Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

I have sat in two chiefs offices 1 on 1 discussing the AG letter back in 1998-99 DEMANDING that the chiefs rescind all home-based FFLs state licenses.

Both chiefs (well known to me) stated that the AG could go F himself, that "I don't work for the AG".

As a case in point, only some chiefs have refused to return confiscated ARs/AKs due to the AG memo of 2016, others have returned the private property to the rightful owners.

So to the current point, a memo from the AG to all chiefs telling them how to deal with restricted LTCs is the same thing . . . some will blindly obey, some will continue to do what they've always done until they get their asses handed to them in court (big assumption here due to the Marsupial justice system in MA).

Bottom line, I would bet my bank account on the AG's memo . . . not now and not back in 2016 either.
 
PappyM3 said:
The AG is stating their opinion how they interpret the Bruen ruling in relation to state law. The “must issue unrestricted” is admitting that the restrictions are unconstitutional based on the Bruen ruling. Therefore, any existing restrictions are unconstitutional. Any law that is repugnant to the constitution is no law. The Medford PD is just spitting out drivel.
Click to expand...
Everything after the bolded is NOT in the memo, it's all you. And your assumptions are not admissible in court, nor do they constitute a directive to the CoPs. I have enough legal experience to know what they don't say has as much meaning as what they do say. If the AG didn't say it then it isn't so, in her opinion.
Picton said:
This.

Even Maura knows you can't have constitutionally discrete treatment of new licenses vs existing licenses. It would be like getting into a time machine back to 1967 and applying Loving to new marriages, but not existing marriages. Noooooope.

And even if she doesn't know that, she knows appellate courts know it.

She's having her cake and eating it too, and hoping we'll let her do that. Some of us here seem to be quite willing to do so.
Click to expand...
When it come to guns the courts have routinely sided in direct contradiction to the law and the constitution, and Maura knows this. And she has issued memos before that contradicted the law.
The courts ruled that a plaintiff who had been denied an LTC hadn't exhausted his options to own a handgun in the home because he could still apply for a FID and a PTP, even though a PTP had NEVER been issued. And you think they will rule that a license issued with restriction, likely without a stated, in writing, reason for the restrictions, still can't be enforced when the holder could have obtained a license without restrictions.
Picton said:
How many times does NES remind itself never, ever to take legal advice from a cop? Especially about firearms law?

This would seem to be another of those times.
Click to expand...
The Medford post isn't advice it's a statement of what they will do. Big difference.
Picton said:
But in the scenario you posit, I doubt it'd even see a jury. The prosecutors are bound by the AG no less than the police are. They'd know it's foolish to go ahead with that part of the case, and if not? The judge most likely understands Bruen, and knows that the entire case risks being overturned on appeal if he allows that evidence in.
Click to expand...
This is correct but not in the way you think. Both the prosecutors (the District Attorneys) and the municipal police, both do not answer to the AG in any way. Neither are bound by the statements of the AG's office, are not obligated to follow her advice, nor answer to her in any way.
And judges don't care, why would they, it has no effect on them. And the AG statement won't be evidence in a trial. The AG statement isn't law and therefore not relevant to the case.
Wramos93 said:
ive tried contacting them yes havent heard of a response quite yet but no way medford pd can do this with a straight face
Click to expand...
And yet they already have.
 
42! said:
Everything after the bolded is NOT in the memo, it's all you. And your assumptions are not admissible in court, nor do they constitute a directive to the CoPs. I have enough legal experience to know what they don't say has as much meaning as what they do say. If the AG didn't say it then it isn't so, in her opinion.
Click to expand...
1405006117 7528798985 4314260624 4511569936 3840000000 00 knows of what he speaks. Well done sir.
 
Thought I'd say something that is less of an argument.

The SCOTUS ruling was good and we will see benefits from the start. But it's far from perfect and even where we see it as clear will likely require additional court rulings before it's impact is settled. Now is now he time to assume a total victory. The fight continues. And I know I can be critical on Comm2a, hopefully with some balance, but it's all you've got in MA and they try where all other 2a orgs have written off MA as a lost cause.
 
42! said:
Everything after the bolded is NOT in the memo, it's all you. And your assumptions are not admissible in court, nor do they constitute a directive to the CoPs. I have enough legal experience to know what they don't say has as much meaning as what they do say. If the AG didn't say it then it isn't so, in her opinion.

….
Click to expand...

They’re not my assumptions. It’s simple logic and past SCOTUS precedent. Applying very rudimentary logic to the AG’s statement and clear SCOTUS precedent is not assuming.

SCOTUS: ruled X and Y are unconstitutional
AG: Chiefs, you MUST do Z instead of Y because of this ruling

Logically, this is because Y is unconstitutional. Any current implementations of Y is also unconstitutional. The government doesn’t get to continute to do something that’s unconstitutional because they were already doing it when The ruling came out. And other SCOTUS precedent says unconstitutional laws are null and void.

Sure, there’s a risk that the Medford PD could arrest you for ignoring the unconstitutional restrictions. There’s always a risk of unjustified and unconstitutional gun arrests or harassment in this state. Every single MA LTC holder faces risks with serious repercussions every single day. But at least with this instance, you’d have recourse and the backing of a very fresh SCOTUS ruling.
 
Picton said:
How many times does NES remind itself never, ever to take legal advice from a cop? Especially about firearms law?

This would seem to be another of those times.
Click to expand...
Not to sidetrack but in reference to your point....the town I work for the pd just switched duty pistols from glock to Walther. I asked one of the cops (I could only tell at first glance it wasn't a glock) what was his new weapon. He just looked at it and said I have no idea [rofl]
 
Remember how the FRB started sharing EFA10 information with the AG it shouldn't have after Maura's AWB edict?

Why didn't she also issue a guidance letter to the FRB to print out all licenses as "restrictions: none" or void the line entirely from the system so that issuing authorities don't have the form field to try and select something from?
 
PappyM3 said:
They’re not my assumptions. It’s simple logic and past SCOTUS precedent. Applying very rudimentary logic to the AG’s statement and clear SCOTUS precedent is not assuming.

SCOTUS: ruled X and Y are unconstitutional
AG: Chiefs, you MUST do Z instead of Y because of this ruling

Logically, this is because Y is unconstitutional. Any current implementations of Y is also unconstitutional. The government doesn’t get to continute to do something that’s unconstitutional because they were already doing it when The ruling came out. And other SCOTUS precedent says unconstitutional laws are null and void.

Sure, there’s a risk that the Medford PD could arrest you for ignoring the unconstitutional restrictions. There’s always a risk of unjustified and unconstitutional gun arrests or harassment in this state. Every single MA LTC holder faces risks with serious repercussions every single day. But at least with this instance, you’d have recourse and the backing of a very fresh SCOTUS ruling.
Click to expand...
I've got even simpler logic for you. The memo says what she wanted it to say and doesn't say what she didn't want it to say.
She issued a statement not to do A and B, but didn't mention C. Your logic is to assume C was included. I'm suggesting that if she wanted to include C she would have done just that.

And then there is the fact that she does not have the authority to instruct the CoPs or establish, or counter, MA law by decree.
 
42! said:
I've got even simpler logic for you. The memo says what she wanted it to say and doesn't say what she didn't want it to say.
She issued a statement not to do A and B, but didn't mention C. Your logic is to assume C was included. I'm suggesting that if she wanted to include C she would have done just that.
Click to expand...
My logic isn’t to assume C was included. Rather C is derived from A and B through other SCOTUS precedent.

But we won’t agree on that.

42! said:
And then there is the fact that she does not have the authority to instruct the CoPs or establish, or counter, MA law by decree.
Click to expand...

She is the chief legal representative for the state. She absolutely can advise agents of the state and LEAs of incorporated towns/cities in this state about parts of MGL which are affected by federal court rulings, and how to navigate such invalid laws. Whether they listen to her advice is a different story. But like I said, every LTC holder in this state takes risks of unjustified harassment/arrest by LE.
 
Last edited:
PappyM3 said:
My logic isn’t to assume C was included. Rather C is derived from A and B through other SCOTUS precedent.

But we won’t agree on that.
Click to expand...
The problem is that until a court applies the transitive property you cite, it has no teeth whatsoever until there is an official finding (court case, specific law, conclusion accepted by those who decide if you need to hire an attorney, etc.) making it so.

It is possible for you to be absolutely right in your conclusion, but wrong about the implication that will prevent arrest; citation or the following of your interpretation as rendering one unsuitable.

Also, consider departments that thought it important to restrict licenses are the most likely to use a post-Bruen restriction violation against the LTC holder. Good luck (time and money wise) getting a ruling that a PD's finding that "not following the restriction until it was removed from your LTC" is not a valid reason to find you unsuitable. Just think "WWBD?". (rep point to the first one who gets it, I'll even give credit if you only get one of the alternate interpretations).
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
Can you be more specific as to exactly how Medford is 'enforcing' restrictions? Is there a statement or a letter stating that? Have you made any attempt to have your restrictions removed? PM me if you want.
Click to expand...
There was a letter Medford sent out in one of their threads telling people to still follow the restrictions on their LTC. It did not make any reference to the fact that new LTCs will be issued without restriction.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
The jury is not the high risk issue; suitability is.
Click to expand...
Rob Boudrie said:
The problem is that until a court applies the transitive property you cite, it has no teeth whatsoever until there is an official finding (court case, specific law, conclusion accepted by those who decide if you need to hire an attorney, etc.) making it so.

It is possible for you to be absolutely right in your conclusion, but wrong about the implication that will prevent arrest; citation or the following of your interpretation as rendering one unsuitable.

Also, consider departments that thought it important to restrict licenses are the most likely to use a post-Bruen restriction violation against the LTC holder. Good luck (time and money wise) getting a ruling that a PD's finding that "not following the restriction until it was removed from your LTC" is not a valid reason to find you unsuitable. Just think "WWBD?". (rep point to the first one who gets it, I'll even give credit if you only get one of the alternate interpretations).
Click to expand...
“What would Brian Boitano do?” From South Park?
 
Chevy 2 65 said:

View: https://twitter.com/MedfordPolice/status/1543001427601129474?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1543001427601129474%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=
Click to expand...

Specifically:

FWnXnIuXkAM-Pw3
 
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 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
Click to expand...
Her opinon is well worth the read. Very convincing arguments from what I recall, using historical facts and analysis.
 
Roadglide said:
Not to sidetrack but in reference to your point....the town I work for the pd just switched duty pistols from glock to Walther. I asked one of the cops (I could only tell at first glance it wasn't a glock) what was his new weapon. He just looked at it and said I have no idea [rofl]
Click to expand...


"Whatcha carrying?" "Walther Lungremover."


PappyM3 said:
My logic isn’t to assume C was included. Rather C is derived from A and B through other SCOTUS precedent.

But we won’t agree on that.



She is the chief legal representative for the state. She absolutely can advise agents of the state and LEAs of incorporated towns/cities in this state about parts of MGL which are affected by federal court rulings, and how to navigate such invalid laws. Whether they listen to her advice is a different story. But like I said, every LTC holder in this state takes risks of unjustified harassment/arrest by LE.
Click to expand...
We all know she didn't include C because she didn't want it mentioned. Period. It took them a WEEK to draft this position paper. A week. A score of lawyers for a week. Anything missing is conspicuously so.

Chevy 2 65 said:

View: https://twitter.com/MedfordPolice/status/1543001427601129474?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1543001427601129474%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=
Click to expand...


Let's use a statement from a week ago that says FU GUN OWNERS then link the AG statement to ISSUE THE UNRESTRICTED LICENSES YOU JACKBOOTED THUGS. ROFL!!!! Because so few people are going to bother reading the link versus the two pic'churz.
 

Similar threads

Nevada Supreme Court Upholds Ban on So-Called ‘Ghost Guns’
Replies
4
Views
210
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
The NRA Is About to Notch Another Legal Victory at the Supreme Court
Replies
13
Views
691
groundscrapers
G
New York's Radical Gun Restrictions Headed To Supreme Court
Replies
1
Views
308
Rob Boudrie
Rob Boudrie
Supreme Court and guns in the news (search 3/4/24)
Replies
0
Views
201
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