Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

[TLB]

You aren't going to have much of a revolution 150 characters at a time on Twitter. At some point it requires someone to engage in violence. That's the only thing I worry about is the left going bonkers and violent.

The left has been winning the war for decades...

 

[Hoover]

cannot be arbitrary; meaning what? they can still use it or can not use it against an applicant?

Basically the SCOTUS ruling will allow some requirements to get a license (SCOTUS was general on what) but they need to be objective. They can require a safety course, maybe live fire training , etc. they’re not going to allow the good cause subjective standard where some bureaucrat decides. To me suitably is a non starter with SCOTUS unless the definition of unsuitable means a mental illness or convicted domestic abuser etc.

 

[Hoover]

I'm no law expert, but does justice Thomas opinion challenge the MA approved handgun roster and AWB?

in his opinion, he references "common use firearms" multiple times, going as far as to say that common use forearms for defense can not be reuglated

ARs are the most common rifle in America, does that make the AR a common use firearm? and if yes, dead that mean that the SC has ruled that they can't be unduly regulated?

the same applies to handguns not on the approved, like Glocks.

Am I getting ahead of myself? Or is this a good angle to challenge MAs unconstitutional laws?

There are cases at SCOTUS right now pending cert and on hold until the NYSRPA case was decided. There are mag limit cases from NJ and CA there and an AWB case from MD. SCOTUS will no deny cert allowing the lower court anti 2A decision to stand, grant cert and hear the case next term or send it back to the lower court to review based on the NYSRPA case. The 9th circuit especially used a 2 step process to approve literally 50 gun control cases. Thomas said that standard of review is wrong. So all those case are ripe for refilling. The same 2 step process was used by most courts so I think they’re all at risk of reversal.

What were the mag limits and AWB type laws in 1791? There were none. All the mag limits, AWB etc are modern laws

 

[Garys]

Lawyers can (and do) state anything they want. It's up to the judges to decide what the law is. I would expect that non resident permits in MA will become shall issue, but whether or not the state makes them good for the same term is a different question.

Which is a different question than the one about trying to carry in MA with a NH (or any other state) permit.

Interestingly, PA doesn't differentiate resident versus no resident permits. IF the county sheriff decides to issue to none county residents, then the requirements are identical. The only real discretion they have is whether or not to issue to non county residents.

while that seems to be the case on the face of it, does MA out of state permit requirements pass the smell test under the 14th A or equal protection under the law. Couldnt a lawyer state that just because their client lives out of state they should not have to jump through different hoops to get a non-res permit?

 

[Coyote33]

Right.

It's possible they develop some checklist of quantifiable bars to pass that get applied to everyone (e.g., when was your last moving violation, how many in 5 years; have you ever had LE called to your address; do you have aggressive bumper stickers on your car) that could make things tighter across the Commonwealth for a period. Some of those might find themselves in court.

We'll have to see.

This will be across ALL, correct? In other words, there will be no exemptions for law enforcement, etc.? Hopefully, someone will be watching, to make sure this is the case.

Basically the SCOTUS ruling will allow some requirements to get a license (SCOTUS was general on what) but they need to be objective. They can require a safety course, maybe live fire training , etc. they’re not going to allow the good cause subjective standard where some bureaucrat decides. To me suitably is a non starter with SCOTUS unless the definition of unsuitable means a mental illness or convicted domestic abuser etc.

Again, across the board, no exemptions.

There are cases at SCOTUS right now pending cert and on hold until the NYSRPA case was decided. There are mag limit cases from NJ and CA there and an AWB case from MD. SCOTUS will no deny cert allowing the lower court anti 2A decision to stand, grant cert and hear the case next term or send it back to the lower court to review based on the NYSRPA case. The 9th circuit especially used a 2 step process to approve literally 50 gun control cases. Thomas said that standard of review is wrong. So all those case are ripe for refilling. The same 2 step process was used by most courts so I think they’re all at risk of reversal.

What were the mag limits and AWB type laws in 1791? There were none. All the mag limits, AWB etc are modern laws

Great point. Starting to feel younger already.

 

[Mesatchornug]

This will be across ALL, correct? In other words, there will be no exemptions for law enforcement, etc.? Hopefully, someone will be watching, to make sure this is the case.



Again, across the board, no exemptions.



Great point. Starting to feel younger already.

We can't know until they try it.

 

[GlockJock]

The main concern around here has always beens ome snowflake calling 911 about a man with a gun. Even the death of suitability won't change that.There is still great risk of getting a ride you can't beat.

I've told this here before, I'll tell it again: Two friends of mine are both MA State Police Troopers...Both - BOTH - say quite firmly/honestly/matter of factly that (to quote one directly, and affirmed by the other one, when asked about Open Carry etc, quote) "I don't give a fuq WHAT anyone else thinks. If I see you or anyone walking down the street with a gun? You're going down on the ground, on your knees, with your hands in plain sight until I can figure out EXACTLY what the fuq is going on..." (end of quote).
And when pressed on the 'Why' or the 'but what if I.." (etc), his (THEIR) reply was "I said I don't give a fuq!!"

Period. End of (true) story.

Just sayin'

 

[TLB]

The most encouraging part of this ruling for me was Justice Thomas’ commentary that the court is ready to start knocking down other 2A cases. That is pretty mind blowing. What the heck happened to SCOTUS for this change of attitude and what took them so long?

Was Roberts in the way and now he’s outnumbered?

In case you missed it:

View attachment 630405

Thomas and certainly others wanted to wait to take the cases until they had the votes and the decision could be written in the way they wanted.... Playing the long game, which paid off with DJT getting three nominations and Harry Reid going for instant gratification years earlier. I hope this entire situation is driving Shitlery insane.

 

[Hoover]

Lawyers can (and do) state anything they want. It's up to the judges to decide what the law is. I would expect that non resident permits in MA will become shall issue, but whether or not the state makes them good for the same term is a different question.

Which is a different question than the one about trying to carry in MA with a NH (or any other state) permit.

Interestingly, PA doesn't differentiate resident versus no resident permits. IF the county sheriff decides to issue to none county residents, then the requirements are identical. The only real discretion they have is whether or not to issue to non county residents.

I think states who add on hurdles or restrictions after the NYSRPA will have a difficult time getting the courts to ok that. The restriction will be viewed as an attempt to build hurdles to get around the intent of NYSRPA

 

[Hoover]

This will be across ALL, correct? In other words, there will be no exemptions for law enforcement, etc.? Hopefully, someone will be watching, to make sure this is the case.



Again, across the board, no exemptions.



Great point. Starting to feel younger already.

Any carve outs in any bill, 2A or other, are BS. Everyone should be treated equally under law.

 

[beaker]

View: https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status/1540501223543021576?s=21&t=AZOGhfaSlDtBHRpDspA8mg

I wonder what the commies in CA and NY will be scheming up to attempt to get around it...

 

[Hoover]

I've told this here before, I'll tell it again: Two friends of mine are both MA State Police Troopers...Both - BOTH - say quite firmly/honestly/matter of factly that (to quote one directly, and affirmed by the other one, when asked about Open Carry etc, quote) "I don't give a fuq WHAT anyone else thinks. If I see you or anyone walking down the street with a gun? You're going down on the ground, on your knees, with your hands in plain sight until I can figure out EXACTLY what the fuq is going on..." (end of quote).
And when pressed on the 'Why' or the 'but what if I.." (etc), his (THEIR) reply was "I said I don't give a fuq!!"

Period. End of (true) story.

Just sayin'

They should follow the law, if they are doing this solely because of a gun, the courts have said that’s not legal.

I know a few state cops but never talked about 2A with them. I have with some local cops and they want legal CCW holders. To me local cops seem less arrogant in general and less likely to seek to jam people on things. State cops in mass seem to think they are superior beings and they have rights commoners don’t. It’s so common it must be something they teach at the academy

 

[Picton]

I think states who add on hurdles or restrictions after the NYSRPA will have a difficult time getting the courts to ok that. The restriction will be viewed as an attempt to build hurdles to get around the intent of NYSRPA

I agree, but I'm worried that there are forces within the judiciary itself that disagree with that intent. Meaning, it's up to Roberts to make them toe the line.

 

[Waher]

I agree, but I'm worried that there are forces within the judiciary itself that disagree with that intent. Meaning, it's up to Roberts to make them toe the line.

Roberts signing onto the majority may signal that he's dissatisfied with the insubordination of the lower courts.

 

[DavidC77]

I've told this here before, I'll tell it again: Two friends of mine are both MA State Police Troopers...Both - BOTH - say quite firmly/honestly/matter of factly that (to quote one directly, and affirmed by the other one, when asked about Open Carry etc, quote) "I don't give a fuq WHAT anyone else thinks. If I see you or anyone walking down the street with a gun? You're going down on the ground, on your knees, with your hands in plain sight until I can figure out EXACTLY what the fuq is going on..." (end of quote).
And when pressed on the 'Why' or the 'but what if I.." (etc), his (THEIR) reply was "I said I don't give a fuq!!"

Period. End of (true) story.

Just sayin'

Thats the problem, a lot of LEO's have forgotten (they don't give a dam more than forgotten) that they are supposed to Honor the Constitution!!!
A lot of them think it's OK for them but not for us!!!

This BS Law or ruling that exempts "Law Enforcement" from having to "Follow the Laws" is TOTAL BS!!!!!!!

I'm an exLEO, I could take advantage of that law/ruling, but I don't because I don't feel that it's right that Law Enforcement is ALLOWED TO BREAK THE LAW just because they are Law Enforcement!!!!!!!

It is LEGAL TO OPEN CARRY in MA, they have no right to come up to you and "take you down"!!!

Yes, they have the right to come up to you and ask what you are doing but there is not one thing they can do to you...

I take that back, they can contact your Police Chief and say that you were causing a disturbance and your Chief can decide to pull your LTC...

That's why I don't OC and why I tell people not to OC... The Police Chief has way too much power over YOUR LTC!!!

It should be one system in MA, anyone that applies and is legal should get a nonrestricted LTC!!!

.

 

[Hoover]

I agree, but I'm worried that there are forces within the judiciary itself that disagree with that intent. Meaning, it's up to Roberts to make them toe the line.

Roberts has certainly been very disappointing at times, bostock, Obamacare, Dobbs, etc but his liberal slant is greatly exaggerated. Knuckle Dragger put it well earlier in this thread saying Roberts is as conservative as the other justices but he wants to raise the temperature slowly to boil the frog where as others want to toss the frog in the hot water.

Roberts has been there on heller, McDonald, NYSRPA. He’s probably going to be there on the EPA SCOTUS case next week, the school prayer, the affirmative action case next term, etc. Roberts definitely isn’t as good as Alito or Thomas but he’s FAR from a Kennedy.


I think there’s a reliable 6 conservative court so if lower courts pull the post heller crap, SCOTUS will slap them down. Kennedy was never a judge, he was a mediator. He didn’t want to decide cases or constitutional issue, he want to find a middle ground to appease each side. That’s why there wasn’t a post McDonald 2A case.

 

[Hoover]

Roberts signing onto the majority may signal that he's dissatisfied with the insubordination of the lower courts.

If any court ignores NYSRPA SCOTUS needs to take it up immediately and slap it down. If the do it for the first case a court ignores NYSRPA, they’ll make it crystal clear what is expected. Treat the liberal appeals courts like little kids, don’t let them push the limits, discipline them immediately and they won’t step out of line.

 

[Waher]

Roberts has certainly been very disappointing at times, bostock, Obamacare, Dobbs, etc but his liberal slant is greatly exaggerated.

His slant has been getting noticeably less this year and I think the left + Biden's overwhelming disrespect for the court has a lot to do with it.

Threatening to pack the court, clerks leaking opinions, and encouraging a permissive environment for mob tactics definitely pissed off Roberts.

 

[steve8140]

Going forward for MA people, I can’t imagine they will reissue LTC’s or even send out stickers to put on your LTC. Most likely when something is actually released from the state it will say that all restrictions are null and void and for everyone to just ignore that part of the LTC.

New LTC’s won’t even have that part printed on the card.

On the application is should read…

Reason for requesting LTC or unrestricted:
Answer: All Lawful Purposes USSC- NYSRPA v. Bruen

References (list 3):
Answer: USSC- NYSRPA v. Bruen

 

[Waher]

Going forward for MA people, I can’t imagine they will reissue LTC’s or even send out stickers to put on your LTC. Most likely when something is actually released from the state it will say that all restrictions are null and void and for everyone to just ignore that part of the LTC.

I imagine in a sane world they would send out a 'guidance' letter to all LTC holders and treat it like a change of address on Driver's Licenses post mid 2000s in MA (add you own sticker)

The Commonwealth may go full retard 1998 again, void all licenses, and require reapplication under whatever new horseshit criteria they bake up on a conference call with Bloomberg out of pure spite.

 

[chidiver]

There are cases at SCOTUS right now pending cert and on hold until the NYSRPA case was decided. There are mag limit cases from NJ and CA there and an AWB case from MD. SCOTUS will no deny cert allowing the lower court anti 2A decision to stand, grant cert and hear the case next term or send it back to the lower court to review based on the NYSRPA case. The 9th circuit especially used a 2 step process to approve literally 50 gun control cases. Thomas said that standard of review is wrong. So all those case are ripe for refilling. The same 2 step process was used by most courts so I think they’re all at risk of reversal.

What were the mag limits and AWB type laws in 1791? There were none. All the mag limits, AWB etc are modern laws

I seem to recall that when a new precedent is set, the SC tends to remand back to the lower courts in light of the new ruling for any affected cases in their inbox. So I would expect remands in the gun cases waiting for cert. Well see.

 

[Waher]

Reading through the opinion, I think everyone is missing that SCotUS also struck down NY State's criminalization of simple possession within the home for not being consistent with Heller and MacDonald. I'm wondering if that will finally have an effect in MA where simple possession is still statutorily a crime in the same violation as NY state.

 

[Mesatchornug]

Reading through the opinion, I think everyone is missing that SCotUS also struck down NY State's criminalization of simple possession within the home for not being consistent with Heller and MacDonald. I'm wondering if that will finally have an effect in MA where simple possession is still statutorily a crime in the same violation as NY state.

Ooh!

That should strengthen FOPA everywhere...

 

[Garys]

I hope so, but I expect that the attitude in the states that were "May Issue" will be "Let them litigate it."

I think states who add on hurdles or restrictions after the NYSRPA will have a difficult time getting the courts to ok that. The restriction will be viewed as an attempt to build hurdles to get around the intent of NYSRPA

 

[free]

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.

No.

 

[42!]

I can wait for Maura's press release ending may issue. The letters of reference is the one element of the licensing scheme I want to see eliminated, but CA is keeping it, so it will be kept here. A lawsuit needs to be filed ASAP.

MA resident LTC is shall issue but with suitability, so effectively may issue. So Maura won't be saying anything about May issue unless she is refering to the non-res LTC which is May issue, but no suitability clause.

Wondering now if open carry will now be a thing in MA, since the main jist behind why no one did previously is that there was concern over the CoP considering you to be unsuitable at renewal, since OC is not illegal in MA.

It may change it a little but to be honest, a lot who want to open carry only want to do it for the shock value and it's "my right". They want to do it because it pisses of others. If you actually have a need to open carry, then the following does not apply to you. Being an a**h*** is being an a**h*** no matter how you do it. Doing something because you can and you know it will upset other is just being an a**h***. As far as self defence goes, CC provides the significant tactical advantage of the bad guy not knowing about it. If you're working on your fence on a hot summer day with no shirt on and your gun is visible, that's fine, the "open" is just a consequence of the situation. If you're walking in the mall with an AR on a single point sling, you're just being an a**h***.

while that seems to be the case on the face of it, does MA out of state permit requirements pass the smell test under the 14th A or equal protection under the law. Couldnt a lawyer state that just because their client lives out of state they should not have to jump through different hoops to get a non-res permit?

There are only a few difference in res and non-res in MA.

Non-res, May issue and restrictions.
Res, shall issue but suitability, and restrictions.
Other than that it's mostly the time/place to apply. The time/place thing will survive as long as its consistent. Restrictions and May issue on the non-res are gone. But will likely take a court case or two.
Res LTCs, restrictions are gone but will likely take a court case. Suitability, as MA defines it, will become part of a fight with the legislature. see below

The question is whether Federal courts will invalidate suitability
as being impermissibly subjective (and perhaps even impermissibly vague).

What SCOTUS said could be read as arbitrary suitability is not allowed. But MA makes the claim that it's use of suitability is not arbitrary, they must be able to clearly articulate a risk to public safety, At least that's the law, although we all know the MA courts will go along with the Chief says no matter what or how he says it. I'd expect the MA legislature to add more definition and try to replace the word suitability with something not actually in the SCOTUS ruling. Then when there is a challenge MA will just say the law isn't arbitrary, your fight is with the individual Chief. So you end up with lots of little cases applied to individuals, leaving the Chiefs the ability to deny "for reasons" unless you have the $$$ for the fight.

 

[Picton]

I seem to recall that when a new precedent is set, the SC tends to remand back to the lower courts in light of the new ruling for any affected cases in their inbox. So I would expect remands in the gun cases waiting for cert. Well see.

Yep.

Should be a wild few months coming up.

 

[MGnoob]

I don’t think I’ve put any references on any of my applications..other then family I likely didn’t have a single person to use as a reference.

It’s on the form but I don’t think it’s a requirement…

Regardless the references don’t matter. It extremely rare they would even contact them.

 

[Knob Creek]

New Jersey drops Justifiable Need from LTC requirements.

 

[MGnoob]

As far as open carry goes, doing to be a dick or shock value isn’t a great idea.. Just be cool about it and go about your business carrying your gun and ignore everybody. You’ll likely be fine unless you’re an a**h*** about it