Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

Coyote33 said:
Mentioned this (with pics) a few times here. Still on the state form at FRB.
Click to expand...

Yes, but note exactly what it states on the form:

List the name and addresses of two references (as required by your licensing authority)

1. Last Name First Name Address City/Town State Zip
2. Last Name First Name Address City/Town State Zip
 
Bladerunner said:
Yes, but note exactly what it states on the form:

List the name and addresses of two references (as required by your licensing authority)

1. Last Name First Name Address City/Town State Zip
2. Last Name First Name Address City/Town State Zip
Click to expand...
So what objective standard is being met with references? Unless the licensing officer will be asking your references to confirm things like your eye and hair colors, any reference statement about your moral character would be subjective by its very nature.
 
NewGuyRay said:
So what objective standard is being met with references? Unless the licensing officer will be asking your references to confirm things like your eye and hair colors, any reference statement about your moral character would be subjective by its very nature.
Click to expand...
None. It all falls under "suitability and good moral character" requirements, which by definition are opinion-based judgements.
 
NewGuyRay said:
So what objective standard is being met with references? Unless the licensing officer will be asking your references to confirm things like your eye and hair colors, any reference statement about your moral character would be subjective by its very nature.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

If they've ever read the letters at all (which, in the case of most towns, I doubt they've even so much as unfolded them), that is. I've always suspected they throw them away. They know there's no point in reading them: they're letters by people selected BY THE APPLICANT to vouch for them. Nobody's going to submit a letter with a bad recommendation in it. So, they've never mattered. They're just there as a barrier to applying.

I'm sure they still function the same way, and the state allows it. If they ever uncovered anything in a letter of rec that gives them cause to deny an LTC post-Bruen, they'll need to find/invent a statutory disqualifier to go along with it. They no longer have the discretion to use the letters for anything in terms of adjudicating the applicant.

I doubt it's ever mattered what you write in those. You could probably write it in Dutch and it won't matter.
 
From the Globe today, a quote from the licensing officer in Brookline:

And in Brookline, Sergeant Chris Malinn said he’s received 10 requests to have restrictions removed but said more are likely. He estimated that of the 700 to 800 active licenses in the town, “half or more” have restrictions.
That said, existing limits on licenses to carry have become unenforceable, he said, citing the state guidance.
“In other words, if somebody got a license that has target and hunting restrictions, but they’re somewhere other than that [carrying a concealed gun] — if they’re out to dinner — that’s no longer a violation of the terms of their license,” Malinn said. “It’s de facto unrestricted, even if it doesn’t say it.”

So. That answers that. Go ahead and carry, no matter what your license says.
 
Picton said:
From the Globe today, a quote from the licensing officer in Brookline:

And in Brookline, Sergeant Chris Malinn said he’s received 10 requests to have restrictions removed but said more are likely. He estimated that of the 700 to 800 active licenses in the town, “half or more” have restrictions.
That said, existing limits on licenses to carry have become unenforceable, he said, citing the state guidance.
“In other words, if somebody got a license that has target and hunting restrictions, but they’re somewhere other than that [carrying a concealed gun] — if they’re out to dinner — that’s no longer a violation of the terms of their license,” Malinn said. “It’s de facto unrestricted, even if it doesn’t say it.”

So. That answers that. Go ahead and carry, no matter what your license says.
Click to expand...
That's just the opinion of one licensing officer. It wouldn't surprise me if some other licensing officers have different opinions.
 
nstassel said:
I am certain that it doesn't make a convincing argument to say that the ltc law is invalid therefore the crime of carrying without a license is not valid. I think some lawyers are going to try that and lose. But judges don't like sending someone to jail for a year and a half with no record and might bite.
Click to expand...
Worth a shot especially with mandatory minimum. Bruen affirmed state licensing though. Crappy situation there for your client for sure.
 
DungeBerry63 said:
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 !
Click to expand...
Great example of why talking to a lawyer is never a bad idea.

Even though everyone seems to hate it when people here say "call a lawyer".
 
Bladerunner said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think if this runs back up the food chain - either CA or NY - it's gonna get ugly for all these requirements. Ugly for the states, that is. It seems that Thomas likes to look at historical context. NY and CA and MA and others might like some complicated process. Is that the norm in states that clearly recognize 2A? What about pre-Bruen laws in those same states. I think from that alone they'll get struck down. "You can't just make a pile of hurdles on a right. That's a poll tax and it's wrong." Again, I also think the states are playing with fire - Thomas and hte Pussycats could come back and Con-Carry the whole thing realizing the states would not be able to control themselves.

Picton said:
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.
Click to expand...

C'mon. Boston is the most racially loving city in the US. Just ask LeBron James. LOL. (And wasn't the whole busing situation 1972 or 73? Now you're talking nearly 20 years!)
 
Coyote33 said:
It says "shall not be distributed to any federal, state, or private entities".

This is all well and good, until they have "a leak", and it is all out. The only way to prevent anyone seeing this information, is to not HAVE this information in the first place!
Click to expand...
One hundred bleeping percent right.
 
What the hell are they trying to say here?

Today’s guidance makes clear that Rhode Island’s dual concealed-carry permitting framework is constitutional, and the avenues by which Rhode Islanders may obtain a permit to carry a firearm are unimpacted by the Bruen decision. Rhode Island law provides that municipal licensing authorities “shall issue” permits to qualified, suitable applicants who meet certain legal requirements, without a showing of need. Bruen’s requirement is therefore met by this existing provision of Rhode Island law: every Rhode Islander has access to a permit to carry without having to show need (subject of course to other requirements, such as passing a background check, etc.). That Rhode Island law also provides that the Attorney General may issue permits, in the Attorney General’s discretion, “upon a proper showing need” does not change this outcome."
 
Bladerunner said:
What the hell are they trying to say here?

Today’s guidance makes clear that Rhode Island’s dual concealed-carry permitting framework is constitutional, and the avenues by which Rhode Islanders may obtain a permit to carry a firearm are unimpacted by the Bruen decision. Rhode Island law provides that municipal licensing authorities “shall issue” permits to qualified, suitable applicants who meet certain legal requirements, without a showing of need. Bruen’s requirement is therefore met by this existing provision of Rhode Island law: every Rhode Islander has access to a permit to carry without having to show need (subject of course to other requirements, such as passing a background check, etc.). That Rhode Island law also provides that the Attorney General may issue permits, in the Attorney General’s discretion, “upon a proper showing need” does not change this outcome."
Click to expand...
Trying to say that because local control is Shall Issue that their interpretation is that the AG's office can be May Issue because a resident has the option of applying at the Shall Issue local level.

I kind of see that a punt to get the AG's office out of the business of issuing permits if the legislature obliges.
 
Waher said:
Trying to say that because local control is Shall Issue that their interpretation is that the AG's office can be May Issue because a resident has the option of applying at the Shall Issue local level.

I kind of see that a punt to get the AG's office out of the business of issuing permits if the legislature obliges.
Click to expand...
Then why not say the AG is no longer doing may issue.
 
Bladerunner said:
Then why not say the AG is no longer doing may issue.
Click to expand...

I think the law itself lays out that process. I don't think their AG's office can get out of the license-issuing business even if they want to, unless the legislature repeals or changes the law to indicate "shall issue."

Just a WAG. I don't know enough about the RI permitting system to know what effect this has.
 

Similar threads

Nevada Supreme Court Upholds Ban on So-Called ‘Ghost Guns’
Replies
4
Views
220
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
The NRA Is About to Notch Another Legal Victory at the Supreme Court
Replies
13
Views
696
groundscrapers
G
New York's Radical Gun Restrictions Headed To Supreme Court
Replies
1
Views
311
Rob Boudrie
Rob Boudrie
Supreme Court and guns in the news (search 3/4/24)
Replies
0
Views
201
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