• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

Can you post the military part
Pg 51
Kentucky, meanwhile, went one step further—the State Supreme Court invalidated a concealed-carry prohibition. See Bliss v. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. 90 (1822). (20)
Relevant foot note (20):
...The Arkansas Supreme Court would later adopt Tennessee’s approach, which tolerated the prohibition of all public carry of handguns except for military-style revolvers. See, e.g., Fife v. State, 31 Ark. 455 (1876).
Pg 52:
the court read this language to permit the public carry of larger, military-style pistols because any categorical prohibition on their carry would “violat[e] the constitutional right to keep arms.”

Pg 63:
Four years later, in State v. Duke, 42 Tex. 455 (1875), the Texas Supreme Court modified its analysis. The court reinterpreted Texas’ State Constitution to protect not only military-style weapons but rather all arms “as are commonly kept, according to the customs of the people, and are appropriate for open and manly use in self-defense.”

One must read these quotes in the context of the opinion - Thomas is presenting the right to self defense with firearms from the historic interpretation of the right as implemented and recognized just after the adoption of the 2nd and 14th. These historical data points show that not only was the right to carry arms an enshrined right, that right definitively included those arms recognized as having distinct military value.
While these data points are not central to the opinion they should hold as dicta that should inform lower courts in handling cases
 
CA is still claiming that "Any arrest in the past 5 years, regardless of disposition..." is grounds for denial.
Is that clearly defined in statute? That seems to be the key point, they can't have a vague suitability requirement, like MA but if its clearly defined and not contrary to any other right (like racial discrimination) then that could, at least potentially, be ok. Oh, and that clearly defined limit can't be "a compelling need", as that is not clear and sets a line about the average.
Do i have this right?
 
Is that clearly defined in statute? That seems to be the key point, they can't have a vague suitability requirement, like MA but if its clearly defined and not contrary to any other right (like racial discrimination) then that could, at least potentially, be ok. Oh, and that clearly defined limit can't be "a compelling need", as that is not clear and sets a line about the average.
Do i have this right?
The AG is hanging on the hook of "good moral character".
 
I don't see how they can deny you. You already have an LTC.
Deny what?

If subjective licensing regulations are unconstitutional,
why bother getting the LTC reissued without restrictions on the card?

Only virtue-signallers had the anti-miscegenation covenants
removed from their deeds in the wake of Loving v. Virginia.

The acid test is what happens to you when you get spotted CCWing.

Unfortunately, there is still attention on Bruen too. Now I have to hear a bunch of people irrationally say “guns have more rights in this country than women now”.
So punch back twice as hard.


NYC can be expected to do only what it is directly ordered to do by the courts, nothing more.
If NYS is smacked down by the Feds,
then state licenses will be valid in the five boroughs,
and city residents will be able to get state licenses.
NYC law may be as dead as Biden's(*) gray matter.


With dumpster-fire states folding left and right like a wet cardboard suitcase,
all the hurr-durrage from NYS is suddenly sounding mighty hollow.

Is that clearly defined in statute? That seems to be the key point, they can't have a vague suitability requirement, like MA but if its clearly defined and not contrary to any other right (like racial discrimination) then that could, at least potentially, be ok.
It's not just subjectivity that's verboten.

Broad prohibitions rationalized by if-just-one-life-is-saved balancing crapola
no longer pass muster. (The "scrutiny" smackdown).
 
Flying-pig.jpg


View: https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status/1540446599729610754

View: https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status/1540413539806072832?cxt=HHwWgMC-9f780uAqAAAA


View: https://twitter.com/gunpoliticsny/status/1540436554694410240


It’s early but the acting NJ Ag seems reasonable.

Massachusetts has 500,000 CCWs and NJ is a bigger state. That 200,000 number is very conservative, it will be north of 500k over the next 5 years
 
Does anyone besides me think the timing of the Rowe V Wade decision came at the perfect time to distract the Libs from protesting the 2A decision. They will be to wrapped up rioting and burning down cities over Rowe V Wade.

I DVRd all the local and national news and all the lib cable shows. The response wasn’t much other than from some NY pols and the anti gun groups. I don’t think the general public cares much about the NYSRPA case.
 
It’s early but the acting NJ Ag seems reasonable.

Massachusetts has 500,000 CCWs and NJ is a bigger state. That 200,000 number is very conservative, it will be north of 500k over the next 5 years
You guys think there's a guns'n'ammo shortage now...

Are we gonna need a "Spare a Gun for a Garden Stater" program,
like all the suckers who sent their guns to Britain in the darkest days of WWII?
 
I DVRd all the local and national news and all the lib cable shows. The response wasn’t much other than from some NY pols and the anti gun groups. I don’t think the general public cares much about the NYSRPA case.
They need to juke the left again by ruling on magazine capacity limits and supposed “assault weapons”. Keep throwing haymakers and the left won’t know what cause to protest next.
 
Everyone here should start reading these opinions - Thomas is great in his ability to make complex legal arguments comprehendible to the layperson.
It will take a few hours to read the opinion and concurrences, skip the dissent as it is simply a rehashing of the old arguments that were struck down in Heller, McDonald and now this decision.
You will quickly get all of the areas where, even though Kavanaugh and Roberts deny it, this opinion opens up many avenues to strike down other infringements (it is true that THIS decision doesn't cover those areas however it definitely does set the legal foundation for challenges)
 
Breyer’s dissent is garbage which is what makes Alito’s concurrence that much sweeter. He shreds Breyer and his emotional drivel by simply asking what’s your point and how would disarming law abiding citizens’ ability to protect themselves in and outside the home have stopped the Buffalo shooter? He also flat out mentions the 400 million firearms in circulation and common use, the fact that we have no way of knowing how many are in the hands of criminals and that as many as 2.5 million times a year, firearms are used to protect innocent people from becoming victims of violent criminals.
 
You guys think there's a guns'n'ammo shortage now...

Are we gonna need a "Spare a Gun for a Garden Stater" program,
like all the suckers who sent their guns to Britain in the darkest days of WWII?

That’s the downside of the ruling. CA is 35 million people, NY 20, NJ, MA, h HI, MD. That’s a lot more demand for ammo.
 
Deny what?

If subjective licensing regulations are unconstitutional,
why bother getting the LTC reissued without restrictions on the card?

1. The principle of having been denied what is now recognized as a right for over 5 years
2. de jure being allowed to carry, I don't care as much about what's physically printed on the card as what's in the computer system
 
They need to juke the left again by ruling on magazine capacity limits and supposed “assault weapons”. Keep throwing haymakers and the left won’t know what cause to protest next.

Pending cert and on hold at SCOTUS are 2 mag limit cases (CA and NJ), and AWB (MD) and a carry case (Hawaii). They will make a decision on what to do with them over the next few weeks. The Hawaii carry case will likely be sent back to the lower court to correct themselves. Mag and AWB? Cross your fingers
 
CA is still claiming that "Any arrest in the past 5 years, regardless of disposition..." is grounds for denial.
Any arrest? That'll fall quickly, expect Amicus from the ACLU on "Disparate impact" grounds.

1656122804687.png
They're holding out Sacramento County as an example where "any arrest" may be a reason for denial. Not a good start.
 
Last edited:
Pending cert and on hold at SCOTUS are 2 mag limit cases (CA and NJ), and AWB (MD) and a carry case (Hawaii). They will make a decision on what to do with them over the next few weeks. The Hawaii carry case will likely be sent back to the lower court to correct themselves. Mag and AWB? Cross your fingers
Precedent was set in DC vs Heller by Scalia. “In common use“ which would include hundreds of millions of magazines and millions of firearms like the AR15, one of, if not the most popular rifle in the country.
 
I watched an interview with NYC mayor Eric adams. He’s not just liberal, he’s pretty damn stupid. He want BS’ing, he was really ignorant of the laws.

Listening to him and the governor, etc talk about it becoming the Wild West, etc. it’s the same nonsense the antis say with every debate in states passing constitutional carry.
 
I watched an interview with NYC mayor Eric adams. He’s not just liberal, he’s pretty damn stupid. He want BS’ing, he was really ignorant of the laws.

Listening to him and the governor, etc talk about it becoming the Wild West, etc. it’s the same nonsense the antis say with every debate in states passing constitutional carry.
Despite the most strict gun control laws in the country, violent crime in NY, specifically NYC is ridiculously high, higher than before these draconian gun control laws went into effect. Maybe giving law abiding citizens the ability to defend themselves will bring the crime rate down.
 
1. The principle of having been denied what is now recognized as a right for over 5 years
2. de jure being allowed to carry, I don't care as much about what's physically printed on the card as what's in the computer system
I can't blame you for not wanting to get jacked up for carrying outside the putative restrictions.

But if you care what's in the computer,
why not cut out the middle-man and ask FRB
when they're going to null out everyone's restrictions?

You don't think 351 towns are going to have to manually correct thousands of LTCs
when the whole scheme is thrown out, do you?

What should happen if/when the state gets a grip on reality
is that all LTC holders with restrictions get a little sticker in the mail
to slap on their card - sort of like the Registry's
lame change-of-address sticker for driver's licenses.

The more people we get supporting the 2nd and practicing their right, the more freedom oriented their voting will be.
Nothing realigns your viewpoint like suddenly becoming a member
of a group subject to discrimination.
 
Back
Top Bottom