Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

[PappyM3]

Cops aren't lawyers. If they are well informed, then they've heard about 1) the AG's guidance that only unrestricted licenses should be issued and 2) the DCJIS guidance about how to a department should go about removing restrictions. But neither of those guidance letters state that they should consider restricted licenses to be unrestricted. Most cops probably believe that the AG's office and the DCJIS have attorneys who understand the SCOTUS decision better than they do, so they will follow the guidance they get from the AG, the DCJIS, and their department (if they've received any).

I fully agree with you that the restrictions are unconstitutional. But I suspect that many cops haven't heard about the ruling or if they have, have only received the guidance referred to above.

I get what you’re saying, but I don’t expect them to be lawyers and to interpret exactly how the ruling affects MA law. But because the ruling had such an influence within their industry, I do expect them to be familiar with the ruling and how it could potentially affect the MA law they are charged with enforcing.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I get what you’re saying, but I don’t expect them to be lawyers and to interpret exactly how the ruling affects MA law. But because the ruling had such an influence within their industry, I do expect them to be familiar with the ruling and how it could potentially affect the MA law they are charged with enforcing.

You can bet there would be a training memo issued by at leat 90% of the departments in MA if the law changed to add additional LTC not valid areas.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Question for all the wicked smart legal types on here. You too @Knuckle Dragger.

Does this comment mean every state? Outside the home can be anywhere in the USA.

Moreover, the Second Amendment guarantees an “individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” id., at 592, and confrontation can surely take place outside the home. Pp. 23–24. "

It is my understanding that the decision did not address reciprocity, but IANAL and I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

I think that’s about right. Reciprocity is going to be a fight for another day. But I also think reciprocity is good and ripe right now

 

[pastera]

Why would he get arrested if, even prior to Bruen, MGL states that carrying on a restricted license is only a fine and cause for license revocation. Is that really arrestable? And if so, what is the charge called?

Because an arrest them all and let the courts sort it out attitude runs rampant in shitty cities.
They are likely to charge with carry without a license, disturbing the peace, and anything else they can toss at you
It doesn't matter what is actually chargeable because you still need to pay a retainer in order to kill the bogus charges - doesn't cost the police a dime, hell they will likely get some OT from the deal.

 

[M1911]

I get what you’re saying, but I don’t expect them to be lawyers and to interpret exactly how the ruling affects MA law. But because the ruling had such an influence within their industry, I do expect them to be familiar with the ruling and how it could potentially affect the MA law they are charged with enforcing.

I suspect they would argue that 1) the case concerned NY law, not MA law, 2) it concerned the issuance of an LTC not how to interpret restricted licenses, and 3) the AG only told them it affected issuance. I suspect that they would claim that it isn’t clear if the ruling affects restrictions and until they get a ruling from a court that tells them otherwise, that they will enforce the law as written.

 

[kevin9]

I suspect they would argue that 1) the case concerned NY law, not MA law, 2) it concerned the issuance of an LTC not how to interpret restricted licenses, and 3) the AG only told them it affected issuance. I suspect that they would claim that it isn’t clear if the ruling affects restrictions and until they get a ruling from a court that tells them otherwise, that they will enforce the law as written.

In other words, tyrants are going to tyrannize.

 

[Cap'n Mike]

When there is a groundbreaking ruling about civil rights that directly affects their profession… then yes, I do. Professional competence and awareness of things affecting your job is something I expect of people. I’m not surprised when people fail to meet those expectations, but I still have those expectations.

I posted this last week and about ten pages back.

A ”Legal Update” (From a paid law firm, not a State issued document) was sent out this weekend to some Massachusetts Police Officers Summarizing the Bruen decision and cautioning against taking Criminal action against any LTC holder violating A “Good Reason” type restriction, such as “Target Practice Only” and recommending Licensing Officers refrain from issuing such restrictions.

As to what percentage of Cops open their email and actually read what gets sent to them? I dont know.

 

[Coyote33]

OK, a whole lot of reading here. Can I ask something? What impact does the Bruen/NYSRPA case have on Massachusetts today?

I thought the immediate impact is the removal of "suitability" and the need to have reference letters/letters of recommendation for LTC's. Is this true or is it not true? If true, why has the state made other changes and "guidance"/suggestions for police departments, yet the state application itself still has the sections for these 2 things? Ditto for the many cities and towns who have their own applications modeled after the state's.

To shorten this up, it looks like the only thing which has changed so far is the removal of restrictions, but even THAT is still on the application form. See my earlier post here: POST # 2625

Nothing?

So, the only changes are that restrictions will be removed from new licenses, and existing ones if requested by individual city/town police departments? There are no changes to the state application form or the town application forms to remove the restrictions area and/or the reference letter/letter of recommendation area?

No other changes in Massachusetts at this point in time?

 

[Mesatchornug]

[Snip]
No other changes in Massachusetts at this point in time?

Bolded the important part. MA only moves quickly when they think they can spin it look like heroes (e.g. the upskirt bill that wasn't). Expect this to take time.

 

[Coyote33]

Is there a list anywhere of actual declarations or press releases from either MA AG office or any other state officials; preferably in chronological order?

Want to be able to provide actual info to club members today.

This is all I can find:


Thank you.

Also, the same for other groups?

This is what I have so far:

 

[SFC13557]

do you really expect most beat cops to know or care about the SCOTUS ruling?

YES! Especially if they're in a Red town that issues restricted LTC's. It might save the City some money from lawsuits.

 

[Picton]

YES! Especially if they're in a Red town that issues restricted LTC's. It might save the City some money from lawsuits.

This.

If the beat cops don’t know, it’s their Chief’s responsibility to tell them. That’s why the eventual lawsuits will be naming the chiefs. They’re accountable for training their guys.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

YES! Especially if they're in a Red town that issues restricted LTC's. It might save the City some money from lawsuits.

We're talking a federal civil rights claim that brings with it a 42USC1983 claim as well.

 

[SFC13557]

We're talking a federal civil rights claim that brings with it a 42USC1983 claim as well.

Hopefully some poor Ma. resident doesn't have to be the test case.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Hopefully some poor Ma. resident doesn't have to be the test case.

That is not something to fear. The case would not be a criminal defense, but bringing a civil rights suit against a PD that refused to reissue or pulled the "wait N years until renewal". The MA resident's role in such a case would be "plaintiff", not "defendant".

Things are still being figured out, and there is a decent chance that further advisories, back channel communication, and knowledge there is a group out there with the funding and willingness to set this right in the courts and will be all over it like a cheap suit if the obstinance continues will end up with a non-court resolution.

 

[SFC13557]

That is not something to fear. The case would not be a criminal defense, but bringing a civil rights suit against a PD that refused to reissue or pulled the "wait N years until renewal". The MA resident's role in such a case would be "plaintiff", not "defendant".

Things are still being figured out, and there is a decent chance that further advisories, back channel communication, and knowledge there is a group out there with the funding and willingness to set this right in the courts and will be all over it like a cheap suit if the obstinance continues will end up with a non-court resolution.

I understand but I meant some restricted LTC holder who had to defend himself with his/her licensed pistol getting charged with carrying with a restricted LTC.

 

[M1911]

YES! Especially if they're in a Red town that issues restricted LTC's. It might save the City some money from lawsuits.

Once again, you guys are FUNDAMENTALLY MISUNDERSTANDING what I wrote. I didn't wrote what I think SHOULD BE the case. I wrote what I think IS the case. Those are two very different things.

Should officers be cognizant of the recent SCOTUS decision? Yes. Are most them? Probably not.

Should MA police chiefs recognize the intent of the decision that restrictions on already issued licenses are no longer constitutional? Yes. Will many of them? No.

You folks seem to think I'm defending the response of the AG, DCJIS and what I think most police will do. I'm not. I'm predicting what I think they will do, not what I would prefer them to do. You folks are saying "police should do the right thing". I'm saying "I don't think they will".

 

[Picton]

Once again, you guys are FUNDAMENTALLY MISUNDERSTANDING what I wrote. I didn't wrote what I think SHOULD BE the case. I wrote what I think IS the case. Those are two very different things.

Should officers be cognizant of the recent SCOTUS decision? Yes. Are most them? Probably not.

Should MA police chiefs recognize the intent of the decision that restrictions on already issued licenses are no longer constitutional? Yes. Will many of them? No.

You folks seem to think I'm defending the response of the AG, DCJIS and what I think most police will do. I'm not. I'm predicting what I think they will do, not what I would prefer them to do. You folks are saying "police should do the right thing". I'm saying "I don't think they will".

Okay.

But either way, the CoP is responsible. So, sue his negligent and unconstitutional ass.

 

[M1911]

Okay.

But either way, the CoP is responsible. So, sue his negligent and unconstitutional ass.

I wouldn't characterize their actions as negligence. I suspect that they believe they are doing "the right thing", because guns. You and I believe that they are doing the wrong thing.

 

[Picton]

I wouldn't characterize their actions as negligence. I suspect that they believe they are doing "the right thing", because guns. You and I believe that they are doing the wrong thing.

It's certainly negligence if they don't ensure their patrolmen are properly trained. Letting your guys go out and enforce laws you're not informing them they no longer need to enforce?

Not sure what else to call it than negligence... Dereliction of duty, maybe. Either way, it's worthy of a lawsuit. And I'm not the most lawsuit-happy guy.

 

[M1911]

It's certainly negligence if they don't ensure their patrolmen are properly trained. Letting your guys go out and enforce laws you're not informing them they no longer need to enforce?

Not sure what else to call it than negligence... Dereliction of duty, maybe. Either way, it's worthy of a lawsuit. And I'm not the most lawsuit-happy guy.

Again, you and I disagree with their interpretation. They think their interpretation is "right", so they are enforcing the laws as they see them.

Consider this, a couple police chiefs back, my town hadn't qualified their police officers on the range in a number of years. That's negligence. Choosing to train police officers based on an interpretation of the law given to them by the AG? That's not negligence.

But, again, you are stuck in idealism of what you think the chiefs SHOULD do. I'm a cynical bastard and this is what I think many of them WILL do. I understand -- you're mad. We won at SCOTUS and police and politicians should all recognize that. But many won't until they are forced to. Comm2A will force them to. It may take some time. Yes, that sucks.

 

[Picton]

Again, you and I disagree with their interpretation. They think their interpretation is "right", so they are enforcing the laws as they see them.

Consider this, a couple police chiefs back, my town hadn't qualified their police officers on the range in a number of years. That's negligence.

But, again, you are stuck in idealism of what you think the chiefs SHOULD do. I'm a cynical bastard and this what I think many of them WILL do. I understand -- you're mad. We won at SCOTUS and police and politicians should all recognize that. But many won't until they are forced to.

I’m not mad at all. I just don’t feel like giving a pass to a CoP who doesn’t act constitutionally.

Suppose a CoP disagreed with the Miranda decision when it came down. So he didn’t bother telling his patrolmen to give Miranda warnings on arrest. He’s deliberately setting his men up for failure based on his clearly erroneous interpretation of a clear SCOTUS ruling. In the process, he’s opening his city up for swift damages. That’s him being negligent in his responsibility to enforce the law.

Should cops, as a matter of professional responsibility, keep themselves informed of these things? Sure. But the CoP can’t count on that, which is what roll calls are for.

 

[M1911]

I’m not mad at all. I just don’t feel like giving a pass to a CoP who doesn’t act constitutionally.

Stop right there. You've been misunderstanding what I've written throughout this entire thread. I'm not "giving a pass to a CoP". You think I am. I'm not. I'm telling you what I THINK they will do, not what I think they SHOULD do. Those are two different things.

Negligence has a very particular definition. What I predict they will do is not negligence.

You keep thinking I'm defending anti-gun chiefs. I'm not.

And, yes, I think you are mad, and understandably so.

 

[vicorjh]

They think their interpretation is "right"

They are Law Enforcement. Get it right.

 

[Picton]

Stop right there. You've been misunderstanding what I've written throughout this entire thread. I'm not "giving a pass to a CoP". You think I am. I'm not. I'm telling you what I THINK they will do, not what I think they SHOULD do. Those are two different things.

Negligence has a very particular definition. What I predict they will do is not negligence.

You keep thinking I'm defending anti-gun chiefs. I'm not.

And, yes, I think you are mad, and understandably so.

I'll try one more time.

Constitutional interpretations change every time SCOTUS comes down with opinions. Many of those interpretations affect the day-to-day business of law enforcement.

As a consequence of these changes, police officers need to be retrained to the new standard.

It is the responsibility of the town CoP to provide that training, just as he's responsible for keeping them trained in marksmanship, tourniquets, and comms. Failure to do so constitutes... what, to you? What's the name of the offense when a CoP fails to train his patrolmen?

 

[M1911]

They are Law Enforcement. Get it right.

And they have received an opinion from the Attorney General, who is supposed to be more expert in interpreting laws and court decisions than them. The AG's memo gives them a defense.

You and I believe that the AG's memo is wrong, but they can claim that they acted based on the legal advice that they received from the AG.

 

[M1911]

I'll try one more time.

Constitutional interpretations change every time SCOTUS comes down with opinions. Many of those interpretations affect the day-to-day business of law enforcement.

As a consequence of these changes, police officers need to be retrained to the new standard.

It is the responsibility of the town CoP to provide that training, just as he's responsible for keeping them trained in marksmanship, tourniquets, and comms. Failure to do so constitutes... what, to you? What's the name of the offense when a CoP fails to train his patrolmen?

And if the chiefs have passed on the AG's memo to their officers, then he has trained them regarding the SCOTUS decision. You and I believe that the AG is wrong, but if he has trained them according to that memo, then what he's done is not negligence.

You're just shaking your first and yelling "but the AG is wrong!". Yes, she is wrong and the courts will eventually prove that. But in the meantime her advice gives the chiefs a legal fig leaf to hide behind.

 

[free]

This hitherto excellent NES thread has become = The View

He said she said I meant you meant don’t get me wrong you're not listening to me etc etc

 

[HARRYM]

These "Chiefs" are jamming down everyone's throat their OWN personal opinion as to who gets in to see the Wizard.

 

[Picton]

And if the chiefs have passed on the AG's memo to their officers, then he has trained them regarding the SCOTUS decision. You and I believe that the AG is wrong, but if he has trained them according to that memo, then what he's done is not negligence.

You're just shaking your first and yelling "but the AG is wrong!". Yes, she is wrong and the courts will eventually prove that. But in the meantime her advice gives the chiefs a legal fig leaf to hide behind.

You're not understanding me.

I don't think the AG's memo is wrong. I think it tells police officers to stop enforcing LTC restrictions. I think it's entirely proper for her to advise the police that way.

If the CoP ignores that and continues to enforce restrictions, then the CoP opens himself up to lawsuits... no?