Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

[LittleCalm]

There was also "awe to play" - the mere presence of a household name on the applicant's side of the table boosted the odds. Sean Penn, despite a criminal record, was described as an "outstanding applicant" and at least one musit group (Aerosmith, I think) was met backstage by the NYPD for fingerprinting for their approved applications. "I am famous/rich so that places me in danger" seems to work. Even The Donald had a full carry permit before he went into politics.

Oh to be one of the beautiful people.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Just getting around to this now. I’m upset at how partisan the liberal wing of the court is: Sotomayor, Kagan, and RBG skewer poor Clement for 30 minutes, then turn around and throw life-lines to the NYC council. Overall, I thought Clement was way more prepared and very well spoken compared to NYC. I thought NYC council was a little weasily—he kept trying to constain 2A to the home, and nothing beyond. I thought it was brilliant that Clement basically turned NYC’s argument around and said: by virtue of issuing permits to transit from home to practice range, NYC affirms that there is a 2A right outside of the home. Although, it does torque me off that NYC has the audacity to say that “text, history, and tradition” indicate restricting the 2A is permissible. Total baloney.

And again, getting back to the genius of Paul Clement. NYC and the liberal justices made a HUGE deal out of the fact that NYSRPA was not seeking damages, was not accepting monetary relief from the court, etc. NYC and liberal justices kept saying, in effect: there were some monetary damages (plaintiffs having to pay out of state range fees), settle or moot the case, and move on. But Clemente et al. didn’t take the bait, because it’s not about the damages. It’s about the freedom of the 2A. Clemente et al. refused the award of damages to prove the point that individual freedom is the point of this whole excercize. It’s a classic state vs individual argument, and in this case, Clemente et al. refused to let the individual be bought-off by the state.

Dude, you're a day late and dollar short. You listened to the old NYSRPA argument from OT2019. That petition was DIG'd as moot. We've all moved on. It's a new day.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

A really interesting argument session. The justices were engaged and mostly asked good questions (except for Breyer, he's outlived his usefulness on the court and I agree with progressive court watchers - he should step down). I'm happy that they didn't beat the Statute of Northampton to death.

Clement was excellent, but you have to expect that. He's a former SG and seems to be in front of the court a couple of times in each sitting. The amount of preparation he must do is astounding - probably has a photographic memory.

Underwood, NY's SG, was underwhelming. Even setting aside my own obvious bias, she just seemed overwhelmed and under prepared. Fletcher from the SG's office was very well prepared and very good. NY really needed the SG's help on this one. I also did a double-take when the chief asked him about licensing the exercise of the right. Preloger, the SG, didn't argue this one herself. Not sure if that's because Monday's SB8 argument was deemed more important or the SG's office figured that there wasn't much upside to NYSRPA.

The rest of my week will be spend listening to and reading all the inevitable Monday-morning quarterbacking.


I think there's also a long running pay-to-play scandal at the NYPD's licensing unit.

One more thought, Clement's rebuttal was an 11.

I don't know how much folks listen to SCOTUS arguments in general, I hear parts of many of them. But the new format works really well for the casual listener. It's a big improvement from the free-for-all that they'd been running up until the last couple of terms.

 

[Dench]

Fine by me .... as long as "sensitive places" restriction includes all the connected and important people who have the "Special Full Carry" banner in the red bar at the top of their NYC licenses. Give them a touch of the medicine they have been forcing on the little people for years and they will do the lobbying for us.

GA rolled back quite a few of the "carry permit not valid" locations a few years ago.

"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!" Followed by 'senative places are fine for X reason!'

Remember when the founders said you can't bring a gun into the post office? I do.

'MURICA.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!" Followed by 'senative places are fine for X reason!'

Remember when the founders said you can't bring a gun into the post office? I do.

'MURICA.

Or when the courts said licenses or constitutional concealed carry was not a "legitimate purpose" described in the Post Office ban.

 

[Dench]

Or when the courts said licenses or constitutional concealed carry was not a "legitimate purpose" described in the Post Office ban.

Tough to disagree. The founders clearly said only X places in the US are allowed for proper self defense.

 

[Dadstoys]

A really interesting argument session. The justices were engaged and mostly asked good questions (except for Breyer, he's outlived his usefulness on the court and I agree with progressive court watchers - he should step down). I'm happy that they didn't beat the Statute of Northampton to death.

Clement was excellent, but you have to expect that. He's a former SG and seems to be in front of the court a couple of times in each sitting. The amount of preparation he must do is astounding - probably has a photographic memory.

Underwood, NY's SG, was underwhelming. Even setting aside my own obvious bias, she just seemed overwhelmed and under prepared. Fletcher from the SG's office was very well prepared and very good. NY really needed the SG's help on this one. I also did a double-take when the chief asked him about licensing the exercise of the right. Preloger, the SG, didn't argue this one herself. Not sure if that's because Monday's SB8 argument was deemed more important or the SG's office figured that there wasn't much upside to NYSRPA.

The rest of my week will be spend listening to and reading all the inevitable Monday-morning quarterbacking.


I think there's also a long running pay-to-play scandal at the NYPD's licensing unit.

They have been bagged on it several times IIRC.
I think the going price was around 10K.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Great observation and write-up by friend Josh Blackman. Kagan and Sotomayor playing devil's advocate.

Does The Second Amendment Have A Geography Clause?​

 

[LittleCalm]

Great observation and write-up by friend Josh Blackman. Kagan and Sotomayor playing devil's advocate.

Does The Second Amendment Have A Geography Clause?​

According to Kagan and Sotomayor it can. They might have sounded like they were expressing concern. But they weren't. They will justify local jurisdictions having different rules because they will apply some lesser degree of scrutiny to 2A and then conclude that the state has met its burden because of an interest in public safety. You just watch.

 

[AHM]

Great observation and write-up by friend Josh Blackman. Kagan and Sotomayor playing devil's advocate.

Does The Second Amendment Have A Geography Clause?​

Don't bury the lede.

That story contains a quote with three words
never seen together before in our Nation's history:

... Justice Thomas asked ...​

If he's asking questions, that's a sign of the End Times.

(The article does chalk that up to the Court's "new format", but...)

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Don't bury the lede.

That story contains a quote with three words
never seen together before in our Nation's history:

... Justice Thomas asked ...​

If he's asking questions, that's a sign of the End Times.

(The article does chalk that up to the Court's "new format", but...)

If you think this just started Wednesday, you've missed out on some good stuff.

Thomas started speaking over a year ago when the court went to remote arguments and seriatim questioning. Now that they've gone back to in-person argument and a hybrid frfee-for-all/seriatim format, Thomas always gets the first question. That's happened in nearly all, if not all, arguments since the court returned to in-person arguments. It's almost clockwork. At the two minute mark, the advocate pauses and Thomas speaks.

 

[AHM]

If you think this just started Wednesday, you've missed out on some good stuff.

I bet.

Thomas started speaking over a year ago when the court went to remote arguments and seriatim questioning.

The New Format, eh?

Now that they've gone back to in-person argument and a hybrid frfee-for-all/seriatim format, Thomas always gets the first question. That's happened in nearly all, if not all, arguments since the court returned to in-person arguments. It's almost clockwork. At the two minute mark, the advocate pauses and Thomas speaks.

Coincidentally, I tripped over this yesterday:

A Concurring Opinion on Justice Thomas – Scott Gerber

To understand Justice Thomas's “liberal originalism," one must look to the Declaration of Independence.

lawliberty.org

 

[Hoover]

I bet.


The New Format, eh?


Coincidentally, I tripped over this yesterday:

A Concurring Opinion on Justice Thomas – Scott Gerber

To understand Justice Thomas's “liberal originalism," one must look to the Declaration of Independence.

lawliberty.org

a KD mentioned Thomas has asked questions consistently for the past year or two. He rarely asked question in the past, he said there were too many questions asked and didn’t think more was productive. In the past the lawyers rarely got to present their arguments without constant interruption. The new format has allowed the lawyers to present their arguments then orderly ask question. I like it and think it makes the arguments and lawyers positions much clearer than the unorganized process they used to use.

 

[apander]

Or when the courts said licenses or constitutional concealed carry was not a "legitimate purpose" described in the Post Office ban.

I retired from the post office in 2012 and you would not believe how many of the older PO's still have a leather holster under their clerk counters and how many .38 revolvers are in the Postmasters safes.....still Loaded !

 

[AHM]

I retired from the post office in 2012 and you would not believe how many of the older PO's still have a leather holster under their clerk counters and how many .38 revolvers are in the Postmasters safes.....still Loaded !

I'd believe...my great uncle used to work for the Post Office,
and he must not have been a crack shot,
because I hear it cost him $20 every time he had to recertify with his pistol.

 

[Coyote33]

Don't bury the lede.

That story contains a quote with three words
never seen together before in our Nation's history:

... Justice Thomas asked ...​

If he's asking questions, that's a sign of the End Times.

(The article does chalk that up to the Court's "new format", but...)

Not sure what this means. Can you explain for someone who isn't into this court stuff?

 

[Hoover]

Not sure what this means. Can you explain for someone who isn't into this court stuff?

thomas has been on the court since 1991 and until fairly recently (the past few years) rarely asked questions during oral arguments. He’d ask fewer questions in 5 years than some justices would in a few weeks.

 

[Dench]

I'd believe...my great uncle used to work for the Post Office,
and he must not have been a crack shot,
because I hear it cost him $20 every time he had to recertify with his pistol.

What were they doing with the guns?

 

[Bonesinium]

As is nearly always if not always the case, any seemingly positive ruling with have minimal broad impact if any, (outside of NY, in this specific case). As even SCOTUS decisions that appear to have significant broad impact, ultimately, mean very little to nothing. Lower courts will strain the ruling, prosecutors and police and politicians will ignore it, and the end result is, people's rights will continue to be trampled.

 

[LittleCalm]

What were they doing with the guns?

Going postal!

 

[Hoover]

As is nearly always if not always the case, any seemingly positive ruling with have minimal broad impact if any, (outside of NY, in this specific case). As even SCOTUS decisions that appear to have significant broad impact, ultimately, mean very little to nothing. Lower courts will strain the ruling, prosecutors and police and politicians will ignore it, and the end result is, people's rights will continue to be trampled.

I think a good SCOTUS ruling will be quite helpful. Remember trump flipped the 2nd circuit (NY, CT and VT) and 3rd circuit (PA, NJ and DE) and changed the 9th (CA, WA, ID, OR, HI, AZ, NV, MY) to 16-13 dem vs GOP judges.

if those circuits back up a SCOTUS ruling, that takes care of may issue states, NY, NJ, and maybe CA, HI. Obviously the 1st circuit is a liberal cesspool so MA may need SCOTUS to slap down a district or 1st circuit ruling and the 4th circuit which includes Maryland is a liberal anti gun circuit

 

[AHM]

thomas has been on the court since 1991 and until fairly recently (the past few years) rarely asked questions during oral arguments. He’d ask fewer questions in 5 years than some justices would in a few weeks.

^ This. (Thanks for the fill; better than I could explain,
especially since I didn't even realize that
the situation had changed in very recent years).

What were they doing with the guns?

Protecting teh US Mail.
(I have no idea what his job title was.
I only heard the anecdote from my father
30+ years after his uncle passed away).

 

[GL2020]

I listened to the arguments and reviewed a few parts more than once. Fletcher's presentation was amazing with perhaps the mis-step on his statement on the subway (left a hole for possible abuse depending on the ruling) my only criticism. Underwood stammered and generally seemed stumped at times.

What I wonder is how this might affect a state like Rhode Island? RI not only has the "good cause" BS, they also require letters of reference ( a reference to excise a right?) and a live fire test to show proficiency by achieving a certain score in a limited time (copious time but still).

Some local PDs want applicants to sign general releases for primary care docs and psych hospitals. That's total BS...not part law...and since when are police qualified to interpret medical records? How can they assure an applicant they'll provide proper physical and electronic security of personal health info (I'm in that business....it's a big deal)? They can't.

RI is a mise-mash of towns who all do their own thing with respect to LTCs. Much like MA there are red towns and green towns, but you're not required to apply in the town you live in. Towns are "shall issue" (chaa...if they want to), and the AG is "may issue". Lots of room for discretionary abuse.

Sure the "good cause" could be removed. But could they deny a right to self protection based on a reference? Do I need a reference to vote? How about the ability to be a proficient shot, by their arbitrary measure of proficient? And the medical record thing is BS and just plain stupid...Given I can get a gun in my home relatively easily, if I was going to do harm to others or myself, I ALREADY HAVE THE GUN...how would a LTC dissuade me? It's just moronic.

 

[n1bsbri]

RI is a mise-mash of towns who all do their own thing with respect to LTCs. Much like MA there are red towns and green towns, but you're not required to apply in the town you live in. Towns are "shall issue" (chaa...if they want to), and the AG is "may issue". Lots of room for discretionary abuse.

They say that towns in RI are "shall issue" but they are really not, there is a suitability requirement which not defined, and is subject to the whims of the local police department. So as you say, green towns and red towns. If you want a permit in a red town, well good luck with that.

§ 11-47-11. License or permit to carry concealed pistol or revolver.

(a) The licensing authorities of any city or town shall, upon application of any person twenty-one (21) years of age or over having a bona fide residence or place of business within the city or town, or of any person twenty-one (21) years of age or over having a bona fide residence within the United States and a license or permit to carry a pistol or revolver concealed upon his or her person issued by the authorities of any other state or subdivision of the United States, issue a license or permit to the person to carry concealed upon his or her person a pistol or revolver everywhere within this state for four (4) years from date of issue, if it appears that the applicant has good reason to fear an injury to his or her person or property or has any other proper reason for carrying a pistol or revolver, and that he or she is a suitable person to be so licensed. The license or permit shall be in triplicate in form to be prescribed by the attorney general and shall bear the fingerprint, photograph, name, address, description, and signature of the licensee and the reason given for desiring a license or permit and in no case shall it contain the serial number of any firearm. The original shall be delivered to the licensee. Any member of the licensing authority, its agents, servants, and employees shall be immune from suit in any action, civil or criminal, based upon any official act or decision, performed or made in good faith in issuing a license or permit under this chapter.

Sure the "good cause" could be removed. But could they deny a right to self protection based on a reference? Do I need a reference to vote? How about the ability to be a proficient shot, by their arbitrary measure of proficient? And the medical record thing is BS and just plain stupid...Given I can get a gun in my home relatively easily, if I was going to do harm to others or myself, I ALREADY HAVE THE GUN...how would a LTC dissuade me? It's just moronic.

Well, the other fun part about already having a gun? The 7-day waiting period for purchasing a firearm. How does that improve safety when you are dealing with someone who already has access to other firearms?

 

[GL2020]

I agree the 7 day waiting period is silly. I don't understand the thought process. I think the cover is that it allows the local PD time to run their own background check (which involves the State PD). To me if they really want to run a background check, it should be the shop submits the request, and if the local PD does not respond within 7 days, here's your gun That 7 days is minimum. If a local PD takes 3 weeks that's just how it goes.

For me it has been the least onerous part of the process, but I have heard cases where it drags on for a long time (e.g. sorry the firearms officer is on vacation)

They say that towns in RI are "shall issue" but they are really not, there is a suitability requirement which not defined, and is subject to the whims of the local police department. So as you say, green towns and red towns. If you want a permit in a red town, well good luck with that.




Well, the other fun part about already having a gun? The 7-day waiting period for purchasing a firearm. How does that improve safety when you are dealing with someone who already has access to other firearms?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I agree the 7 day waiting period is silly. I don't understand the thought process. I think the cover is that it allows the local PD time to run their own background check (which involves the State PD). To me if they really want to run a background check, it should be the shop submits the request, and if the local PD does not respond within 7 days, here's your gun That 7 days is minimum. If a local PD takes 3 weeks that's just how it goes.

For me it has been the least onerous part of the process, but I have heard cases where it drags on for a long time (e.g. sorry the firearms officer is on vacation)

The RI 7 day waiting permit is waived if one has a town issued RI carry permit, but the town issued permit does not allow open carry.

The AG issued permit does not waive the 7 day waiting period, but does allow open carry.

 

[crispnipz]

People in this thread and elsewhere should stop dooming about this case. No it's not perfect, yes we could lose, spreading doom and gloom before the outcome helps nobody!

This has been posted ad nauseam but should be (have been) part of the argument presented:

 

[T-Unit]

IMO, best case outcome is that SCOTUS rules you cannot deny a person a CCW solely because they seek it for self defense, nor can you deny it for lack of references, medical reasons (if they aren't legally allowed to possess a firearm, how can they legally carry a firearm?). The state can deny if the person is a PP or cannot pass the safety/range qualifications.

Not saying I want SCOTUS to rule that last part, but they're not going to rule that states can't require a person seeking license to pass safety and range tests. This is SCOTUS we're talking about, they're statists to the core.

A bad outcome would be if SCOTUS narrows this to just NY, however I find that unlikely. Some want this ruling to impact the entire permitting system in all 50 states and that's not happening.

The worst outcome is SCOTUS upholds the NY law and states can deny permit for reason of self defense unless you're super special.

 

[Spanz]

I agree the 7 day waiting period is silly. I don't understand the thought process. I think the cover is that it allows the local PD time to run their own background check (which involves the State PD). To me if they really want to run a background check, it should be the shop submits the request, and if the local PD does not respond within 7 days, here's your gun That 7 days is minimum. If a local PD takes 3 weeks that's just how it goes.

For me it has been the least onerous part of the process, but I have heard cases where it drags on for a long time (e.g. sorry the firearms officer is on vacation)

i think it is to prevent you having a fight with your neighbor, or finding your wife is cheating with her gym trainer, then you going out in a fit of rage to buy a gun and play Rambo. 7 days is enough time for a reasonable, non crazy, person to calm down

 

[Dadstoys]

i think it is to prevent you having a fight with your neighbor, or finding your wife is cheating with her gym trainer, then you going out in a fit of rage to buy a gun and play Rambo. 7 days is enough time for a reasonable, non crazy, person to calm down

Some of the crazies plan these shooting for months.
If some guy comes home to his wife banging another guy it's more likely he's going to grab a knife out of the kitchen drawer in a fit of rage right on the spot .
Nothing is going to prevent a determined person from doing harm.
If I'm all out of any other options I'll just run your ass over with the car