Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

Picton said:
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.
Click to expand...
You talk a lot about encouraging others to ignore what MA is saying, that restrictions are still valid. But are you willing to pay them for all their losses and the damage to their lives, if they do get charged. Remember, even a charge that is dismissed will have costs to the person changed, and it this case an extended legal battle is likely.

They don't need someone to go to jail and ruin their lives to launch a legal challenge. It would be enough that a new applicant who requested unrestricted was given restricted and then appealed and lost. No one has to face criminal charges to fight this.
 
42! said:
You talk a lot about encouraging others to ignore what MA is saying, that restrictions are still valid. But are you willing to pay them for all their losses and the damage to their lives, if they do get charged. Remember, even a charge that is dismissed will have costs to the person changed, and it this case an extended legal battle is likely.

They don't need someone to go to jail and ruin their lives to launch a legal challenge. It would be enough that a new applicant who requested unrestricted was given restricted and then appealed and lost. No one has to face criminal charges to fight this.
Click to expand...
No. I’m not.

But I’ve carried unlawfully, many times. I’d never advise anyone else to do what I’m not willing to do myself.

And, if caught, I’d pay my own way. Especially if I knew it was a certainty that I’d eventually win, and in this case, it is.
 
Picton said:
Better that they go unchallenged for a few years than create precedent forever.
Click to expand...
It's been 18 years since the suitability standard has changed, and by their own Comm2a comments the courts are still applying the old standard. I guess 18 years is not enough. And this is the MA courts following MA law, it doesn't even bring constitutionality into it and even a loss wouldn't establish a worse precedent. All it could affirm is that the MA courts can do what they are already doing. So no down side. but maybe an up side in bring the law back to the legislature for clarification, given that the courts are openly ignoring the law. The legislatures believe they make the law, throw it in their face that what they created is being ignored and you may find some support for updating the language. They are arrogant people, they don't like being ignored.
 
Picton said:
No. I’m not.

But I’ve carried unlawfully, many times. I’d never advise anyone else to do what I’m not willing to do myself.

And, if caught, I’d pay my own way. Especially if I knew it was a certainty that I’d eventually win, and in this case, it is.
Click to expand...
It's not about what you would do for yourself. I do what I do and I answer for it when/if necessary, as should everyone else. But I wouldn't encourage others to put them self at risk with a simple "its you right". There are those out their that would take you at your word, and you are not telling them the risks they are placing themselves in, so they may not understand what they are getting themselves into.
 
42! said:
It's not about what you would do for yourself. I do what I do and I answer for it when/if necessary, as should everyone else. But I wouldn't encourage others to put them self at risk with a simple "its you right". There are those out their that would take you at your word, and you are not telling them the risks they are placing themselves in, so they may not understand what they are getting themselves into.
Click to expand...
Okay… but they’re not placing themselves at any risk by carrying outside their restrictions as of now.

The police have been told not to enforce restrictions anymore. What’s the risk?
 
42! said:
The extent to which Comm2a goes in insuring the litigants in there cases are squeaky cleat is, in my opinion, excessive.
Click to expand...
Do you remember Heller?

NRA didn't thoroughly vet their litigants. They didn't even have any litigants survive to the final case, and tried to quash all adjoining cases.

SAF and Alan Gura did a thorough job, and won.
 
Picton said:
Okay… but they’re not placing themselves at any risk by carrying outside their restrictions as of now.

The police have been told not to enforce restrictions anymore. What’s the risk?
Click to expand...
If you live in a town that won't remove your restrictions they will letting the court decide if your restrictions are invalid.
Your will likely beat the charge but the ride is expensive.
And you won't recover a dime of your defense expenses
 
Rob Boudrie said:
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
Click to expand...

Barrett dissented in Kanter v Barr. It’s only a matter of time before lower courts and/or SCOTUS take up the prohibition on non violent felons possessing guns. Everything post heller was decided with intermediate scrutiny by lower courts, so everything is ripe for a new challenge. The combination of SCOTUS/Thomas saying tiers of scrutiny are not the standard and courts being much more conservative after trumps remaking courts through excellent nominations, non violent felon restrictions will definitely fall.

It would definitely be a sounder course to file in more friendly circuit courts of appeals such as the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th


“Rickey Kanter was convicted of a single count of felony mail fraud for defrauding Medicare in connection with therapeutic shoe inserts. He challenged federal and state dispossession laws that prohibited him from owning a gun because he had been convicted of a felony. Kanter argued that those laws violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms. A three-judge panel from the 7th Circuit disagreed with Kanter 2-1 — with two Reagan appointees in the majority.

In her dissent, Barrett sided with Kanter. She suggested that, when assessing the constitutionality of gun restrictions, courts should look to “history and tradition” to see whether there is a historical precedent for the restriction at issue. Under that test, only restrictions with historical analogues would be upheld as permissible under the Second Amendment. Barrett’s history-first approach differs from the test adopted by most lower courts in the wake of Heller. Most courts have assessed gun laws not by looking at history but by analyzing the government’s asserted justification for the law and comparing that justification with the law’s effects – a two-pronged test that the Kantermajority described as “akin to intermediate scrutiny.””


www.scotusblog.com

Symposium: Barrett’s history-first approach to the Second Amendment - SCOTUSblog

This article is part of a symposium on the jurisprudence of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett. Ten years before Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the landmark Second Amendment opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller crystallizing the Constitution’s guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms
www.scotusblog.com www.scotusblog.com
 
Hoover said:
Barrett dissented in Kanter v Barr. It’s only a matter of time before lower courts and/or SCOTUS take up the prohibition on non violent felons possessing gun
Click to expand...
There is already precedent for non-violent felons having guns.

1) The federal "relief from disabilities" program, specifically de-funded by congress to prevent reduction in the number of prohibited persons.

2) Allowed felonies at the federal level. While certain misdemeanors meet the 18USC922 definition of felon, some felonies do not - specifically those involving anti-trust violations or restraint of trade. Yes, really - read the USC. Makes me wonder who was owed a favor when NFA34 was passed.
 
42! said:
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.
Click to expand...
The bigger issue in finding a good plaintiff for the "MA FLRB restoration not recognized" is most potential plaintiffs owned guns prior to the OUI, never realized they were a PP, and have the baggage of having possessed firearms while a PP. Although we have not seen prosecutions for this, it is unacceptable to file an action that places the plaintiff in legal jeopardy, even if that risk is small.
 
My own personal philosophy is that if we put someone in jail for committing a crime then when they get out all of their rights should be restored including second amendment rights. If we do this then this would have be factored into a background check at a point of purchase. But I'm guessing I'm probably in a minority in this position.
 
Picton said:
Okay… but they’re not placing themselves at any risk by carrying outside their restrictions as of now.

The police have been told not to enforce restrictions anymore. What’s the risk?
Click to expand...
Where do you get that.
Posted in this thread, the Medford PD specifically says they are still following restrictions and the AG's statement says nothing about restrictions but does about several other aspects, so it's omission from the list of no longer enforced is clear.
So far there has been no post on this thread of a department saying they would no longer follow restriction, only that they would not deny or restrict on a "failure to show good cause", that leaves a lot of room to still issue with restrictions and says nothing about not enforcing current restrictions.
As for the SCOTUS ruling, that's going to take a case or two or three before MA honors it.

You think you're safe because of the SCOTUS ruling, you are not. Even if eventually dismissed, the financial and personal damage is done.
And there is still a chance you'll be convicted or at least have your LTC revoked, so you'll need to fight that as well.

If someone is going to ignore the restrictions on their LTC, know what you're getting into, @Picton 's statement that you are "not placing themselves at any risk" is BS. Know the risk, then make your decision.
 
42! said:
Where do you get that.
Posted in this thread, the Medford PD specifically says they are still following restrictions and the AG's statement says nothing about restrictions but does about several other aspects, so it's omission from the list of no longer enforced is clear.
So far there has been no post on this thread of a department saying they would no longer follow restriction, only that they would not deny or restrict on a "failure to show good cause", that leaves a lot of room to still issue with restrictions and says nothing about not enforcing current restrictions.
As for the SCOTUS ruling, that's going to take a case or two or three before MA honors it.

You think you're safe because of the SCOTUS ruling, you are not. Even if eventually dismissed, the financial and personal damage is done.
And there is still a chance you'll be convicted or at least have your LTC revoked, so you'll need to fight that as well.

If someone is going to ignore the restrictions on their LTC, know what you're getting into, @Picton 's statement that you are "not placing themselves at any risk" is BS. Know the risk, then make your decision.
Click to expand...
1. Nothing in the SCOTUS decision establishes states cannot require a 2A license.
2. Noting in the decision changes a person not currently licensed to carry outside the home because they have a license authorizing a different activity (restricted carry)
3. But, the decision does say individuals need not prove need.

So it is clear that future licenses must be unrestricted.

It is not clear that persons with restricted licenses cannot be processed for carry outside of restrictions (fine only)

It seems obvious, but is not yet proven, that licensing officials must upgrade restricted LTCs on request, but that has not yet been stipulated by the state or proven in court
 
Last edited:
42! said:
Where do you get that.
Click to expand...

Did you read the AG's notice to the PDs?

"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."

(bold mine) This paragraph tells us that her office views restrictions as an extension of the "good reason" part of the statute, and unequivocally tells PDs not to enforce that part of the statute anymore...
 
Last edited:
Picton said:
Did you read the AG's notice to the PDs?

"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."

(bold mine) This paragraph tells us that her office views restrictions as an extension of the "good reason" part of the statute, and unequivocally tells PDs not to enforce that part of the statute anymore...
Click to expand...
No, it does not. You are inferring that, it is not unequivocably stated.
 
Picton said:
Did you read the AG's notice to the PDs?

"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."

(bold mine) This paragraph tells us that her office views restrictions as an extension of the "good reason" part of the statute, and unequivocally tells PDs not to enforce that part of the statute anymore...
Click to expand...
No, it says not to deny or restrict a new/renew license "because the applicant lacks a sufficiently good reason to carry a firearm"
It says nothing about enforcing current restrictions and it makes it clear that reasons other than "a sufficiently good reason to carry a firearm" can be used.

The opening line to the paragraph "Licensing authorities should cease enforcement of the 'good reason' provision of the license-to-carry statute in response to Bruen" establishes the focus and that is the "'good reason' provision", again, nothing about not enforcing current restrictions.

Serious reading comprehension fail.

Here's an example.
A CoP that has a set policy of only issuing with restrictions for the first set number of years before considering an unrestricted, is in fact not using a "good cause" standard. And since it's fixed, not opinion based, it may even get a pass on the SCOTUS ruling, this will be settled in the courts.

You are encouraging someone to become the test case and telling them there is no risk, which is BS. If you're going to encourage someone to put themselves on the line, they deserve to know the risks. To do otherwise is both selfish and reckless.
 
42! said:
No, it says not to deny or restrict a new/renew license "because the applicant lacks a sufficiently good reason to carry a firearm"
It says nothing about enforcing current restrictions and it makes it clear that reasons other than "a sufficiently good reason to carry a firearm" can be used.

The opening line to the paragraph "Licensing authorities should cease enforcement of the 'good reason' provision of the license-to-carry statute in response to Bruen" establishes the focus and that is the "'good reason' provision", again, nothing about not enforcing current restrictions.

Serious reading comprehension fail.

Here's an example.
A CoP that has a set policy of only issuing with restrictions for the first set number of years before considering an unrestricted, is in fact not using a "good cause" standard. And since it's fixed, not opinion based, it may even get a pass on the SCOTUS ruling, this will be settled in the courts.

You are encouraging someone to become the test case and telling them there is no risk, which is BS. If you're going to encourage someone to put themselves on the line, they deserve to know the risks. To do otherwise is both selfish and reckless.
Click to expand...

Why, in your interpretation, did Maura put the part about restrictions in the paragraph with the "good reason" portion? I.e., the parts of the law she says not to enforce any longer?

If she intended to enforce restrictions, would she not have put it in the prior paragraph, with the other things she says are "unaffected by Bruen?"

I'm not terribly sure why any CoP would be expected to follow your interpretation. Her enforcement notice lists some things unaffected by Bruen, and other things no longer to enforce. Restrictions are grouped with the latter. Why, in your view, would she do that if she intended restrictions to be enforced?

Do you deny that her intent is "restrictions no bueno?"
 
42! said:
No, it says not to deny or restrict a new/renew license "because the applicant lacks a sufficiently good reason to carry a firearm"
It says nothing about enforcing current restrictions and it makes it clear that reasons other than "a sufficiently good reason to carry a firearm" can be used.

The opening line to the paragraph "Licensing authorities should cease enforcement of the 'good reason' provision of the license-to-carry statute in response to Bruen" establishes the focus and that is the "'good reason' provision", again, nothing about not enforcing current restrictions.

Serious reading comprehension fail.

Here's an example.
A CoP that has a set policy of only issuing with restrictions for the first set number of years before considering an unrestricted, is in fact not using a "good cause" standard. And since it's fixed, not opinion based, it may even get a pass on the SCOTUS ruling, this will be settled in the courts.

You are encouraging someone to become the test case and telling them there is no risk, which is BS. If you're going to encourage someone to put themselves on the line, they deserve to know the risks. To do otherwise is both selfish and reckless.
Click to expand...
Your example doesn't comply with the last sentence of the quoted paragraph.
"An applicant who is neither a 'prohibited person' or 'unsuitable' must be issued an unrestricted license to carry."

A first time applicant is neither prohibited nor unsuitable. At the very least, if they request that their LTC be reissued, it would seem the only options the chief has are 1) reissue without restrictions, 2) revoke for suitability. Even a simple refusal doesn't seem to align with the guidance.

Further, imposing restrictions is an ongoing activity. It's not just about printing it on the card, but prosecuting as well. If they've been told to "no longer impose restrictions," how can that possibly refer only to new licenses? That would definitionally result in unequal treatment in conflict with Bruen.
 
Picton said:
Did you read the AG's notice to the PDs?

"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."

(bold mine) This paragraph tells us that her office views restrictions as an extension of the "good reason" part of the statute, and unequivocally tells PDs not to enforce that part of the statute anymore...
Click to expand...
I’m going to bold something too. Medford PD is f***ed up.
 
VetteGirlMA said:
My own personal philosophy is that if we put someone in jail for committing a crime then when they get out all of their rights should be restored including second amendment rights. If we do this then this would have be factored into a background check at a point of purchase. But I'm guessing I'm probably in a minority in this position.
Click to expand...
As long as it's a non-violent crime I agree.
 
Mesatchornug said:
Your example doesn't comply with the last sentence of the quoted paragraph.
"An applicant who is neither a 'prohibited person' or 'unsuitable' must be issued an unrestricted license to carry."

A first time applicant is neither prohibited nor unsuitable. At the very least, if they request that their LTC be reissued, it would seem the only options the chief has are 1) reissue without restrictions, 2) revoke for suitability. Even a simple refusal doesn't seem to align with the guidance.

Further, imposing restrictions is an ongoing activity. It's not just about printing it on the card, but prosecuting as well. If they've been told to "no longer impose restrictions," how can that possibly refer only to new licenses? That would definitionally result in unequal treatment in conflict with Bruen.
Click to expand...
There is a difference between a first time, new, applicant and an existing license, and I specifically called out a new/renew as opposed to existing, as does the AG. The AG is talking about not issuing, but says nothing about an existing license which has limits specifically stated on it.

They can justify it because the existing license was issued with restrictions, and those are still a matter of law. Remember, the AG doesn't make law via press release. The proper course would be for a restricted license holder to have the license reissued without restrictions.
 
42! said:
There is a difference between a first time, new, applicant and an existing license, and I specifically called out a new/renew as opposed to existing, as does the AG. The AG is talking about not issuing, but says nothing about an existing license which has limits specifically stated on it.

They can justify it because the existing license was issued with restrictions, and those are still a matter of law. Remember, the AG doesn't make law via press release. The proper course would be for a restricted license holder to have the license reissued without restrictions.
Click to expand...
You're right, the office doesn't make law. They do, in my understanding, provide guidance on the enforcement of that law.

That guidance seems to say to not enforce restrictions.
 

Similar threads

Nevada Supreme Court Upholds Ban on So-Called ‘Ghost Guns’
Replies
4
Views
208
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
The NRA Is About to Notch Another Legal Victory at the Supreme Court
Replies
13
Views
657
groundscrapers
G
New York's Radical Gun Restrictions Headed To Supreme Court
Replies
1
Views
304
Rob Boudrie
Rob Boudrie
Supreme Court and guns in the news (search 3/4/24)
Replies
0
Views
193
Coyote33
Coyote33
Supreme Court Hears Texas Gun Store Owner’s Lawsuit Against Bump Stock Ban
2 3
Replies
87
Views
2K
HorizontalHunter
HorizontalHunter
Back
Top Bottom