Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

[MaroonedinMA]

This could go either way; I see some level of opportunity here intertwined with risk.

 

[dcmdon]

Okay big brains, give it to me straight. Does a favorable ruling have any chance at forcing MA's hand with regard to restrictions?

Me waiting to renew my restricted LTC:

I'm not one of the truly big brains here. But I think it does.

 

[DarthRevan]

I have a feeling they will middle the f*** out of this and not eliminate the permit requirements, but tell restrictive States to back off, if only slightly.

 

[web_dev]

To those who know SCOTUS processes better than I do. Is there any way that they can punt at this point?

I don't think they can. This means a decision is coming.

Unless, of course, NY changes its law, like it did last year. Which would moot the case. But maybe not since this case would apply to many other states. Either way, its exciting, but I am not getting my hopes up.

Re the question of whether its right to have a big federal government forcing things that we support on the states. I remember reading in a paper by possibly Judge Napolitano about how one of the appropriate uses of federal supremacy was to force states into complying with the natural rights acknowledged in the Constitution. It seems reasonable to me.

This came into play 4 years ago also, when there was talk of a national carry reciprocity law.

I don’t think NY will switch their licensing scheme to “shall-issue” just to moot the case. That’s what they would have to do anyway if they lose the case.

The way that SCOTUS worded the question assumes that some form of permitting is legitimate, and the question is whether or not the state has discretion over granting/denying a CCW permit.

 

[dcmdon]

Its not really a CCW permit. Its a carry permit. Conclment isn't up for discussion here.

 

[web_dev]

Its not really a CCW permit. Its a carry permit. Conclment isn't up for discussion here.

According to the original cert petition, NY bans open carry entirely, so the only kind of carry permit that applies there is concealed.

Idk how that would apply to other states, but MA doesn’t have any licensing distinction between open and concealed either.

I’m taking that from here page 15/40: https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...020-12-17 NRA-Corlett Cert Petition FINAL.pdf

 

[assaultknifle]

My prediction will be that they rule on this in a super "skinny" way to allow the States to continue to infringe on 2A under the guise of public safety.

 

[TargetShooter21]

Any chance this case could be a vehicle for SCOTUS to decide the level of scrutiny lower courts should be applying to 2a cases?

 

[murf4321]

CNN front page already on meltdown... democrats' brains about to explode.

 

[bigbravehog]

State law cannot contravene the Constitution. Heller already paves the way for this decision.

This will be a no brainer as the historical roots of 2A were built upon self defense outside of the home. Heller did not require some arbitrary test of need and neither will this case.

I'm buying some gunz today in anticipation of the moonbat meltdown party when the entire concept of "May Issue" is eviscerated and finally destroyed.

call me paranoid, but I have no trust or faith in SCOTUS

 

[bigbravehog]

CNN front page already on meltdown... democrats' brains about to explode.

and they are linking recent mass shootings to this case. Liberal ignorance on full display

 

[bullseye]

This is really a huge Amy and the Fratboy test!

 

[1903Collector]

So when do the threats from congress towards SCOTUS start?

 

[paul73]

So when do the threats from congress towards SCOTUS start?

A decision is expected by the summer of 2022. Plenty of time to pack the court by then.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

State law cannot contravene the Constitution. Heller already paves the way for this decision.

This will be a no brainer as the historical roots of 2A were built upon self defense outside of the home. Heller did not require some arbitrary test of need and neither will this case.

I'm buying some gunz today in anticipation of the moonbat meltdown party when the entire concept of "May Issue" is eviscerated and finally destroyed.

You are overlooking the influence of "results orientation" in decision making, in which the court looks at the societal implications and decides what it thinks is best, not what the law requires.

 

[John42056]

Call me an optimist, but given that they granted this case, after having punted on a bunch of others, I feel semi-good about it. There are at least 4 justices that wanted to hear it, and given that there are only 3 that lean left (way left), I would think it was the right leaning justices that voted to take it. To me, that bodes well for the case, but I've been wrong before...a lot.

 

[SFC13557]

So when do the threats from congress towards SCOTUS start?

Now, Sheldon Whitehouse is already thinking up ways to intimidate the court, it worked before on Roberts.

 

[Bladerunner]

If you read the text of Heller and McDonald, there is no other way to rule in this case, but for Corlett.

Even Ginsburg knew what "bear arms" meant.

At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Com plete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose— confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “surely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicates: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion)

 

[Beretta92FS]

This should be a slam dunk case. Why wound the 2nd amendment be the only amendment that's not valid outside ones home? It would make no sense.

Then again, the dildos we have sitting on the Supreme Court are not to be trusted.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Now, Sheldon Whitehouse is already thinking up ways to intimidate the court, it worked before on Roberts.

Ok, so who else used to carry Sheldon Whitehouses original autograph in their wallet and now appreciates the irony.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

Carry outside the home would be decided at the State Level.

Yet here we are at SCOTUS because politicians and courts of one state have essentially nullified one part of the constitution thereby depriving many people of the right to armed self defense. If someone is being deprived of their civil rights the courts have every reason to step in and decide.

 

[paul73]

Yet here we are at SCOTUS because politicians and courts of one state have essentially nullified one part of the constitution thereby depriving many people of the right to armed self defense. If someone is being deprived of their civil rights the courts have every reason to step in and decide.

yep, time for scotus to finally declare that only those with pet bears will be allowed any guns, but bears will not be allowed by states as pets under no circumstances.

 

[Waher]

I have a feeling they will middle the f*** out of this and not eliminate the permit requirements, but tell restrictive States to back off, if only slightly.

They could pull a Caetano and send it back to a lower court which then decides to sit and do nothing to preserve the status quo.

 

[KAG Arms]

Yet here we are at SCOTUS because politicians and courts of one state have essentially nullified one part of the constitution thereby depriving many people of the right to armed self defense. If someone is being deprived of their civil rights the courts have every reason to step in and decide.

"Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it."

 

[Hoover]

Okay big brains, give it to me straight. Does a favorable ruling have any chance at forcing MA's hand with regard to restrictions?

Me waiting to renew my restricted LTC:

yes but it will depend on how the decide it. Will they decide a broad question on carry outside the home on some narrow question. My guess is the decision will be similar to heller and McDonald and cement the right to bear outside the home.

it takes at least 4 justices to gree to hear a case, I feel very good about where this is going

 

[Hoover]

To those who know SCOTUS processes better than I do. Is there any way that they can punt at this point?

I don't think they can. This means a decision is coming.

Unless, of course, NY changes its law, like it did last year. Which would moot the case. But maybe not since this case would apply to many other states. Either way, its exciting, but I am not getting my hopes up.

Re the question of whether its right to have a big federal government forcing things that we support on the states. I remember reading in a paper by possibly Judge Napolitano about how one of the appropriate uses of federal supremacy was to force states into complying with the natural rights acknowledged in the Constitution. It seems reasonable to me.

This came into play 4 years ago also, when there was talk of a national carry reciprocity law.

they can always kick the case bck to the lower court with instructions or some guidance. I doubt that will be the case here, they’ll decide the right to bear arms in public unless NY moots it which they absolutely won’t do. The case last year was a minor issue they could moot, they will never want to give up their power to keep people disarmed unles SCOTUS makes them

 

[TargetShooter21]

I guess the worst outcome would be NY style carry restrictions are upheld as constitutional paving the way for federal legislation to restrict the right to carry?

 

[Toast]

Oh wow, the SCOTUS decided to get off their lazy asses and actually do some work?

Probably not.

To those who know SCOTUS processes better than I do. Is there any way that they can punt at this point?

Yes. See below.

My prediction will be that they rule on this in a super "skinny" way to allow the States to continue to infringe on 2A under the guise of public safety.

Two plaintiffs were denied NY carry licenses because the licensing officer said that they had “failed to show ‘proper cause’ to carry a firearm in public for the purpose of self-defense, because [they] did not demonstrate a special need for self-defense that distinguished them from the general public.” The group bringing the case framed the question to the SC this way:

"Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense."​

However, the SC decided to answer this question:

"Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment."​

Note the game here. They've moved it from "Does the 2A allow an ordinary citizen to carry outside the home?" to "Is the state's application denial for concealed carry a 2A issue?".

They took a wide ranging question and crammed it WAY down. Look for more weaseling to come.

 

[bullseye]

Probably not.


Yes. See below.


The group bringing the case framed the question to the SC this way:

"Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense."​

However, the SC decided to answer this question:

"Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment."​

Note the game here. They've moved it from "Does the 2A allow you to carry outside the home?" to "Is the state's application denial for concealed carry a 2A issue?".

They took a wide ranging question and crammed it WAY down. Look for more weaseling to come.

By the time the SC makes a decision, it will be of a matter of whether toilet paper unrolls from the top or bottom!!!

 

[Broc]

Okay big brains, give it to me straight. Does a favorable ruling have any chance at forcing MA's hand with regard to restrictions?

Me waiting to renew my restricted LTC:

Don't worry, they will say:

fine, we are shall issue... after you present 300 different documents proving who you are, 15 doctor notices saying you are not crazy, 72 reference letters (with one at least from each State), ask your previous 3 ex girlfriends/wives to say you are a good person and take a minimum of 150 hrs of handgun and rifle training.