police predominantly use/carry the same new Glocks.
  2. new ARs because of our AG Healey's edict regarding ARs.
  3. new standard capacity MAGAzines.
Click to expand...
The first two aren't actually true. It's harder. And you pay extra. And that sucks. But you can buy those firearms new from dealers.
The third is completely true...
 
The first circuit issued a summary judgement agreeing that the AG had proved Glocks were unsafe based on a copy of a page from the Glock manual and her assertion; that all claims from Comm2a were rejected; and that there would be no trial on the facts.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
The first circuit issued a summary judgement agreeing that the AG had proved Glocks were unsafe based on a copy of a page from the Glock manual and her assertion; that all claims from Comm2a were rejected; and that there would be no trial on the facts.
Click to expand...
I assume y'all are in touch with FPC and sharing notes...
 
JoseyWales said:
I'm thinking about signing up to be a potential plaintiff for these consititutional rights violations:

ISSUE(S) & POSSIBLE CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS:*​
What issues are you concerned about, and/or how you have been affected or had your rights infringed? It's very helpful if you use examples like: "I want to be able to buy, possess, and carry handguns for self-defense," or "I want to be able to purchase semi-automatic firearms but I cannot because of a ban on so-called 'assault weapons'".​
  1. I can not purchase from MA gun stores:
  1. new Glocks (post-1998) because Glocks are "unsafe" yet MA police predominantly use/carry the same new Glocks.
  2. new ARs because of our AG Healey's edict regarding ARs.
  3. new standard capacity MAGAzines.
Click to expand...

I don't think the Healey or "consumer protection" lists are going to be as easy as merely going after the state AWB, which is a statute. Mag bans too; go for them.
 
Picton said:
I don't think the Healey or "consumer protection" lists are going to be as easy as merely going after the state AWB, which is a statute. Mag bans too; go for them.
Click to expand...

Except that Thomas ruled that any gun restrictions has to be viewed in context of history and tradition.

Would the framers have found it reasonable and acceptable that King George III had special lists and requirements that directed what kind of pistols the citizens in the American colonies could buy? Of course the frames would not find that reasonable.

It may take some time to play out, but it's a slam dunk case. Healy can take her consumer protection lists and shove them up where the sun never shines.
 
Beretta92FS said:
Except that Thomas ruled that any gun restrictions has to be viewed in context of history and tradition.

Would the framers have found it reasonable and acceptable that King George III had special lists and requirements that directed what kind of pistols the citizens in the American colonies could buy? Of course the frames would not find that reasonable.

It may take some time to play out, but it's a slam dunk case. Healy can take her consumer protection lists and shove them up where the sun never shines.
Click to expand...

I get that, but it's not me you need to convince.

Statutes aren't the same thing as regulations. SCOTUS can look at both, but statutes are always easier to strike down.
 
NY is going full retard:
Beretta92FS said:
Except that Thomas ruled that any gun restrictions has to be viewed in context of history and tradition.

Would the framers have found it reasonable and acceptable that King George III had special lists and requirements that directed what kind of pistols the citizens in the American colonies could buy? Of course the frames would not find that reasonable.

It may take some time to play out, but it's a slam dunk case. Healy can take her consumer protection lists and shove them up where the sun never shines.
Click to expand...
Yeah, would the Commonwealth in the late 1700's have told citizens thet they could carry no more than 10 shot balls at a time? I shall think not!
 
At some point in the near future I would think this is going to come to head where the irresistible force meets the immovable object the way the blue states are pushing back. I've said it before this reminds me of the guy who hates his boss but there is nothing he can do about it. So he comes home and punches his wife and kicks the dog.
 

from the constitution:​

Section 10: Powers Denied to the States​

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; or Law pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility

I wonder if these two can be used in any future lawsuits with the new "regulations" that it seems the 7 states are going to try to pass to make it harder for concealed carry, etc.

-Ex Post Facto
  • Definition. Latin for "from a thing done afterward."
  • Overview. Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a criminal statute that punishes actions retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed.
  • Scope. In the often-cited case of Beazell v. ...
  • Retroactive Judicial Decisions. ...
  • Further Reading. ...

Ex Post Facto | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute​

www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ex_post_facto
www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ex_post_facto

-Bill of attainder​

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Jump to navigationJump to search
"Writ of attainder" redirects here. Not to be confused with Writ of attaint.
A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder or bill of penalties) is an act of a legislature declaring a person, or a group of people, guilty of some crime, and punishing them, often without a trial. As with attainder resulting from the normal judicial process, the effect of such a bill is to nullify the targeted person's civil rights, most notably the right to own property (and thus pass it on to heirs), the right to a title of nobility, and, in at least the original usage, the right to life itself.
 
Coyote33 said:
Which of these cases were in Massachusetts?

Is the Morin vs. Lyver one of these, or is that different? Will that be ahead of these other ones from last week?

Thank you.
Click to expand...

Morin is a Massachusetts case, I haven’t followed that case though

The other cases are bigger issues, mag limits, AWB. Where they were vacated and remanded, they should also be able to be re decided quicker.
 

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