Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

[Picton]

The most important footnote in the Bruen decision, footnote 9,spells out the constitutionality of objective licensing requirements. Subjectivity is NOT allowed. Letters of reference are used to determine suitability and good moral character, therefore they are unconstitutional be definition:

9
To be clear, nothing in our analysis should be interpreted to suggest the unconstitutionality of the 43 States’ “shall-issue” licensing regimes, under which “a general desire for self-defense is sufficient to obtain a [permit].” Drake v. Filko, 724 F. 3d 426, 442 (CA3 2013) (Hardiman, J., dissenting). Because these licensing regimes do not require applicants to show an atypical need for armed self-defense, they do not necessarily prevent “law-abiding, responsible citizens” from exercising their Second Amendment right to public carry. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 635 (2008). Rather, it appears that these shall-issue regimes, which often require applicants to undergo a background check or pass a firearms safety course, are designed to ensure only that those bearing arms in the jurisdiction are, in fact, “law-abiding, responsible citizens.” Ibid. And they likewise appear to contain only “narrow, objective, and definite standards” guiding licensing officials, Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U. S. 147, 151 (1969), rather than requiring the “appraisal of facts, the exercise of judgment, and the formation of an opinion,” Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 305 (1940)—features that typify proper-cause standards like New York’s. That said, because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.

The text above is ironclad. Only narrow and objective and definite standards may be applied, PERIOD.

So no letters of recommendation, no suitability hurdles, and no good moral character assessments are allowed.

This is the law of the land!

The letters are not unconstitutional. USING the letters is unconstitutional.

I'm not saying I disagree with you. But the enemy of civil rights, under Bruen, is subjective discretion. There can be none, going forward. You and I understand that there's no point in even asking for letters unless the town plans to be subjective, but when Bruen defended the right of the states to have any gun licenses at all, it defended MA's right to define the process by which those licenses would operate. And if MA says letters are okay, letters are okay AS LONG AS they are not used in a subjective determination to deny an LTC. And if they are?

That's what lawsuits are for.

I agree the letters are stupid. I agree they open the door to abuses. I don't agree that Bruen precludes them. And if it does, that would need to be tested in court.

 

[Jay77]

Here is another question I have not see come up. A person under 21 can only get a FID…. What happens when said person turns 21…. Are restrictions removed and the LTC is issued or does the person have to resubmit and pay the fees again.

 

[Bladerunner]

The letters are not unconstitutional. USING the letters is unconstitutional.

I'm not saying I disagree with you. But the enemy of civil rights, under Bruen, is subjective discretion. There can be none, going forward. You and I understand that there's no point in even asking for letters unless the town plans to be subjective, but when Bruen defended the right of the states to have any gun licenses at all, it defended MA's right to define the process by which those licenses would operate. And if MA says letters are okay, letters are okay AS LONG AS they are not used in a subjective determination to deny an LTC. And if they are?

That's what lawsuits are for.

I agree the letters are stupid. I agree they open the door to abuses. I don't agree that Bruen precludes them. And if it does, that would need to be tested in court.

I understand the distinction, but again, if that logic were to stand, then all manner of requirements could be introduced into the process. The list would be endless. Anything that could be used to form an opinion of the applicant is fair game as long as it is not actually used to deny the applicant? If it can't be used for denial, then it serves no purpose, other than to burden the applicant.

If Bruen prohibits non-objective critetia in the licensing scheme, which it does, then any and all forms of information required to meet that end is by extension prohibited, regardless if it can be required of all applicants in an "objective" manner.

It's like the AG saying all applicants must submit the same information, therefore, it is an objective request and allowed under Bruen. That is absurd. The use of that information cannot be severed and excluded from the explicit non-discretionary test for criteria clearly articulated in the opinion.

Such nonsense will never survive legal scrutiny and nobody applying for an LTC should submit anything other than the application form and payment, period.

Why should I have to involve ANYBODY else in MY application?

They want DOB, ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER, SIGNATURE, etc. of your reference.

Not doing it and others should not either.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

The letters are not unconstitutional. USING the letters is unconstitutional.

I'm not saying I disagree with you. But the enemy of civil rights, under Bruen, is subjective discretion. There can be none, going forward. You and I understand that there's no point in even asking for letters unless the town plans to be subjective, but when Bruen defended the right of the states to have any gun licenses at all, it defended MA's right to define the process by which those licenses would operate. And if MA says letters are okay, letters are okay AS LONG AS they are not used in a subjective determination to deny an LTC. And if they are?

That's what lawsuits are for.

I agree the letters are stupid. I agree they open the door to abuses. I don't agree that Bruen precludes them. And if it does, that would need to be tested in court.

The letter would be... I am a law abiding citizen. That's it. To me it would worth it to sue the PD, with the correct attorney. Jason or Keith

references need to go away. It's complete BS

 

[Picton]

I understand the distinction, but again, if that logic were to stand, then all manner of requirements could be introduced into the process. The list would be endless. Anything that could be used to form an opinion of the applicant is fair game as long as it is not actually used to deny the applicant? If it can't be used for denial, then it serves no purpose, other than to burden the applicant.

If Bruen prohibits non-objective critetia in the licensing scheme, which it does, then any and all forms of information required to meet that end is by extension prohibited, regardless if it can be required of all applicants in an "objective" manner.

It's like the AG saying all applicants must submit the same information, therefore, it is an objective request and allowed under Bruen. That is absurd. The use of that information cannot be severed and excluded from the explicit non-discretionary test for criteria clearly articulated in the opinion.

Such nonsense will never survive legal scrutiny and nobody applying for an LTC should submit anything other than the application form and payment, period.

Why should I have to involve ANYBODY else in MY application?

They want DOB, ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER, SIGNATURE, etc. of your reference.

Not doing it and others should not either.

Yep.

And this is why the NAACP was still suing to get Boston's schools desegregated in 1965, ELEVEN YEARS after Brown v Board.

Recalcitrant states will seek any means of getting around a SCOTUS ruling they don't like. And those means will stand until they're tested in court. Honestly, I'm surprised MA cities and towns (to say nothing of the AG) have moved this quickly to remove restrictions. They won't change the whole system overnight.

 

[Bladerunner]

There is a privacy angle to all this too, which is not even related to Bruen. Now is the time to stop folding to these demands.

 

[Bladerunner]

As a further point, none of the Shall Issue states mentioned in Bruen require such letters as far as I can see.

 

[Picton]

As a further point, none of the Shall Issue states mentioned in Bruen require such letters as far as I can see.

Neither does MA. It's a town-by-town thing.

Again, I don't disagree with you, and it won't end (if at all) until it's challenged. Sooner the better.

 

[chidiver]

Neither does MA. It's a town-by-town thing.

Again, I don't disagree with you, and it won't end (if at all) until it's challenged. Sooner the better.

Not letters, but the state application still requires listing references. Had to fill it out when I just renewed and the officer had to update the system because I had different folks listed than last time. No letters on renewal in my town, thankfully. Now just wondering how long the new card will take with everyone getting theirs reissued without restrictions.

 

[Mesatchornug]

Not letters, but the state application still requires listing references. Had to fill it out when I just renewed and the officer had to update the system because I had different folks listed than last time. No letters on renewal in my town, thankfully. Now just wondering how long the new card will take with everyone getting theirs reissued without restrictions.

That's funny. On my last renewal they didn't care about references at all...

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Here is another question I have not see come up. A person under 21 can only get a FID…. What happens when said person turns 21…. Are restrictions removed and the LTC is issued or does the person have to resubmit and pay the fees again.

Apply for LTC, but no need to provide any proof of a MA certified course.

 

[Mesatchornug]

Apply for LTC, but no need to provide any proof of a MA certified course.

* provided they used a course that's sufficient for the LTC on their FID application.

 

[vicorjh]

Amber alert but for shootings.

Debate on an Active shooter alert system revived. Would send alerts to all regional cell phones.


View: https://youtu.be/GzXAHNe9tBg?t=40

 

[Bladerunner]

Just sent the Firearms Policy Coalition some cash:

Re-ink the FPC Lawsuit Printer - Win a Geissele Super Duty!

Re-ink the FPC Lawsuit Printer - Win a Geissele Super Duty!

secure.anedot.com

Firearms Policy Coalition
A * Firearms Policy
$100.00

 

[M1911]

Here is another question I have not see come up. A person under 21 can only get a FID…. What happens when said person turns 21…. Are restrictions removed and the LTC is issued or does the person have to resubmit and pay the fees again.

An FID is not an LTC. They are two different things. An FID is not an LTC with restrictions. So when a person turns 21, they need to apply for an LTC. That is not a resubmittal, since they never submitted an application for an LTC in the first place. I don’t see this as being in opposition to Bruen.

 

[P51MA]

I don't think the AG's enforcement notice told CoPs they had to stop requesting letters of reference?

However, if those letters were to be used to support a license denial, and there was any degree of discretion used by a public employee, the letters would be useless in court. The statute is pretty clear on what disqualifies applicants, and as long as the applicants meet those statutory standards, the letters don't really matter.

They're annoying. But I doubt they're illegal.

Letters of reference are definitely illegal under Bruen, but they will not go away until someone challenges it.

For the right candidate, letters of reference are clearly a way to deny 2a rights. Bruen makes pretty clear that any licensing scheme designed to effectively circumvent shall-issue is not allowed even if it is nominally shall-issue.

Scenario: jurisdiction requires 5 non-family letters of reference you have known for at least 10 years.

Squeaky clean applicant is 21, and hasn’t known anyone at all outside their family for that long, or just keeps a small social circle of a couple friends, or maybe all of their friends they might ask to write a letter are all anti-gun and can’t reasonably be asked to write a letter (social pressure).

Plenty of first-generation gun owners might not know a single person they’d be willing to ask to write a ref letter just because MA is so blue.

Heck, what if someone just literally has no friends outside their family? Do they not have 2a rights? There’s no way that holds up without interest balancing / intermediate scrutiny.

But this is implicit in Bruen, not explicit.

 

[P51MA]

Amber alert but for shootings.

Debate on an Active shooter alert system revived. Would send alerts to all regional cell phones.


View: https://youtu.be/GzXAHNe9tBg?t=40

They would just send these out left and right every time a firework goes off.

 

[pastera]

The letters are not unconstitutional. USING the letters is unconstitutional.

I'm not saying I disagree with you. But the enemy of civil rights, under Bruen, is subjective discretion. There can be none, going forward. You and I understand that there's no point in even asking for letters unless the town plans to be subjective, but when Bruen defended the right of the states to have any gun licenses at all, it defended MA's right to define the process by which those licenses would operate. And if MA says letters are okay, letters are okay AS LONG AS they are not used in a subjective determination to deny an LTC. And if they are?

That's what lawsuits are for.

I agree the letters are stupid. I agree they open the door to abuses. I don't agree that Bruen precludes them. And if it does, that would need to be tested in court.

Exactly
As I quipped in an earlier post if an idiot wrote "I want an LTC so I can take care of my cheating whore of a wife" that would be objective evidence that one would not be eligible for a permit.

In addition there is this tidbit from the footnote:

That said, because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.

So they made it clear that some of the games NYC was likely to would give rise to a new challenge and further smack down of the tyrannical states.

 

[Coyote33]

Is there a link to the "declaration" that there are no more restrictions? I would like to share this, but want to send something "official".

Thank you.

 

[Coyote33]

With adjustments:
================================================

Does anybody have a GOOD example of a police website, post Bruen?

I'm thinking things can be simplified greatly. Won't this reduce the "burden" and time consumed, which is a concern of theirs?

================================================

I would guess it would be pretty simple:

For new applications:
1. Print and fill out form from FRB.
2. Take class.
3. Take live fire test, when applicable.
4. Bring in form, class paperwork, and $100, possibly letters of reference/recommendation, depending on town.
5. Make and go to appointment for fingerprinting purposes.
6. Wait for license (statutory 40 days).


For renewals:
1. Print and fill out form from FRB.
2. Bring in or mail in form and $100.
3. Wait for license (statutory 40 days).


Would those be the most simple of steps? Missing anything?

 

[Dadstoys]

It was the MDC police. They were special.

That's an understatement.

 

[Dadstoys]

As you may know, the MDC cops were merged into the State Police. A friend of mine was an ICE detention and deportation agent. He told me about a time when they were transporting prisoners on the PIke when one of the prisoners became ill. They were on the side of the highway with the local FD treating the prisoner and were coordinating which hospital they were going to take the prisoner too. A fat Statie got in his face insisting that they take the prisoner to the nearest federal prison instead. Now this was a federal prisoner being transported by federal agents, so the Statie had no standing, but nevertheless he got irate and started making threats.

Eventually the ICE agent got angry and yelled at the Statie: “you flipping MDC cop, go do your job and direct traffic.” The issue was settled when the FD lieutenant said “he’s my patient and we’re transporting him to the hospital“. By that time there were a couple young Staties who had also arrived and were watching the “my badge is better than your badge” show. After the older Statie stomped off, one of the younger troopers asked the ICE agent: “so how did you know he’d been an MDC cop?”

There was one i had a run in with one that was literally so fat he could not fit behind the wheel of a passenger car.
They had to assign a driver for him.
The Staties were ever so thrilled when the MDC dumpster rolled up to their door and unloaded .

 

[Roadglide]

As you may know, the MDC cops were merged into the State Police.

Metro

 

[vicorjh]

AWB mark-up:


View: https://youtu.be/MA3Jbvg0JEs


Baseline text:

 

[SteelShooter]

AWB mark-up:


View: https://youtu.be/MA3Jbvg0JEs


Baseline text:
View attachment 638513

a**h***s can suck my threaded barrel.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

asked the ICE agent: “so how did you know he’d been an MDC cop?”

4 digit car numbers were the tell.

 

[MaverickNH]

Exactly
As I quipped in an earlier post if an idiot wrote "I want an LTC so I can take care of my cheating whore of a wife" that would be objective evidence that one would not be eligible for a permit.

In addition there is this tidbit from the footnote:


So they made it clear that some of the games NYC was likely to would give rise to a new challenge and further smack down of the tyrannical states.

“…we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example,…” appears to put on notice that lengthy waits, excessive fees, and other onerous requirements may be successfully challenged by costly and lengthy litigation. NY & CA have said they are willing to spend years and taxpayers dollars to face such smackdowns.

It seems to be just one step below Qualified Immunity - any specific licensing requirement and exercise limitation might be reversed on successful challenge. So, maybe 9 mo to approve a permit when 90 days is stipulated by sate law is too long, but 6 mo is OK because COVID (which will go on for ever). NY/CA can game this for decades…

 

[Coyote33]

It seems to be just one step below Qualified Immunity - any specific licensing requirement and exercise limitation might be reversed on successful challenge. So, maybe 9 mo to approve a permit when 90 days is stipulated by sate law is too long, but 6 mo is OK because COVID (which will go on for ever). NY/CA can game this for decades…

I thought it was 40 days. No?

 

[SFC13557]

It was the MDC police. They were special.

Remember Registry Cops? I remember going to the Brockton Registry with 2 co-workers for my MC license test in the late 70's. While I was going figure 8's in the parking lot my boss was talking to the Cop giving the test. I return and Cop signs my license and my boss's who never even got on his bike. Test was supposed to be figure 8's in parking lot and then Cop follows you on road to prove you can start, shift bike and stop without falling over or crashing. After we left he told me he and licensing Cop were shooting the shit and Cop told him he was looking for windows for his house and my boss told him he would hook him up with his brother-in-law who installed windows. We were good to go!

 

[Bladerunner]

Congressional Candidate Carl Paladino Files Lawsuit Against New York Gov. Kathy Hochul to Stop Illegal Gun Control - Big League Politics

“Apparently, New York Democrats didn’t read the part of Justice Thomas’s opinion where he said: ‘The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.’ This new law attempts to treat Second Amendment rights in a way that would be unthinkable in the context of First Amendment rights of speech or worship,” Paladino said in a press release about his lawsuit.

“New York State cannot force law-abiding citizens to get permission to carry their concealed handgun each time they enter a different property any more than it could force citizens to ask property owners for permission before they express a political opinion or pray in public. I am confident that I will win my lawsuit, and I am prepared to take this all the way to the Supreme Court to do so. Just as I defeated Albany Democrats in 2010 with the tolls, I plan on winning here as well,” he added.