Supreme Court, New York gun retailers

[Picton]

The 6 months thing did not really register with me at all, other than the fact that nothing has changed in that time period. The only reason I replied was there was a bunch of stuff I left unanswered, and was cleaning out bunches of old email notifications. It is now almost an entire year since Bruen came out, and not much has happened here since maybe July. I really was hoping someone here would be right and make me wrong about anything happening, but it just hasn't happened.

We've told you about forty or fifty times: it could take years.

Years. Not weeks. Not months. Years. Even decades. You just have to accept that.

 

[pastera]

The 6 months thing did not really register with me at all, other than the fact that nothing has changed in that time period. The only reason I replied was there was a bunch of stuff I left unanswered, and was cleaning out bunches of old email notifications. It is now almost an entire year since Bruen came out, and not much has happened here since maybe July. I really was hoping someone here would be right and make me wrong about anything happening, but it just hasn't happened.

A lot has changed across the country but everything is still in flux because the different appellate courts are fighting it out.
So here in Mass it doesn't look like much is happening past no restrictions but things should start moving as the open GVRs are forced to write new opinions

 

[Coyote33]

here in Mass it doesn't look like much is happening past no restrictions

Sure looks like things are happening now. Still hopeful this can be fought.

 

[pastera]

Sure looks like things are happening now. Still hopeful this can be fought.

Ask yourself what a rat does when cornered?

Look at the banned list:
168 (xviii) Storm, Ruger & Co. Mini-14 Tactical Rifle M-14/20CF;

One of five nearly identical rifles, only differentiated by cosmetics from three others but banned with the argument that it is uniquely dangerous and lethal.
They know they can't win so they are trying to use fear and conditioning to get Mass gun owners to accept a slightly thinner shit sandwitch by threatening with a massive one.

The only part that might pass muster since I don't think it has been addressed elsewhere, and courts like to split the baby, is the registration requirements.

357 "Secured in a locked container”, at a minimum the container must be capable of being
358 unlocked only by means of a key, combination or similar means and it must be able to deter all
359 but the most persistent from gaining access. A room or a store even if capable of being locked
360 and surveilled is insufficient.

This if argued properly cannot pass Heller since it requires a physical access method to get to your arms - similar means refers back to two slow physical mechanisms so a biometric is arguably not allowed by a plain language reading.
The "all but the most persistent" is ambiguous and not narrowly tailored to the stated benefit - keeping guns from being accessed by children.
The exclusion of a "room or store" is also an issue since it doesn't allow for a reinforced room that meets or exceeds the "able to deter all but the most persistent from gaining access" standard.
This is easily argued as a means to exclude low income persons from being able to afford to exercise their rights and an impermissible

From Heller (DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER)

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster.

Since this is in the holding and not just dicta therefore the requirement to store self-defense arms in a manner not immediately available for use is an impermissible infringement - an exception might be argued for homes with minors where immediate access could be construed as a danger to children.

 

[Mesatchornug]

The only part that might pass muster since I don't think it has been addressed elsewhere, and courts like to split the baby, is the registration requirements.

Honestly, not sure why this hasn't already been addressed previously. 18 U.S. Code § 926 was updated via FOPA with the following:

No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary’s [1] authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.

I think FA-10 predates FOPA, so it may be grandfathered (for lack of better word).
eFA-10 does not. This new system would not.

I'm sure there's something I'm missing on my lay reading...

 

[pastera]

Honestly, not sure why this hasn't already been addressed previously. 18 U.S. Code § 926 was updated via FOPA with the following:

I think FA-10 predates FOPA, so it may be grandfathered (for lack of better word).
eFA-10 does not. This new system would not.

I'm sure there's something I'm missing on my lay reading...

(3) regulations providing for effective receipt and secure storage of firearms relinquished by or seized from persons described in subsection (d)(8) or (g)(8) of section 922.​

No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary’s [1] authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.​

(b) The Attorney General shall give not less than ninety days public notice, and shall afford interested parties opportunity for hearing, before prescribing such rules and regulations.

Good question - does the paragraph only refer to those items from (3) or in general?
The NRA-ILA states that your quoted text does refer to a general registry not only those guns from (d)(8) or (g)(8).

 

[Picton]

Wait. Hold on. An opaque gun law that nobody understands?

 

[Mesatchornug]

Good question - does the paragraph only refer to those items from (3) or in general?
The NRA-ILA states that your quoted text does refer to a general registry not only those guns from (d)(8) or (g)(8).

The formatting is a little confusing, but it It seems to be a closing statement in (a). Of course, not only am I not a lawyer, I don't even play one on tv.