I think the worst offenders will be NJ, NYC and some California counties on the coast. NJ folks at least have the 3rd circuit to back them up, 2nd circuit should be ok too. 1st circuit and 9th will be horrible.
-
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.
Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread
- Thread starter soloman02
- Start date
I think the worst offenders will be NJ, NYC and some California counties on the coast. NJ folks at least have the 3rd circuit to back them up, 2nd circuit should be ok too. 1st circuit and 9th will be horrible.
Garys
NES Member
The only reason I'm doubtful on Thomas writing the majority opinion how he gets to five. Thomas is a 2A absolutist as @Garys reminds us. He's famous for agreeing with the majority but stating he'd go further. That view doesn't necessarily get you the majority opinion.
If Roberts is out, Thomas gets to assign the opinion. But he can't assign it so himself if he can't get four other justices onboard with his version. Alito and Gorsuch and probably givens. But Barrett and Kavanaugh are unknown quantities. And so is Roberts. If Roberts is is the majority on the judgement, he still has to assign the opinion to someone that will get at least four other justices to sign on.
Certainly there's a majority for nuking the NY scheme. The big questions is what opinion can at least five justices agree upon?
Garys
NES Member
If Thomas doesn't write the majority opinion, I won't be surprised if he writes a separate one chastising the others for not going far enough.
Was it McDonald where he wanted to revive privileges or immunities?
Was it McDonald where he wanted to revive privileges or immunities?
Oh, that's a given. Thomas is famous for 'I agree with the majority, but would go further'.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,528
- Likes
- 33,551
I was pleased that this case made a big issue out "equal treatment", since that issue cannot be danced around with interpretations like "The 2A does not mean that" which is so common.
Remember Sotomayor's dissent in McDonald stating she could find nothing in the constitution guaranteeing the right to own a handgun (so much for Heller and stare decsis)
There is no intellectually sound argument supporting the "special people" criteria used by NY, NJ, CA, MD, etc. Talk about analytical strain
If the NYC system is shot down, expect the licensing fee to increase by thousands and a multi-year wait for an appointment with the licensing department (unless, of course, you are one of those special people who would have previously qualified)
Remember Sotomayor's dissent in McDonald stating she could find nothing in the constitution guaranteeing the right to own a handgun (so much for Heller and stare decsis)
There is no intellectually sound argument supporting the "special people" criteria used by NY, NJ, CA, MD, etc. Talk about analytical strain
If the NYC system is shot down, expect the licensing fee to increase by thousands and a multi-year wait for an appointment with the licensing department (unless, of course, you are one of those special people who would have previously qualified)
Last edited:
Could an equal treatment opinion also kick back on the laws that allow cops special gun ownership exceptions, like those in MA? This would have far reaching impact on mag capacity limits since they all contain exceptions for cops. Tell the cops they will also be limited and you lose their support of mag limits.I was pleased that this case made a big issue out "equal treatment", since that issue cannot be danced around with interpretations like "The 2A does not mean that" which is so common.
Remember Sotomayor's dissent in McDonald stating she could find nothing in the constitution guaranteeing the right to own a handgun (so much for Heller and state decsision).
There is no intellectually sound argument supporting the "special people" criteria used by NY, NJ, CA, MD, etc. Talk about analytical strain
If the NYC system is shot down, expect the licensing fee to increase by thousands and a multi-year wait for an appointment with the licensing department (unless, of course, you are one of those special people who would have previously qualified)
I was pleased that this case made a big issue out "equal treatment", since that issue cannot be danced around with interpretations like "The 2A does not mean that" which is so common.
Remember Sotomayor's dissent in McDonald stating she could find nothing in the constitution guaranteeing the right to own a handgun (so much for Heller and state decsision).
There is no intellectually sound argument supporting the "special people" criteria used by NY, NJ, CA, MD, etc. Talk about analytical strain
If the NYC system is shot down, expect the licensing fee to increase by thousands and a multi-year wait for an appointment with the licensing department (unless, of course, you are one of those special people who would have previously qualified)
It’s not NYC scheme in this case, it’s NY state. The cities is even more restrictive so obviously that goes with a good decision.
A great brief in support of NYSRPA ago strike down the scheme was from black public defenders in NYC. The called out the scheme as racist with it certainly is among other things.
Thomas certainly doesn’t mind being alone in his opinion, he makes his views very clear. lol
As I see it, there are basically 2 questions they’re deciding. One is a given, striking down the law, they’ll get 6 for that. The second is the standard of review lower courts should use on 2A cases. I think they can even get Roberts to join there.
I’m definitely more optimistic than some but I think it will happen. It also probably gets SCOTUS out of the AWB and mag limit cases they have on hold pending cert. if they decide as I suggested, they’ll return those cases to the district or circuit courts To reassess based on the NYSRPA ruling.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,528
- Likes
- 33,551
This case really puts the liberal justices between the pro verbal rock and hard place.
If the vote for the "special person" approach, it goes against giving the little people equal treatment against the big bad mean powerful people. If the vote for it, it goes against their desired public policy.
If the vote for the "special person" approach, it goes against giving the little people equal treatment against the big bad mean powerful people. If the vote for it, it goes against their desired public policy.
If they were consistent on their legal philosophy they would go against their desired public policy but they are not so I don’t see any way any of them go against the state power in a 2A case. The next time a liberal justice goes against the democrat policy position will be the first time a liberal has gone against the dem policy. There is never any question where they side or really what their “reasons” will be. They’re legislators in robes.
Since when has the Supreme Court made policy? I thought that is the job of the legislature.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,528
- Likes
- 33,551
It got back as far as Dredd Scott, and probably far earlier than that.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,528
- Likes
- 33,551
It was a particularly malignant kind of dishonesty because she failed to respect stare decisis, and took the position that the decision very recently made by a majority of the court was not valid. This is quite different from the usual logical gymnastics engaged in by results oriented justices.
Dennis in MA
NES Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 38,252
- Likes
- 33,162
It's interesting. I was reading something. Maybe WSJ. Last week. It talked about how the laws passed by Congress are written vaguer and vaguer over the years. Meaning the President has more leeway AND the courts have more need to step in and deliver their 2 cents.
Imagine if laws said what was supposed to happen. Suddenly, there is NOT a need for an activist SC. Because it's like arguing 1+1 <> 2. Although I'm sure activist attorneys would try just about anything to figure out a chink in the armor of well written laws.
LittleCalm
NES Member
Hence, the administrative state. And both sides like it because it helps them when they have executive branch power.
In NC, a shall issue state with time limits on how long a Sheriff can delay approval, DNC controlled shiriffs play games like undermanning the permit office, delaying submission of an application until health records are checked.
Some sheriffs shut down the application process entirely, blaming covid.
We tried to at least get the Pistol Purchase Permit requirement repealed but that failed. I shot an email to my rep who is hispanic and blasted him for racism and upholding a Jim Crow law that disproportionately delays or denies women and minorities access to their constitutional rights. He replied with the DNC prescribed talking points about crime and safety. Can't talk sense to the senseless.
That’s where the chevron doctrine comes in and agency “expert” writing of regulations. Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch want the end the chevron doctrine, it’s only a matter of time before they get a case and end it. That will force congress to do their job and not leave it to bureaucrats
Another sterling day for the 1st circuit court of appeals and Massachusetts district court. District court rules for Boston, appeals court rules 3-0 for Boston, SCOTUS reverses 9-0. The 1st circuit is a clown show. They are routinely reversed by SCOTUS, often 9-0. The best is when that asshat Souter is in the 3-0 circuit court ruling and his former court slaps him silly. Shows what a terrible, out of touch justice he was
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,528
- Likes
- 33,551
Does GOAL have its own flag?
Time for someone to apply for a Molon Labe or Gadson flag.
I think it’s possible to get one or more of the 3 liberals to vote with the majority to strike down the NY gun license scheme but hey you definitely won’t join the majority on a second part directing what standard of review to use in 2A cases.
AHM
NES Member
Massachusetts.
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
- Larkin v. Grendel's Den, Inc.
- McCullen v. Coakley
- And now this...
so people can tour the high points.
Garys
NES Member
NC will have constitutional carry when they get a GOP governor, especially if it’s the current Lt governor.
Massachusetts.
If this keeps up, they'll have to create a Civil Liberties Trail
- Larkin v. Grendel's Den, Inc.
- McCullen v. Coakley
- And now this...
so people can tour the high points.
RI district court but a 3-0 circuit court, I believe that idiot Souter was on the circuit panel. Reversed 9-0
Caniglia v. Strom - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Momentum is finally swining to constitutional carry. Finger crossed. I keep pointing out to anyone in my district that out rep is a racist who is oppose self defense for women and minorities. The rat only knows how to follow DNC orders.
Garys
NES Member
That's generally all they do.
Marbury v. Madison
