- Joined
- May 1, 2009
- Messages
- 2,182
- Likes
- 3,331
Because of Bruen, can a new suit be brought fighting this (Draper v. CoakleyHealey) again?
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.
Thank You !Glockster30
First of, thank you for the support! Thank you to all of you who have been following this matter closely.
To clarify, my rant yesterday was not directed to any of you Constitution loving and Rule-of-Law following individuals. I know that you all know how the system is rigged--one need only mention the key words "firearm", "gun" or "Second Amendment" and political and judicial minds melt immediately and that case is doomed.
I do not want anyone to think that this is over--at least as far as I'm concerned. As long as you are with me I'll continue this fight! They started with two attorneys at the AG's office, which by the end of the appeal ended with 10-12, including those in support of the Brady Center and the Law Center (there are some on the service list who do not appear on the briefs or in the 1st Circuit's opinion). We've obviously struck a nerve.
Stay strong. I'm in this for the long run...
Best,
Alex
I thought that a ruling from a higher court that materially effected a case could bring standing for review?Standing is not the issue as we could always get another plaintiff. The issue is that pesky res judicata thing.
The problem is that the SCOTUS decision did not directly address the issue of "safety standards / consumer protection" regulating what brands of guns could be sold, particularly when models with similar capability that are allegedly "safer" are available for sale. A decision on that issue could go either way.I thought that a ruling from a higher court that materially effected a case could bring standing for review?
Concur - got cases mixed up in my head.The problem is that the SCOTUS decision did not directly address the issue of "safety standards / consumer protection" regulating what brands of guns could be sold, particularly when models with similar capability that are allegedly "safer" are available for sale. A decision on that issue could go either way.
True, unless he wants to buy another.If Draper has since acquired a Glock via private party FA-10 personal transfer, is there now no standing?
What cars you can buy are regulated in Mass - new cars must meet the extra California BS.The AG should create a list of what cars people can buy. or what brand of milk, bread etc..
Not what I mean. No F250 it's too large and dangerous, no diesel engines of any kind allowed. etc..What cars you can buy are regulated in Mass - new cars must meet the extra California BS.
Already happening - Hyundai was allocating ALL of their EV and PHEV production to the states that pull this shit so they can hit the average fleet economy numbers for vehicles sold in that state.Not what I mean. No F250 it's too large and dangerous, no diesel engines of any kind allowed. etc..
Standing is not the issue as we could always get another plaintiff. The issue is that pesky res judicata thing.
How's it looking?California has a handgun roster too. There is a pending suit there Renna vs bonta
I think the way out is to make any laws, rules, and regulations that apply to regular citizens also apply to police departments. I'm not sure how or if Bruen even affects any of that, but removing that exception/exemption will certainly change attitudes from that sector, who the state loves to have on their side.Concur - got cases mixed up in my head.
The AG non-list is one that I haven't followed closely. The only way out of this one is getting rid of the federal restrictions on out of home state purchase.
I think the way out is to make any laws, rules, and regulations that apply to regular citizens also apply to police departments.
How's it looking?
We will very likely not succeed in removing exceptions for special places - everything else is up for grabs thoughI think the way out is to make any laws, rules, and regulations that apply to regular citizens also apply to police departments. I'm not sure how or if Bruen even affects any of that, but removing that exception/exemption will certainly change attitudes from that sector, who the state loves to have on their side.
There may be victories to new exceptions if they are overly broad and/or the legislative intent is clear that the motivation was to undermine the 2A rather than apply the sensitive place logic only in very specific circumstances.We will very likely not succeed in removing exceptions for special places - everything else is up for grabs though
There may be victories to new exceptions if they are overly broad and/or the legislative intent is clear that the motivation was to undermine the 2A rather than apply the sensitive place logic only in very specific circumstances.
Also the NY logic about things like public transit being a “sensitive place “ is a bit dubious. So basically they’re saying poors can’t carry guns.
There may be victories to new exceptions if they are overly broad and/or the legislative intent is clear that the motivation was to undermine the 2A rather than apply the sensitive place logic only in
All of it is dubiousAlso the NY logic about things like public transit being a “sensitive place “ is a bit dubious. So basically they’re saying poors can’t carry guns.
So you're saying we shouldn't try to strike LEOSA?That would be amazing. But would never happen. The king’s men will always get special treatment, if not for overpowering execution of state violence, then for the special treatment that keeps them in the pocket of the policy makers.
That’s at the root of a lot of gun control.…So basically they’re saying poors can’t carry guns.
Which is the entire goal of discretionary licensing in the first place…Also the NY logic about things like public transit being a “sensitive place “ is a bit dubious. So basically they’re saying poors can’t carry guns.
Upon first reading this, I thought you were talking about making the police equal to everyone else. I thought I read somewhere that was a part of this Bruen deal. Maybe not. It's a question as much as anything else.Which is the entire goal of discretionary licensing in the first place…
The list of places - businesses without a permission to be armed notice; times square; etc. are sufficient to render the pre-Bruen NYC "special full carry" permits nearly useless, as well as the unrestricted non-NYC NY permits help by upstaters many of who live in what are almost "shall issue" by practice. There isn't really an appeal resistant mechanism to grant "first class" permits to the important and "second class permits" to the ordinaries. To those who used their position, fame or power to get the old NYC full carry permits - welcome to being treated like everyone else.Also the NY logic about things like public transit being a “sensitive place “ is a bit dubious. So basically they’re saying poors can’t carry guns.