crispnipz
NES Member
They're also pretty good at robbing banks and threatening to beat people up because they accidentally drove the wrong way through the High St rotary
-
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
HorizontalHunter
NES Member
View: https://twitter.com/MedfordPolice/status/1543001427601129474/photo/2
They say they are bringing their practices into compliance with EOPSS and then link the EOPSS document which seems to negate restrictions and then in the same tweet attach an image that says restrictions are still real. Neutering the ability of red towns to restrict seems to be like trying to wrestle a nut from a squirrel.
Violating your unconstitutional arbitrary restrictions will make you unsuitable for renewal.
ReggieB9mm
NES Member
Arlo39
NES Member
Yes the safety training is still a requirement.
KBCraig
NES Member
The new AG guidance was two things.
First, it's an attempt to stave off lawsuits.
Second, it's a delaying tactic until MA can pass new laws that create a statewide licensing system, and new laws that put as much of the state as possible off limits for carry.
Maura threw up a force field. It's going to work out for her just like this:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj3b4Bpv7mU
First, it's an attempt to stave off lawsuits.
Second, it's a delaying tactic until MA can pass new laws that create a statewide licensing system, and new laws that put as much of the state as possible off limits for carry.
Maura threw up a force field. It's going to work out for her just like this:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj3b4Bpv7mU
JRT
NES Member
I’m not in Mass but if I gave money to GOAL I would demand action.
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
Let's see. No action, no donation. The app needs "Reason removed from it" Letters of any kind also need to be shit canned.
Her 'guidance' relies on PD's and Town/City Councils not engaging in f***ery. We already see Medford going 'LEEEEEEEEEROOOOOOOOOOOY JEEEEENKINSS!!" so that strategy will fail.
The legislature also can't ban carry everywhere without pissing off many of their favorite attorneys, doctors, other club club cocktail and party a**h***s that have enjoyed their unobtanium unrestricted carry licenses in places like Brookline. If the legislature even thinks of adding doctors, lawyers, bankers, and the like to the LEO carve out list the 14A aspect of the SCotUS ruling will smash that bigotry against the curb.
I think New York State's bullshit flying in the face of SCotUS five minutes after the ruling is going to lead to the 1st Circuit nuking a lot of whatever the MA legislature copies and pastes from Bloomberg and some random Beacon Hill interns.
We may even get zoobows legalized. (I get the feeling that was a WordPerfect autocorrect for "crossbows" or "x-bows" and Cheryl Jacques at the time didn't want to admit it was a f***-up in the 1998 Bill)
NY adding all those place restrictions after the NYSRPA ruling showing the entire intent was to make carry so difficult people won’t legally do it.
States pulling that crap rather than treating it like the 1A where occasionally a state would ask for a permit for a large public gathering and whatnot is eventually going to result in SCotUS defining a license and restrictions down to very practical matters of an ID to readily show someone isn't a prohibited person and traditionally sensitive areas like courts, legislatures, schools , bars, places of worship may at their discretion have policies if they provide their own security,
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,528
- Likes
- 33,545
FIFY
You fail to comprehend how much the First Circuit hates us. Its a crapshoot given the law vs. their desired outcome.
SFC13557
NES Member
From this weekend's WSJ, a conversation with Atty. Paul Clement who has argued over 100 cases before the Supreme Court and is the lawyer who argued the NYC case.
So now does this doom Blue States from passing laws restricting individual rights to firearms? Obviously they don't respect the Courts ruling and are defying it. It will be interesting to see how far they go and if they will be slapped down in due fashion.
"It’s a classic example of originalism, the interpretive approach of looking to the Constitution’s text, history and tradition. So is another of Mr. Clement’s cases this term, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which he calls “a kind of natural experiment in originalism.” The Second Amendment had long been a constitutional orphan; only in 2008 did the justices recognize that it conferred any legal right at all. Because the court, “for better or for worse, took 100 years off,” Mr. Clement says, there’s no accumulation of precedent and it can look at the issue anew. “You get a window into what the court thinks is the best mode of constitutional interpretation.”
The answer turns out to be something different from the approach that has prevailed since the late 1930s, when the court first introduced “tiers of scrutiny”—tests for balancing governmental interests with constitutional rights, with the government’s burden depending on the importance the justices assign to the right being asserted.
The justices laid out no such test in their earlier Second Amendment cases, D.C. v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010), but lower courts had improvised their own. No longer. “When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct,” Justice Thomas wrote in Bruen, “the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest.” Instead, the test will be whether “the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Mr. Clement describes Bruen as “kind of wiping the slate clean of a decade of post-McDonald circuit-court law.”
So now does this doom Blue States from passing laws restricting individual rights to firearms? Obviously they don't respect the Courts ruling and are defying it. It will be interesting to see how far they go and if they will be slapped down in due fashion.
"It’s a classic example of originalism, the interpretive approach of looking to the Constitution’s text, history and tradition. So is another of Mr. Clement’s cases this term, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which he calls “a kind of natural experiment in originalism.” The Second Amendment had long been a constitutional orphan; only in 2008 did the justices recognize that it conferred any legal right at all. Because the court, “for better or for worse, took 100 years off,” Mr. Clement says, there’s no accumulation of precedent and it can look at the issue anew. “You get a window into what the court thinks is the best mode of constitutional interpretation.”
The answer turns out to be something different from the approach that has prevailed since the late 1930s, when the court first introduced “tiers of scrutiny”—tests for balancing governmental interests with constitutional rights, with the government’s burden depending on the importance the justices assign to the right being asserted.
The justices laid out no such test in their earlier Second Amendment cases, D.C. v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010), but lower courts had improvised their own. No longer. “When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct,” Justice Thomas wrote in Bruen, “the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest.” Instead, the test will be whether “the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Mr. Clement describes Bruen as “kind of wiping the slate clean of a decade of post-McDonald circuit-court law.”
THANK YOU!!!!!!!! This is EXACTLY what it should be. I think this is the wording everyone has been seeking out, but unable to spell out or define so simply.
... and be liable for those from whom they have removed the ability to protect themselves!
Just curious, has anyone noticed if their town has changed their firearms licensing info web pages yet? Even if not changing the application form to remove reference letters and reasons/restrictions, at least to notify of the new ruling? Hopefully, this will be in a good way, not to say that they will continue plowing along with the old and now illegal way of doing it.
Banning places you can carry doesn't do any good unless you are willing to put security and metal detectors to prevent people from doing it. Speaking hypothetically, of course.
pdm
NES Member
Looks like my town is using a form from 2015.
Although they now have an online portal to upload the picture and form for renewal. I don't recall that from the last time I renewed. LOL, they say issuance of a renewal will take 10-12 weeks. My last NCIC check took less than 20 minutes. Work better, state employees.
aeromarine
NES Member
I enjoyed your post on what the future might hold with respect to non-resident rights under the Second Amendment given the recent SCOTUS decision. Clearly, a person's rights should not end at the state line. But states that either do not issue non-residents licenses or offer reciprocity do exactly that. I live in Massachusetts and was just successful at having my Rhode Island non-resident license renewed, but not before being made to jump through a few new hoops that hadn't existed previously during past renewals. Had the Rhode Island AG not been forthcoming, perhaps I could have become one of the first test cases! I kind of wish Ihad that opportunity.
New York issues licenses on a county-by-county basis and their requirements can vary widely. I wonder how an abscure rural upstate county might react if I applied for a New York license as a non-resident? New York City also does not recognize the licenses issue by other counties around that state. I wonder how that might change? Sounds like another test case!
AHM
NES Member
Liberals have no self-awareness.
Their only reach is over-reach.
Some chief will Kill The Job.
Comm2A will find themselves pleading with perfect plaintiffs
to please not settle for juridictions rolling over as soon as a suit is filed,
so it can get to an appellate court that will finally stamp that stuff out.
Here's a poser:
Are her omnipotent press releases,
which we all know overrule the US Constitution and SCOTUS opinions,
so powerful that they count as the kind of prior notice that punctures qualified immunity?
A latter-day Mass DUI conviction is a Federal prohibition.
The court might reject any state rule more stringent than the FPP clauses in the Brady Act
as an unconstitutional balancing beyond what Congress has decided.
I wonder if the problem won't be people saying "make me".
I wonder if some schlub will get jacked up inadvertently,
and win an all-expense-paid Comm2A trip to a Federal appeals court.
An active CWOF is a Federal disqualifier having nothing to do with suitability or Mass gun laws.
Let's not forget lens-licking.
If you gave money to the Salvation Army, would you demand action from them?
Neither one is in the business of protecting RKBA by filing lawsuits.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,528
- Likes
- 33,545
Enhanced it for you.
That circle doesn't square with the most recent SCotUS ruling and is ripe for a legal challenge.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,528
- Likes
- 33,545
If you can find me someone in MA who (a) has no unflattering baggage other than a single OUI without injury; (b) has obtained a MA LTC, failed a NICS check, and been denied an appeal or willing to appeal to get denied, (c) has NEVER touched or possessed a firearm or ammo since they became a federally PP, let me know and I expect Comm2A will be very interested. Sorry, if they are a gun owner who unknowingly became a federal PP, continued to own guns, and found out when they tried to buy another one ... no go, as appealing without an a-priori determination they are not a PP would put them in potential legal jeopardy.
Find the proper plaintiff and Comm2a will likely take it from there (It takes a vote of the exec committee to approve projects)
It's easy to say "will not square", "should be a straightforward case", etc. but the devil in the details and getting it done is rarely if ever as simple as filing and saying "yer honor, this is unconstitutional, fix it".
rob
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2021
- Messages
- 142
- Likes
- 256
View: https://twitter.com/MedfordPolice/status/1543001427601129474/photo/2
They say they are bringing their practices into compliance with EOPSS and then link the EOPSS document which seems to negate restrictions and then in the same tweet attach an image that says restrictions are still real. Neutering the ability of red towns to restrict seems to be like trying to wrestle a nut from a squirrel.
man just seeing this now is crazy im pretty sure im expecting a call saying my restrictions are still valid
Maybe.
But it's up to you if you choose to obey. You've got every right to carry, and the highest court in the land agrees. You're on sounder legal footing than your CoP is.
pdm
NES Member
Well, you'll get to pay to argue that legal footing. Better moral footing, certainly.
The extent to which Comm2a goes in insuring the litigants in there cases are squeaky cleat is, in my opinion, excessive. I do support them and encourage others to as well, and they have done good things. And it is understandable what they are looking for to some extent. But I feel they take it too far and as a result somethings go unchallenged.
pdm
NES Member
I'm guessing it's so they don't waste their limited funds. If I was a billionaire with cash to burn, believe me, I'd bankroll them to take everything.
