If a case is moot, it should be dismissed because there’s not left to decide but I don’t like the idea of a state or city waiting until the last minute before changing the law.
-
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.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread
- Thread starter soloman02
- Start date
If a case is moot, it should be dismissed because there’s not left to decide but I don’t like the idea of a state or city waiting until the last minute before changing the law.
They dismiss it. So, now someone else can do that again... wait a few years for SCOTUS to maybe take the case then say "yeah, we will step back" ... in the meantime the people got f*cked, and someone spent a bunch of money l, time and resources to get to court.
That is bullsh*t and the way it should be punished is by default the SCOTUS saying it is unconstitutional. DONE. To stop others from doing the same.
The AWB cases won’t even really be state by state since so few have AWB or mag limits. You’ll have the 1st circuit, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 9th. In the 1st you only have MA, the 2nd CTand NY (Vermont has mag limits), 3rd NJ and now DE, 4th only MD, 9th HI and CA. A few cities like Chicago and boulder CO have some.
Outside the northeast you really only have CA and HI. I think they’ll have a very difficult time in court.
Didn't RI just pass mag limits?
I know there was talk. I didn’t follow it through
bfm
NES Member
I think the 10 rnd limit in Washington state just went live. CO did I think a 15 rnd limit a few years ago with Magpul moving manufacturing out of state because of it.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2010
- Messages
- 2,310
- Likes
- 7,306
Thomas uses the word "objective" in his opening, with the clear implication being that unconstitutional good cause laws are analogous to any other form of non-objective licensing scheme. He didn't come out and say this explicitly, but he should have. His judicial deference, if you want to call it that, has given just enough wiggle room for states' DA's to continue to flaunt the core construct of the decision. It's the main flaw of his opinion, despite it being otherwise excellent.
"The parties nevertheless dispute whether New York’s licensing regime respects the constitutional right to carry handguns publicly for self-defense. In 43 States, the government issues licenses to carry based on objective criteria. But in six States, including New York, the government further conditions issuance of a license to carry on a citizen’s showing of some additional special need."
All this good moral character/suitability idiocy was also addressed by Kavanaugh in his concurring opinion. He in fact, does explicitly remove all possible ambiguity related to objectivity and its role in the licensing schemes with his precise wording. Perhaps he did so knowing that Thomas glossed over this issue. While his concurrence is non-binding as a matter of law, it can be used to inform lower courts on how to apply Bruen to future cases. Let's hope legal arguments make good use of Kavanaugh's foresight.
"Going forward, therefore, the 43 States that employ objective shall-issue licensing regimes for carrying handguns for self-defense may continue to do so. Likewise, the 6 States including New York potentially affected by today’s decision may continue to require licenses for carrying handguns for self-defense so long as those States employ objective licensing requirements like those used by the 43 shall issue States.
"The parties nevertheless dispute whether New York’s licensing regime respects the constitutional right to carry handguns publicly for self-defense. In 43 States, the government issues licenses to carry based on objective criteria. But in six States, including New York, the government further conditions issuance of a license to carry on a citizen’s showing of some additional special need."
All this good moral character/suitability idiocy was also addressed by Kavanaugh in his concurring opinion. He in fact, does explicitly remove all possible ambiguity related to objectivity and its role in the licensing schemes with his precise wording. Perhaps he did so knowing that Thomas glossed over this issue. While his concurrence is non-binding as a matter of law, it can be used to inform lower courts on how to apply Bruen to future cases. Let's hope legal arguments make good use of Kavanaugh's foresight.
"Going forward, therefore, the 43 States that employ objective shall-issue licensing regimes for carrying handguns for self-defense may continue to do so. Likewise, the 6 States including New York potentially affected by today’s decision may continue to require licenses for carrying handguns for self-defense so long as those States employ objective licensing requirements like those used by the 43 shall issue States.
Last edited:
pastera
NES Member
I agree but the rules make so that the court needs an active controversy to act so once mooted, its hands were tied until another case was ripe.
Sucks to be on the "play by the rules" side.
GOAL does not file law suits.
They are a lobbying group that sits down with elected officials to sponsor bills, for good gun laws, or change current gun laws. They encourage bad gun law bills to be voted against.
They also run classes for gun owners, host workshops and events. They raise money to use pens to fight for gun rights in the state house.
COMM2A is a group that does have lawyers that accept plantiffs and go to town with lawsuits.
2 different groups 2 completely different ways of operating. Both do great work.
I'm not sure, but I think they closed that loophole several years ago. The mag limit has been on the books for almost a decade, I believe.
Mesatchornug
NES Member
Let's allow Thomas a moment of 5D chess.
Imagine you've been waiting 30 years to write a decision that amounts to "shall not be infringed." Recall that you only get to write decisions that 4+ other judges are ready to sign onto. Now you have NY making it clear that they'll do everything they can to infringe until they're forced to stop.
We all know there isn't the stomach for a sweeping decision...yet. So why not show a little restraint? "Shall issue licensing seems OK, provided you don't abuse it" sounds like a great opening. Now, NYC and CA are handed a rope - go ahead, run with it. Pay it out in the spaces you know they head to: objective licensing, sensitive places, etc.
Eventually, they'll demonstrate sufficiently that they can't be trusted. They simply can't help themselves. If the courts are forced to step in too often, the only remaining answer is to take away the keys - give it time, and those few states will ruin the game for themselves.
We didn't get here overnight. Recovering everything slowly builds a stronger foundation to protect the right - a single case is easier to overturn than several interlocking ones.
All pending permits must be resubmitted while following the new requirements (New York). For one, the required training course(s) doesn't even exist ... until April 2023 per Bruen. Then, all applicants must meet in person with a judge. Etc, etc, etc ...
View: https://youtu.be/bJCaVkTbBIM
View: https://youtu.be/bJCaVkTbBIM
El_Guapo77
NES Member
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/MAguns/comments/vxqj4g/restrictions_removed/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
Medford finally getting off the schneid?
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2010
- Messages
- 2,310
- Likes
- 7,306
I don't disagree strenuously with your thoughts here, but why couldn't Thomas had used similar language to Kavanaugh? It's not sweeping, just keeping with the thrust of the opinion. It may not have made a difference given the idiots we are dealing with, but rest assured, had those comments been embedded into the majority opinion, there is no way we would be dealing now with suitability STILL being a part of the licensing regime for the states singled out for practicing tyranny. If Kavanaugh was cool with that language, Thomas should have also been cool with it.
Yet, here we are, having to wait until this issue weaves its way back through the system.
One final note is that we have already been patient ever since Heller and McDonald. Why practice judicial restraint if abuses will need to be rectified anyways. Means-end-scrutiny was never used in those cases and should never have been used in ANY of the decisions post those two, but it was, to the harm of The People. Those cases left a crack in the door that was kicked wide open by the anti-2A politicians. That has now been corrected with Bruen. Again, hopefully these unconstitutional practices will be fixed as soon as possible.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,547
- Likes
- 33,603
Royal shitstorm over a big county run range in CO that has seen many large "fly in and spend money or hotels and rental cars" matches pull out of the state.
Think about it this way: there’s a reason Kav’s concurrence was just a concurrence, rather than the actual opinion.
Thomas wanted five other votes, and his opinion was written so that the majority could approve it unanimously. For whatever reason (maybe it’s precisely the thing you’re highlighting), Thomas didn‘t seem to think he’d get his 6-3 majority if he’d included the things Kav included.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2010
- Messages
- 2,310
- Likes
- 7,306
Or he did, but didn't get the votes and revised, leaving Kdog for clean up. It doesn't seem like the sort of thing that would get hung up though, especially when the more devestating, enduring and impactful two step process WAS agreed to.
I mean, who knows? We’re all speculating. The point is that what’s a bug in your eyes might actually be a feature, when you take the whole decision into account.
JuergenG
NES Member
Legal layman and not too familiar with U.S. law, so pls bear with me if my question is naive:
Can the U.S.S.C. hold these States in contempt of court and lock up the Governors until remedy?
DoJ could prosecute a USC 1983 violation or Congress could order enforcement legislatively.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2021
- Messages
- 142
- Likes
- 256
Great news ! Looks like Jason Guida is working with COMM2a and they got back to me just got off the phone with me he said he talked to the chief in Medford and he said they aren't denying anyone to remove restrictions i immediately told him that's a lie but he told me he should get me a response on my restrictions being removed in the next 24 -48 hours as he is in close contact with the chief and he said it should be as easy as a phone call with medford for them to remove my restrictions ! MY FAITH HAS RENEWED !
MEDFORD AND BROOKLINE IS GOING DOWN !
MEDFORD AND BROOKLINE IS GOING DOWN !
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,547
- Likes
- 33,603
Background work is not always publicly discussed, however, that does not mean Comm2a is not all over this like a cheap suit. Jason Guida is an excellent attorney and probably the #1 in the state when it comes to "process issues" regarding firearms licensing.
ps: It's "Are going down", not "Is"
JuergenG
NES Member
In other words 'a snowball's chance in hell' under current circumstances
DeadEyeDan
NES Member
I hope Boston does too…
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,547
- Likes
- 33,603
Already has.
pastera
NES Member
And your gift to Com2A is being processed as you post, right?
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2021
- Messages
- 142
- Likes
- 256
Apologies English is not my first language thanks for the Help ! and Guida told me he is all over it and i will get a call back from him and Medford shortly
