Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

[Goliathan]

I've wondered and never had a satisfactory answer... maybe it's well known... what is the ramification of Constitutional carry with regard to the federal gun-free school zones act and its ridiculous 1000 foot boundary, etc.? In the PRM we are exempt by virtue of our licenses, but in CC states how does this work? Would people get carry permits anyway?

 

[Bonesinium]

But in the growing number of Constitutional carry states no license whatsoever is required. and in most states no license is required to possess a gun. As I said, this case offers little to those who actually live in America.

Got it. It doesn’t directly benefit you, therefore it’s bad. Great point!


Oh, NY isn’t part of America so who cares. Why don’t you consider NY, America? Because of their bad laws. So why bother having those bad laws overturned? That would be bad.

Rock solid logic.

 

[Cap'n Mike]

But in the growing number of Constitutional carry states no license whatsoever is required. and in most states no license is required to possess a gun. As I said, this case offers little to those who actually live in America.

Im sure that there used to be lots of people in Virginia that thought, "Those crazy New York Laws could never happen here."

 

[granitestater]

Got it. It doesn’t directly benefit you, therefore it’s bad. Great point!


Oh, NY isn’t part of America so who cares. Why don’t you consider NY, America? Because of their bad laws. So why bother having those bad laws overturned? That would be bad.

Rock solid logic.

By ignoring the 1986 firearms owners protection act, NY has shown they do not wish to be part of America. This suit will not help the vast majority of gun owners. It’s not about me personally but the overwhelming majority. You’re location shows southern NH. Be careful where you park At Nashuas pheasant lane mall because some of the parking lots are in Tyngsborough MA. FOPA won’t protect you because your not just passing through but a change in federal law or a court case addressing carry outside the home will.

Im sure that there used to be lots of people in Virginia that thought, "Those crazy New York Laws could never happen here."

Virginia is not over. There are now over 100 sanctuary cities and counties. They have awoken a sleeping giant. You see Virginians are accustomed to freedom, they’re not rolling over. NYers have been dumbed down over decades of oppression and accept many restrictions. They just want an exemption which is what thst law suit is about. An exemption to a bad law for people who have a license that can cost close to $1000 and is unobtainable for the vast majority of city residents.

 

[Coyote33]

Yup. They finally boiled the water too fast.

 

[hv55maxx]

NYers have been dumbed down over decades of oppression and accept many restrictions.

south of Albany. I do not live in NY, but i can assure you, north of Albany is a lot different country than south of it. but i guess your point is guilty by association, just like every subject that resides in MA must be a handout-taking window licker.

 

[granitestater]

south of Albany. I do not live in NY, but i can assure you, north of Albany is a lot different country than south of it. but i guess your point is guilty by association, just like every subject that resides in MA must be a handout-taking window licker.

New York State has a population of over 19 million. Only 8.6 million live in NY City. Less than 50%. Based on those numbers conservative pro gun republicans should win every statewide election, no Schumer,no Coumo, no Latitcia James. But that doesn’t happen. It doesn’t happen because the entire state is filled with a bunch of communists.

 

[Dench]

south of Albany. I do not live in NY, but i can assure you, north of Albany is a lot different country than south of it. but i guess your point is guilty by association, just like every subject that resides in MA must be a handout-taking window licker.

Looking at the map (and i guessed this prior to looking at it) the Poughkipsee area seems to be the last reaches of the mainstream hard core (D) voter base with Ithica, Rochester, Albany, Syracuse, and Buffalo being the obvious outliers due to being huge cities.

I believe poughkipsee is the last stop on the train into NYC.

 

[M1911]

Folks, please dial back the rudeness. It’s Xmas Eve.

 

[Buck F]

Looking at the map (and i guessed this prior to looking at it) the Poughkipsee area seems to be the last reaches of the mainstream hard core (D) voter base with Ithica, Rochester, Albany, Syracuse, and Buffalo being the obvious outliers due to being huge cities.

I believe poughkipsee is the last stop on the train into NYC.

New York State has a population of over 19 million. Only 8.6 million live in NY City. Less than 50%. Based on those numbers conservative pro gun republicans should win every statewide election, no Schumer,no Coumo, no Latitcia James. But that doesn’t happen. It doesn’t happen because the entire state is filled with a bunch of communists.

Poughkeepsie is the last stop on the Hudson line, I used to commute from nearby there for a few months after I graduated college. What a nightmare. The Harlem Line actually goes a little further North than PoTown, last stop in Wassaic. Poughkeepsie is roughly 60 miles North of NYC, it is only considered "upstate" by people who live in NYC. Ithaca, where I went to school, is a liberal hotbed because it's a college town who's population doubles when school is in session (Cornell & Ithaca College). To people from NYC, anything North of Westchester County is considered Upstate. In Ithaca, they consider themselves Finger Lakes or Central NY, not upstate.

There are a WHOLE lot of people who live just outside NYC but for all practical purposes might as well live in NYC from a voting perspective. Add a few million more to the NYC total for Westchester, Dutchess, Nassau, Putnam which are solid blue. Westchester County which is almost 1Mil is who gave us the likes of AOC, it's where the Clinton's live. The whole state isn't filled by a bunch of communists but they certainly outnumber the regular folks. Kinda like the Granite State is trending.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

But in the growing number of Constitutional carry states no license whatsoever is required. and in most states no license is required to possess a gun. As I said, this case offers little to those who actually live in America.

I'm sorry, but yours is a very dangerous opinion. From that perspective, cases like Brown, Roe, or Obergefell offered "little to those who actually live in America" as well. If rights are not protected for everyone, they're not really rights. A failure to protect rights renders them merely privileges, exercised only by the grace of government. Furthermore, if the battles are not fought and won in these places, there won't be any precedents protecting those who you claim 'actually live in America'. You might just as well go along with Breyer's dissent: "Are you a sportsman? Do you like to shoot pistols at targets? Well, get on the subway and go to Maryland. There is no problem, I don't think, for anyone who really wants to have a gun."
:

 

[M1911]

Enough. I don’t want to have to close this thread.

 

[Bonesinium]

How was that not a fair point?

 

[M1911]

How was that not a fair point?

It was an accurate point. But this thread is veering into name calling and using the word “idiotic” didn’t help dial it back.

Let’s get back to discussing the case, rather than bickering with each other.

 

[granitestater]

I'm sorry, but yours is a very dangerous opinion. From that perspective, cases like Brown, Roe, or Obergefell offered "little to those who actually live in America" as well. If rights are not protected for everyone, they're not really rights. A failure to protect rights renders them merely privileges, exercised only by the grace of government. Furthermore, if the battles are not fought and won in these places, there won't be any precedents protecting those who you claim 'actually live in America'. You might just as well go along with Breyer's dissent: "Are you a sportsman? Do you like to shoot pistols at targets? Well, get on the subway and go to Maryland. There is no problem, I don't think, for anyone who really wants to have a gun."
:

a stronger, better case that benefits everyone will automatically benefit those in New York. This case offers close to moth8ng for everyone else. The concern is that the supremes will say hey we took a gun case and maybe wait another 10 years before taking another. A squandered opportunity. No, im not a sportsman guns are for defense of human life. I could care less about sport.

 

[Bonesinium]

I could care less about sport.

Or people in NY. Or anything that doesn't directly benefit you. We get it. You don't care about a lot of things and the courts should only take cases on the things that impact you or that you care about. Of course none of these are valid arguments. Just like your argument that all of NY is just a bunch of communists otherwise Republicans would win all the elections. I suppose NH is also just a bunch of communists and not deserving of any rights either by that metric. Have you looked at who NH has elected to congress lately? They are all Democrats. Therefore you must be a communist and we shouldn't care about your rights. Or maybe that's just not a valid point?

 

[M1911]

OK, we are going to take a break.

 

[KAG Arms]

SCOTUS to hear a potential landmark case for gun rights. SCOTUS to consider if there's a constitutional right to carry firearms outside the home for self-defense.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/042621zor_e18f.pdf

 

[paul73]

so, if they will rule 'no' - what will that potentially result with?

 

[KAG Arms]

so, if they will rule 'no' - what will that potentially result with?

Carry outside the home would be decided at the State Level.

 

[not new guy]

Hopefully someone was able to get to Roberts and trick him into thinking it’s Opposite Day.

 

[bullseye]

Carry outside the home would be decided at the State Level.

It already is, but I see where that could seriously harm 2A !! This is actually a test of what is supposedly a conservative, Constitution loving majority!!

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I think they might have a better chance going for equal protection under the law, as the current licensing scheme in places like NYC and NJ is anything but "equal".

The conservatives are going to have a major cognitive dissonance problem - government power and authority vs. the constitution.

 

[KAG Arms]

I think they might have a better chance going for equal protection under the law, as the current licensing scheme in places like NYC and NJ is anything but "equal".

The conservatives are going to have a major cognitive dissonance problem - government power and authority vs. the constitution.

Paul Clement has a strong 2A argument that naturally follows both Heller and McDonald. Given that the court (particularly the conservative bloc with the exception of Thomas) are enamoured with Stare Decisis; I think the 2A Argument is more compelling and no need to transcend theoretically to 14A or 9A

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/164031/20201217110211298_2020-12-17%20NRA-Corlett%20Cert%20Petition%20FINAL.pdf

 

[Bladerunner]

State law cannot contravene the Constitution. Heller already paves the way for this decision.

This will be a no brainer as the historical roots of 2A were built upon self defense outside of the home. Heller did not require some arbitrary test of need and neither will this case.

I'm buying some gunz today in anticipation of the moonbat meltdown party when the entire concept of "May Issue" is eviscerated and finally destroyed.

 

[bullseye]

so, if they will rule 'no' - what will that potentially result with?

Pretty much the same way it is now. It will allow states like NY to allow laws preventing licensing to carry and expand to the point of even rescinding current licenses to carry. Stats that respect rights will continue to respect rights. Hell, places like MASS could even take away LTC's!! Then it would be a battle of a grandfather clause.

 

[SKumar]

Oh wow, the SCOTUS decided to get off their lazy asses and actually do some work?

 

[crispnipz]

Okay big brains, give it to me straight. Does a favorable ruling have any chance at forcing MA's hand with regard to restrictions?

Me waiting to renew my restricted LTC:

 

[paul73]

Pretty much the same way it is now. It will allow states like NY to allow laws preventing licensing to carry and expand to the point of even rescinding current licenses to carry. Stats that respect rights will continue to respect rights. Hell, places like MASS could even take away LTC's!! Then it would be a battle of a grandfather clause.

that is what i was thinking about as well - will it be a sufficient ground to terminate concept of LTCs or not.
well, i guess we will see. i frankly do not expect current scotus to take any decision in pro-2a direction, at all. they all are way too scared of the woke agenda war machine.

 

[dcmdon]

To those who know SCOTUS processes better than I do. Is there any way that they can punt at this point?

I don't think they can. This means a decision is coming.

Unless, of course, NY changes its law, like it did last year. Which would moot the case. But maybe not since this case would apply to many other states. Either way, its exciting, but I am not getting my hopes up.

Re the question of whether its right to have a big federal government forcing things that we support on the states. I remember reading in a paper by possibly Judge Napolitano about how one of the appropriate uses of federal supremacy was to force states into complying with the natural rights acknowledged in the Constitution. It seems reasonable to me.

This came into play 4 years ago also, when there was talk of a national carry reciprocity law.