Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

[Mesatchornug]

True but an a**h*** can still give him the ride and courts will wave it off as qualified immunity because the officer didn't have 40 hours of training on the subject

I'm sure you're right that that would be the result of the wrongful arrest suit.

 

[Roadglide]

The guidance is clear.

- Licensing authorities should cease enforcement of the “good reason” provision of the license-to-carry statute in response to Bruen. Authorities should no longer deny, or
impose restrictions on, a license to carry because the applicant lacks a sufficiently good reason to carry a firearm. An applicant who is neither a “prohibited person” or
“unsuitable” must be issued an unrestricted license to carry.

Ok I'll ask the potentially obvious question. Is prohibited and unsuitable the same thing? Suitability sounds too much like someone using their opinion.

 

[Mesatchornug]

Ok I'll ask the potentially obvious question. Is prohibited and unsuitable the same thing? Suitability sounds too much like someone using their opinion.

No

Prohibited means by statute - e.g. felon, adjudicated mentally incompetent, or otherwise fails a background check.

Suitability, like you say, was always a subjective decision on the part of LO. This is now significantly reduced.

 

[Roadglide]

No

Prohibited means by statute - e.g. felon, adjudicated mentally incompetent, or otherwise fails a background check.

Suitability, like you say, was always a subjective decision on the part of LO. This is now significantly reduced.

Ok but I thought suitability was wiped out by supreme. Is this mass playing games or am I confused here

 

[Mesatchornug]

Ok but I thought suitability was wiped out by supreme. Is this mass playing games or am I confused here

They're saying you can only use suitability to deny/revoke in toto.

What they don't say or loud is that this has a Sword of Damocles hanging over it. The path into the courts is clearly spelled out in law. Anyone who does this frivolously can expect to be in court quickly.

They know that that case loses for them at SCOTUS, it's clearly spelled out in the decision. So unless they want to be the reason licensing goes away (and so quickly) they're going to want to take care in using that power.

 

[Picton]

Now that Maura has capitulated, call again and say you would like your restrictions lifted now.

I wouldn't bother.

She's already told PDs not to enforce restrictions. I'd just assume there are no more restrictions.

 

[Buck F]

I wouldn't bother.

She's already told PDs not to enforce restrictions. I'd just assume there are no more restrictions.

I predict we’ll be seeing this a little more often in Boston now…

 

[T-Unit]

Since the SCOTUS ruled that licensing schemes are okay for states to for carrying, what's the liklihood that stuff like the FID or Rhode Island Blue Card is struck down given they likely don't meet the text and history requirement?

 

[Coyote33]

Since the SCOTUS ruled that licensing schemes are okay for states to for carrying, what's the liklihood that stuff like the FID or Rhode Island Blue Card is struck down given they likely don't meet the text and history requirement?

I have a 19 year old who wants to apply for LTC. Since she cannot apply for an LTC, FID is only other option.

 

[Waher]

Wow the NY Governor and Legislature are working overtime to piss SCotUS off enough to get National Constitutional Carry as a thing. Bless their little hearts.

New York Democrats Undermine Supreme Court 2nd Amendment Ruling In New Legislation

Among other things, lawful concealed carry of guns would be banned almost everywhere by designating much of society a "sensitive" location. State governors like Kathy Hochul in New York are banking on the limited SCOTUS docket to evade the ruling, even if they ultimately lose.

legalinsurrection.com

Every private business is automatically a "sensitive place" unless they post signage that it isn't? Gee I'm sure the court will look upon that f***ery and bench slap that back like former AG Spitzer in a 'lifestyle chamber'.

 

[T-Unit]

I have a 19 year old who wants to apply for LTC. Since she cannot apply for an LTC, FID is only other option.

I'm thinking that she wouldn't even need to apply for an FID, it'd be automatic like in other states. I have to believe that licenses and permits simply to purchase a firearm are unconstitutional not just under 2A, but 14A. Most other states don't have that bullshit and they're not crime infested shitholes.

 

[pastera]

Ok I'll ask the potentially obvious question. Is prohibited and unsuitable the same thing? Suitability sounds too much like someone using their opinion.

There are not - prohibited means convicted in a court of law for a crime that carries a prohibitive sentence.
unsuitable

A determination of unsuitability shall be based on: (i) reliable and credible information that the applicant or licensee has exhibited or engaged in behavior that suggests that, if issued a license, the applicant or licensee may create a risk to public safety; or (ii) existing factors that suggest that, if issued a license, the applicant or licensee may create a risk to public safety.

So while suitability is subjective, it requires objective evidence that is subject to judicial review.
This is completely different from discretion which had no standard for reasoning and essentially no meaningful level of review

 

[BigGreen2000]

The guidance is clear.

- Licensing authorities should cease enforcement of the “good reason” provision of the license-to-carry statute in response to Bruen. Authorities should no longer deny, or impose restrictions on, a license to carry because the applicant lacks a sufficiently good reason to carry a firearm. An applicant who is neither a “prohibited person” or “unsuitable” must be issued an unrestricted license to carry.

But suitability persists? I don’t get it

 

[chris_1001]

I have a 19 year old who wants to apply for LTC. Since she cannot apply for an LTC, FID is only other option.

Got mine at 18. My FID at 15

Dating myself…

 

[pastera]

But suitability persists? I don’t get it

Yes it does but there are standards of evidence and judicial. While it exists it will be irrelevant in all but the most obvious cases in order to preserve the licensing scheme as a whole

 

[Picton]

But suitability persists? I don’t get it

Several of us have commented on this.

It persists because Maura has no wish to admit she was wrong. She wants to be able to claim a small, meaningless victory. "Suitability" is the word she has chosen to cling to, but it no longer means what it used to mean.

It used to mean "the whim of the CoP in a given town." It can no longer mean that. Now, there has to be an articulable standard that matches the Bruen test. She's aware of that, and part of this enforcement notice was designed to emphasize that to the chiefs.

I'm certain she is desperate to avoid a lawsuit before she gets elected governor. But, by the same token, I'm also certain she does not want to be seen to be taking a loss on her "firearms policy that leads the whole nation." That means she wants to keep her little word, even though it no longer has all that much relevance. Remember, she is not an idealogue: she's a politician. She doesn't care much about our rights. She just wants to sound like she's correct.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Yes it does but there are standards of evidence and judicial. While it exists it will be irrelevant in all but the most obvious cases in order to preserve the licensing scheme as a whole

The MA courts have ruled that heresay evidence, as well as evidence judicially excluded from trial, arrests not resulting in conviction and even taking the 5th can render one unsuitable. There is also no right to confront and cross examine the witness against you - the issuing authority doesn't even have to tell you who it is.

 

[BigGreen2000]

The MA courts have ruled that heresay evidence, as well as evidence judicially excluded from trial, arrests not resulting in conviction and even taking the 5th can render one unsuitable. There is also no right to confront and cross examine the witness against you - the issuing authority doesn't even have to tell you who it is.

But I thought the “suitability” standard was “dangerousness”?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

This is going to be a long ongoing process as things get sorted out.

Lawyers and cases are standing by, but sometimes things change quickly - like the AGs directions on restrictions. This sort of notice was almost certainly only issued because she and her staff knew there was funding, logistics and motivation to bring a case to enforce the SCOTUS decision, even in MA.

More to come as things unfold.....

 

[SteelShooter]

What about the safety training course before applying, is that still a requirement?

 

[Picton]

But I thought the “suitability” standard was “dangerousness”?

I hope this means what I think it does? (Restrictions gone?)

https://www.mass.gov/doc/ago-eopss-ltc-guidance/download I hope this means what I think it does?

www.northeastshooters.com

Straight out of the enforcement notice. That's suitability.

With, now, an understanding that it needs to be able to be backed up in court, with precedent that accords with historical firearms regulation.

 

[fshalor]

f***. I better close my Only Fans. I have a channel where I eat on cameral with no shirt while rubbing the barrels of various guns on my nips. I don't make a lot of money.

You haven't advertised properly the fruits of your efforts in classifieds here, obviously. CLP up and go for it!

 

[Roadglide]

It used to mean "the whim of the CoP in a given town." It can no longer mean that. Now, there has to be an articulable standard that matches the Bruen test. She's aware of that, and part of this enforcement notice was designed to emphasize that to the chiefs.

So a dui lets say???

 

[Picton]

So a dui lets say???

No clue. I'm not a CoP.

 

[pastera]

The MA courts have ruled that heresay evidence, as well as evidence judicially excluded from trial, arrests not resulting in conviction and even taking the 5th can render one unsuitable. There is also no right to confront and cross examine the witness against you - the issuing authority doesn't even have to tell you who it is.

Correct but that was before the standard set by Bruen was is force.
Since the standard need not have risen above the chiefs discretion no real evidence of suitability was necessary.
Now evidence will be required to restrict a right. It. Won't happen immediately but will happen as cases go through appeal

 

[Chevy 2 65]

let’s goooo

View: https://youtu.be/J6jplPkbe8g?t=15

 

[Chevy 2 65]

let’s goooo

I hope one day the unsuitable B.S. goes the way of the shedder.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

let’s goooo

Middle page, last paragraph. They are still asking why !!!

 

[pastera]

I hope one day the unsuitable B.S. goes the way of the shedder.

It essentially has. The law explicitly calls out that reliable and credible evidence is required to deny for suitability and Bruen now sets a very high bar to overcome a person's fundamental right.
The law has had it's teeth removed - probably will take a case or two to settle but it will settle to where unsuitable will be synonymous with prohibited.

 

[Bladerunner]

They're saying you can only use suitability to deny/revoke in toto.

What they don't say or loud is that this has a Sword of Damocles hanging over it. The path into the courts is clearly spelled out in law. Anyone who does this frivolously can expect to be in court quickly.

They know that that case loses for them at SCOTUS, it's clearly spelled out in the decision. So unless they want to be the reason licensing goes away (and so quickly) they're going to want to take care in using that power.

It is why Thomas did not need to explictly include suitability as prohibited in the opinion. It is already covered under both the umbrella prohibition of non-objective factors and the elimination of the two-step process. We're covered!

Healey just pulled the equivalent of a parent telling their kid not to have a party in the house, only to find that it was moved outside to the backyard. The kids excuse when caught is "well you said not IN the house!"

That won't fly with parents and it won't be able to to fly with the courts.

She knows suitability won't survive, but kept it anyway by employing a ridiculously narrow reading of the opinion. It's really exceptional legalese on the part of Thomas to have backed these commies into the corner this wicked hard.

She's in a lose, lose situation. The first court case to address this will be a delight to watch.
.