Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

Why is it that MA outlawed non police possession of stun guns until SCOTUS issued the order in Caetano? Because it's MA, that's why.

Sparky123 said:
Without some way of the supreme court enforcing this ruling, what do we really expect to change? If the court ruled that we do not need a proper cause to apply for a LTC then why is it that in Massachusetts they are still going to be allowed to ask us what the reason is for applying for the LTC? I'm sure that over time the laws that govern suitability will expand, this of course will make it more difficult to get a LTC.
Click to expand...
 
Garys said:
President Trump changed the flavor of both the 2nd and 9th Circuits. If Bruen was decided by them today, it's likely that that may issue would have fallen at that level. So, it worked out that Bruen made it to SCOTUS and Justice Thomas blessed us with a brilliant opinion.

I expect that the 1st will not be the Clown Circuit as Pres. Trump was not able to appoint any judges.

Yet another reason to move.
Click to expand...

Trump flipped the 2nd and 3rd circuits and really tilted the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th. The 9th was 21-9 in 2016, trump moved it to 16-13 D vs R, so it’s not the slam dunk it was before. The 4th was very conservative but Obama got a lot of nominations there and flipped it.

The big thing in addition to the number of judges trump added is the judges are almost all very conservative, originalists. The quality it outstanding. They’ve learn for the debacles of stevens, Kennedy, O’Connor and Souter.
 
I don't know who advised Pres. Trump on his judicial nominations, but we whoever that was we owe them a huge thanks.

Hoover said:
Trump flipped the 2nd and 3rd circuits and really tilted the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th. The 9th was 21-9 in 2016, trump moved it to 16-13 D vs R, so it’s not the slam dunk it was before. The 4th was very conservative but Obama got a lot of nominations there and flipped it.

The big thing in addition to the number of judges trump added is the judges are almost all very conservative, originalists. The quality it outstanding. They’ve learn for the debacles of stevens, Kennedy, O’Connor and Souter.
Click to expand...
 
Prior to Bruen, even Boston decided it was easier to give unrestricted licenses for out of town renewals than to fight it out each time. That's all the evidence you need that that even the most petulant administrations children will fold when the cost of their intransigence becomes too high.
 
Garys said:
I don't know who advised Pres. Trump on his judicial nominations, but we whoever that was we owe them a huge thanks.
Click to expand...

Leonard Leo the president of the federalist society was the one doing most of it along with WH counsel don mcgahn. McConnell and the senate had staffers vetting too. It’s a well oiled machine McConnell and outside groups set up a decade ago. He killed Obama nominees in 2015 and 2016 to set up a lot of openings and had the system in place.
 
Hoover said:
This explains it well, he’s part of FPC.
View: https://youtu.be/iJyzuTS-XQ8


Just because you lose and appeal, you don’t automatically get a stay of the lower court ruling granted. Part of getting a stay issued is the likelihood of success in the appeal. The CA AGs office cited a number of cases using the intermediate scrutiny standard (the district court judge who struck down the AWB used text and history). The CA AG said the wrong standard was used and if intermediate scrutiny was used they’d win and then9th circuit has said intermediate scrutiny is the correct standard. With SCOTUS saying intermediate scrutiny is not the standard, it’s text and history, the AG has nothing in their court filings citing text and history to refute the district court judge.

I’d be surprised if they lifted the stay. They’ll probably ask the AGs office to resubmit it with history and text to show the likelihood of success. Can they find anything in the text or history to support an AWB? I’ve never heard anything.
Click to expand...

Good question - what might be an historical analog to an AWB? Having labeled a class of firearms Weapons-of-War and Military-Style, they’ve backed themselves into the corner of having to find a firearm used by USG troops that was banned from civilian use. Something between the 1868 14thA ratification and before the 1911 Sullivan Act. That’s a pretty narrow window of time.

Oh, they’ll find stuff. The Corpus Linguistics academics (whose work was disregarded by SCOTUS) are itching to prove themselves useful and will scour the databases in search of analogs. The 2nd Circuit will overturn then reinstate on en banc appeal, as is their custom, and back to SCOTUS within 5 years or so.
 
MaverickNH said:
Good question - what might be an historical analog to an AWB?
Click to expand...
There were/are historic bans on weapons which did not obviously look like weapons. Cane swords/guns, belt buckle/boot knives, daggers hidden in jewelry, stuff like that. I'd consider poisons (liquid + powders + gasses) to be in that category too.
 
Chevy 2 65 said:
NOPE !!!!! They must provide proof you are a danger to the public etc.. Not just " No I don't like the answer or feel this person is a danger.

Edit to add:

The licensing authority may deny the application or renewal of a license to carry, or suspend or revoke a license issued under this section if, in a reasonable exercise of discretion, the licensing authority determines that the applicant or licensee is unsuitable to be issued or to continue to hold a license to carry. 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. Upon denial of an application or renewal of a license based on a determination of unsuitability, the licensing authority shall notify the applicant in writing setting forth the specific reasons for the determination in accordance with paragraph (e). Upon revoking or suspending a license based on a determination of unsuitability, the licensing authority shall notify the holder of a license in writing setting forth the specific reasons for the determination in accordance with paragraph (f). The determination of unsuitability shall be subject to judicial review under said paragraph (f).
Click to expand...
YEP!!!!

What is this so-called proof based on? Is it defined in the law explicitly? NOPE!!!! It is entirely up to the discretion of the chief.

Just read the what you bolded and tell me what is actually specified in that law that is objective and can be applied consistently on an applicant-to-applicant basis. NOTHING.

And that is by DESIGN. The law was specifically written this way as to be vague and lacking precision, thereby giving wide, unfettered latitude to the local authority.

Start at the beginning with part (i).

What reliable and credible information can be used?

What specific "behavior" are we talking about? That word alone screams discretion, because certain behaviors may be seen as acceptable, even normal, to some, but not to others.

What does "suggest" mean in the law as written? Your behavior as interpreted by one person may "suggest" something totally different to anther person.

Examine the phrase "may create." Applicant might do something or he might not, indicating an act in the future. Predicting the future is emphatically subjective, by definition.

In part (ii) what is the definition of "existing factors?" Again, wide latitude to inject non-objective factors into the process.

If the law was written to say, for example, any and all CWOF's for violent offenses, regardless of when such offenses occurred, shall be automatic disqualifiers for any applicant seeking an LTC, then that law as written would likely satisfy the objective criteria standard under Bruen, the issue to whether a CWOF should be a disqualifier notwithstanding.

The current MGL on suitability would NEVER survive in an objective court of law, period.
 
Waher said:
There were/are historic bans on weapons which did not obviously look like weapons. Cane swords/guns, belt buckle/boot knives, daggers hidden in jewelry, stuff like that. I'd consider poisons (liquid + powders + gasses) to be in that category too.
Click to expand...
I don’t think, historically, that poisons were considered arms.
 
Bladerunner said:
YEP!!!!

What is this so-called proof based on? Is it defined in the law explicitly? NOPE!!!! It is entirely up to the discretion of the chief.

Just read the what you bolded and tell me what is actually specified in that law that is objective and can be applied consistently on an applicant-to-applicant basis. NOTHING.

And that is by DESIGN. The law was specifically written this way as to be vague and lacking precision, thereby giving wide, unfettered latitude to the local authority.

Start at the beginning with part (i).

What reliable and credible information can be used?

What specific "behavior" are we talking about? That word alone screams discretion, because certain behaviors may be seen as acceptable, even normal, to some, but not to others.

What does "suggest" mean in the law as written? Your behavior as interpreted by one person may "suggest" something totally different to anther person.

Examine the phrase "may create." Applicant might do something or he might not, indicating an act in the future. Predicting the future is emphatically subjective, by definition.

In part (ii) what is the definition of "existing factors?" Again, wide latitude to inject non-objective factors into the process.

If the law was written to say, for example, any and all CWOF's for violent offenses, regardless of when such offenses occurred, shall be automatic disqualifiers for any applicant seeking an LTC, then that law as written would likely satisfy the objective criteria standard under Bruen, the issue to whether a CWOF should be a disqualifier notwithstanding.

The current MGL on suitability would NEVER survive in an objective court of law, period.
Click to expand...
Call a lawyer or call your rep to change it. I posted the MGL. They can not just deny or restrict without clear evidence that the person is a no go.
You can just write "all lawful purposes" or not I don't give a f***
 
Garys said:
Why is it that MA outlawed non police possession of stun guns until SCOTUS issued the order in Caetano? Because it's MA, that's why.
Click to expand...
Same reason that, once upon a time, you needed a permit to possess pepper spray. Individual responsibility and individual freedom are frowned upon in this collectivist state!
 
Hoover said:
Sheriffs are elected, police chiefs appointed by politicians. The majority of NY sheriffs are probably upstate so they’re probably much more 2A friendly.
Click to expand...
I think that suitability and 'good moral character' standards are going to be hard to beat. First, because licensing authorities will become much more judicious in how those standards are applied. This is already the case in Massachusetts. Once a suitability denial is upheld by a judge in a licensing appeal, I think the MA federal district court and CA1 will consider that sufficient due process.

Bad facts make bad law. I don't see CLEOs and the Commonwealth dying on this hill except when the facts are particularly bad for the applicant. I also don't think SCOTUS is in a hurry to take up more gun cases. Perhaps some type of AWB or sensitive places challenge (or maybe prohibited person?). But not a suitability challlenge from a marginal applicant.
 
rep308 said:
www.bostonherald.com

Massachusetts gun rights group demands Maura Healey retract firearms guidance

A Bay State gun rights advocate is calling out Attorney General Maura Healey’s firearm licensing guidance in the wake of a recent Supreme Court decision on guns. Jim Wallace, writing on behal…
www.bostonherald.com www.bostonherald.com
Click to expand...
Herald promptly trolling Marsha about Wallace's letter, FTW.

Broccoli Iglesias said:
They can still ask you why you want one. They can't deny you based on if they feel that is a good enough reason.
Click to expand...
5682172_keep_calm_and_dont_answer_questions.png


pastera said:
The reason we are seeing increases in crime is the justice system is advertising that they will not prosecute, so making crime legal in effect.
And I don't believe for a minute that only non-violent offenders we're released during covid.
Click to expand...
I don't believe for a minute that
the convicts released during covid
who were imprisoned for "non-violent" crimes
had never committed violent crimes.
They were imprisoned for what they got caught doing -
not for what they actually did.

Broccoli Iglesias said:
I typed "all lawful purposes" not "none of your business".

If you want to be aggressive about it to the police, go ahead, but people should already know that nothing good can come out of it, no matter how wrong you think they are by asking that question.
Click to expand...
604rso.jpg

Only this time,
it's a civil rights violation in the actual police station,
and the Licensing Officer is the actual tyrant.

Chevy 2 65 said:
Then do the same for Alcohol companies, pull those CEO's in for a hearing, for making the evil devil water. DUI deaths are over $10,000 yr
Click to expand...
Granny Winebox will have none of that.
 
AHM said:
Herald promptly trolling Marsha about Wallace's letter, FTW.


5682172_keep_calm_and_dont_answer_questions.png



I don't believe for a minute that
the convicts released during covid
who were imprisoned for "non-violent" crimes
had never committed violent crimes.
They were imprisoned for what they got caught doing -
not for what they actually did.


604rso.jpg

Only this time,
it's a civil rights violation in the actual police station,
and the Licensing Officer is the actual tyrant.


Granny Winebox will have none of that.
Click to expand...

View: https://youtu.be/pcdj-A61I9c
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
I think that suitability and 'good moral character' standards are going to be hard to beat. First, because licensing authorities will become much more judicious in how those standards are applied. This is already the case in Massachusetts. Once a suitability denial is upheld by a judge in a licensing appeal, I think the MA federal district court and CA1 will consider that sufficient due process.

Bad facts make bad law. I don't see CLEOs and the Commonwealth dying on this hill except when the facts are particularly bad for the applicant. I also don't think SCOTUS is in a hurry to take up more gun cases. Perhaps some type of AWB or sensitive places challenge (or maybe prohibited person?). But not a suitability challlenge from a marginal applicant.
Click to expand...
Suitability is effectively an ex-ante red flag law. It is questionable how these laws are going to survive in the Bruen era, whether ex-post, or, ex-ante in nature. Even the descriptor Good Moral Character is troublesome, as it requires discretion. When states like NY start requesting you provide all your social media accounts, under the pains and penalty of perjury, in order to determine "good moral character", however defined, it's clear that this artificial barrier concocted by anti-2A legislatures to deny law abiding citizens their right to carry in public is on its last legs.
 
BigGreen2000 said:
Same reason that, once upon a time, you needed a permit to possess pepper spray. Individual responsibility and individual freedom are frowned upon in this collectivist state!
Click to expand...

Because the other innocent person you might accidentally, or on purpose, spray or tase is far more important than you. If you want to protect yourself, you must have done something to cause it, so you basically deserve it. Otherwise, you wouldn't feel the need to protect yourself.

Hoover said:
The dark money group as the dope Sheldon Whitehouse calls them lol
Click to expand...

That guy talks, he always seems like he's struggling for breath.
 

Similar threads

Nevada Supreme Court Upholds Ban on So-Called ‘Ghost Guns’
Replies
4
Views
228
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
The NRA Is About to Notch Another Legal Victory at the Supreme Court
Replies
13
Views
703
groundscrapers
G
New York's Radical Gun Restrictions Headed To Supreme Court
Replies
1
Views
314
Rob Boudrie
Rob Boudrie
Supreme Court and guns in the news (search 3/4/24)
Replies
0
Views
202
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