Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

42! said:
What is the exact current wording?
Because the way the proposed is written

If you can't verify this, you won't be able to complete the form. They won't need to deny your renewal because you would have never completed the application. Or you lie on the application, and they get you that way.

Details matter, they can still fix this.
shall verify whether or not that the applicant has had not lost a firearm lost or had a firearm stolen

See, and easy, but necessary, fix.
Click to expand...
I agree but i bet the existing law says that. I think that ship has already sailed, although i would agree attempting to clean up the language would help, not sure if its politically viable.
 
This is all that matters in the proposed legislation:

SECTION 7 – Deletes MGL Ch. 140 § 131, the License To Carry licensing provision, and replaces it with new language that removes any references to “suitability” and “good reason” requirements. This section standardizes license issuing conditions with §§ 129B and 131. No changes will be made to the current fee structure and references to “Prohibited Persons” as defined in Section 5 of this bill.
 
Miller vs bonta, AWB case where the district court judge struck down the AWB ban saying it was unconstitutional. Case is now with a 3 judge panel at the 9th circuit court of appeals

CA AG. Is asking the 3 judge panel to send the case back to the district court and basically start again. The brief is exceedingly weak. Then3 judges are a Clinton, Obama and trump.

 
From the Hawaii AG:

The chiefs of police should also still require that applicants for a concealed carry license "[a]ppear to be a suitable person to be so licensed." See Bruen (discussing a "suitable person" requirement which "precludes permits only to those 'individuals whose conduct has shown them to be lacking the essential character o[r] temperament necessary to be entrusted with a weapon'" … [and] recognizing that states may impose requirements "designed to ensure only that those bearing arms in the jurisdiction are … 'law-abiding, responsible citizens'").


These a**h***s are citing a footnote in Bruen that is quoting the suitability law in CT and making it appear as if Bruen gave the stamp of approval for such douchebaggery.
 
Hoover said:
Miller vs bonta, AWB case where the district court judge struck down the AWB ban saying it was unconstitutional. Case is now with a 3 judge panel at the 9th circuit court of appeals

CA AG. Is asking the 3 judge panel to send the case back to the district court and basically start again. The brief is exceedingly weak. Then3 judges are a Clinton, Obama and trump.

Click to expand...
But the district courts decision is in compliance with Bruen so it doesn't need to be vacated - it's the circuit courts decision that was vacated and remanded.

The circuit is simply trying to delay procedings and burn money hoping the issue will get dropped.
Hopefully they will get a smackdown for the obvious political foul play.
 
pastera said:
But the district courts decision is in compliance with Bruen so it doesn't need to be vacated - it's the circuit courts decision that was vacated and remanded.

The circuit is simply trying to delay procedings and burn money hoping the issue will get dropped.
Hopefully they will get a smackdown for the obvious political foul play.
Click to expand...

The circuit court hasn’t decided yet, they asked each side for briefs and they’ll make a decision.

I had the same opinion as you when was reading the brief last night, the CA AG wants it remanded to the district court as a delay tactic. The district court struck the law down on strict and intermediate grounds and the new standard text and history is a much higher bar. The district court had a trial and went through the facts and there is no legitimate need to return the case to the district court. Benetiz would decide the same way based on the same facts.

The CA AG knows what’s coming, defeat. This is just a pathetic attempt to delay and the brief was extremely weak. It sounded like a kid giving a book report for a book they didn’t read. They seemed repeat things many times and include irrelevant things.
 
Bladerunner said:
This may very well be one of the first cases that deals directly with suitability/good moral chatacter post Bruen.

We now see the tact the commies are taking to try and defend such blatantly unconstitutional demands on citizens.


View: https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status/1546578633166315520?t=0SYdqkHwZkhnToeOnujviw&s=19
Click to expand...


Did you see why Sibley was denied for “lack of moral character “? He’s a lawyer and while practicing in FL and MD he filed a lot of garbage lawsuits and ignored the warnings of wasting court times with frivolous lawsuits. Those states disbarred him as a punishment and the NY state judge who does licensing in Steuben county NY said because he can’t follow court rules, that means he can’t be trusted with a gun.

Insane. Sibley v. Watches, 460 F. Supp. 3d 302 | Casetext Search + Citator
 
Last edited:
Bladerunner said:
From the Hawaii AG:

The chiefs of police should also still require that applicants for a concealed carry license "[a]ppear to be a suitable person to be so licensed." See Bruen (discussing a "suitable person" requirement which "precludes permits only to those 'individuals whose conduct has shown them to be lacking the essential character o[r] temperament necessary to be entrusted with a weapon'" … [and] recognizing that states may impose requirements "designed to ensure only that those bearing arms in the jurisdiction are … 'law-abiding, responsible citizens'").


These a**h***s are citing a footnote in Bruen that is quoting the suitability law in CT and making it appear as if Bruen gave the stamp of approval for such douchebaggery.
Click to expand...

Fascists gotta fasc! LOL.

Imagine if DawwwdduhBounnyhunnah's crew could have guns instead of pepperpaintball. ZOMG!!!!!

As far as a new AWB for Biden, he's got a snowball's chance in hell. If a vote was held on the "perfect" bill tomorrow, he'd not get 45 votes in the Senate nor more than 40% in the House. These people fear for their jobs. If he wanted this done, he should have done it in February of 2020 when the political capital was available.
 
Picton said:
I hope they try to run that shit through the courts. I really do.
Click to expand...
NY is playing the long stall game. Who knows how long a lawsuit will take to makes way through the courts. And once it does, they'll change the wording and tweak it again. Another lawsuit, another stall.

Rinse and repeat
 
alan226 said:
NY is playing the long stall game. Who knows how long a lawsuit will take to makes way through the courts. And once it does, they'll change the wording and tweak it again. Another lawsuit, another stall.

Rinse and repeat
Click to expand...

The state will judge shop looking for a left wing activist judge who will thumb his nose at Bruen. The second circuit is still a very left wing court so it's like they get a 3 judge panel who uses Bruen, then an en Banc panel that thumbs their nose at it all, then SCOTUS does GVR on the whole thing and sends it back. Then NY grumbles and tries something different. However they went so hard on this one they will run out of options very quickly.
 
DungeBerry63 said:
So another week has passed waiting about two weeks for a call back from Medford PD will be going in person on Monday
Click to expand...

I'd have gone in already.

I do hope you caught this thread and got in touch.

www.northeastshooters.com

Restricted? If your PD refuses to lift the restrictions contact Comm2A

If you have contacted your PD and asked nicely and they have refused to lift the restrictions, are saying they are enforcing existing restrictions, etc; contact Comm2A via email at [email protected].
www.northeastshooters.com www.northeastshooters.com
 
Picton said:
I'd have gone in already.

I do hope you caught this thread and got in touch.

www.northeastshooters.com

Restricted? If your PD refuses to lift the restrictions contact Comm2A

If you have contacted your PD and asked nicely and they have refused to lift the restrictions, are saying they are enforcing existing restrictions, etc; contact Comm2A via email at [email protected].
www.northeastshooters.com www.northeastshooters.com
Click to expand...
Been busy at work and haven’t had a chance to stop in ! I’d figure they would have gotten back to me but that’s my fault should have gone in
 
DungeBerry63 said:
So another week has passed waiting about two weeks for a call back from Medford PD will be going in person on Monday
Click to expand...
You cannot do this by phone or in person.
It must be tracked using email or certified letter.
The wording can be simple but needs to firmly demand that your restrictions be removed so that you can lawfully enjoy your protected right to carry for the purpose of self protection on public.

If you don't have your demand on record then it's your word against the chief's and you always lose that battle.
 
pastera said:
You cannot do this by phone or in person.
It must be tracked using email or certified letter.
The wording can be simple but needs to firmly demand that your restrictions be removed so that you can lawfully enjoy your protected right to carry for the purpose of self protection on public.

If you don't have your demand on record then it's your word against the chief's and you always lose that battle.
Click to expand...
I’ve emailed my chief and he himself hasn’t gotten back to me
 
DungeBerry63 said:
I’ve emailed my chief and he himself hasn’t gotten back to me
Click to expand...
Don’t do it in person, by phone, or email. Send a certified letter return receipt requested. Yes, you’ll have to go the post office in person to do this. But then you have a legally accepted paper trail. They can’t claim that they never got your email or they never got your phone message. And they know that, so they are more likely to take your letter seriously. Be polite in the letter and don’t threaten legal action (it isn’t helpful).
 
VetteGirlMA said:
The state will judge shop looking for a left wing activist judge who will thumb his nose at Bruen. The second circuit is still a very left wing court so it's like they get a 3 judge panel who uses Bruen, then an en Banc panel that thumbs their nose at it all, then SCOTUS does GVR on the whole thing and sends it back. Then NY grumbles and tries something different. However they went so hard on this one they will run out of options very quickly.
Click to expand...

It has been my theory since this passed that NY and CA and to a lesser extent MA and HI will F this up beyond what they could ever imagine. Sure. They're gonna push. And push hard. And they'll probably win at a district level and maybe even an appeals level. But at some point, they're going to get in front of the SC one more time and it gives the Supremes a chance to strengthen their position. While I don't THINK they'll come back with Con-Carry, there is a risk of it. And these petulant lawmakers will be SHOCKED, SHOCKED I TELL YOU when they get mega-b-slapped by the SC. They just can't imagine actually losing this decision.

This is what happens when you pass legislation as a fast knee-jerk to an event. You come up with feel-good shitty legislation.
 
DungeBerry63 said:
Been busy at work and haven’t had a chance to stop in ! I’d figure they would have gotten back to me but that’s my fault should have gone in
Click to expand...
They will just refuse to meet you and can cite many BS reasons, Covid, safety, too busy, etc. I'd be surprised if you actually was allowed to meet with Chief, licensing officer. Contact Comm 2A as previously mentioned along with any other Medford residents similarly effected by their scheme.
 
VetteGirlMA said:
The state will judge shop looking for a left wing activist judge who will thumb his nose at Bruen. The second circuit is still a very left wing court so it's like they get a 3 judge panel who uses Bruen, then an en Banc panel that thumbs their nose at it all, then SCOTUS does GVR on the whole thing and sends it back. Then NY grumbles and tries something different. However they went so hard on this one they will run out of options very quickly.
Click to expand...

The state wouldn’t be the one filing the suit, so they wouldn’t judge shop. Also, then2nd circuit court of appeals has 13 members, 6 are GOP nominees including 5 from trump. The 2nd isn’t a left wing circuit at all any longer.

A judge could put an injunction on the law preventing it from going into effect while the case proceeds. As @Rob Boudrie said, the statements from the NY politicians were very clear. Also the timing of the law. NY never cared about all these “sensitive spaces” unlit like the NYSRPA case and it’s clear the goal is to make it impossible to carry especially in the city.
 

Similar threads

Nevada Supreme Court Upholds Ban on So-Called ‘Ghost Guns’
Replies
4
Views
200
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
The NRA Is About to Notch Another Legal Victory at the Supreme Court
Replies
13
Views
656
groundscrapers
G
New York's Radical Gun Restrictions Headed To Supreme Court
Replies
1
Views
302
Rob Boudrie
Rob Boudrie
Supreme Court and guns in the news (search 3/4/24)
Replies
0
Views
192
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