Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

safetyfirst2125 said:
Worth a shot especially with mandatory minimum. Bruen affirmed state licensing though. Crappy situation there for your client for sure.
Click to expand...
It didn't come out and say that state licensing was constitutional - they are saying that this opinion doesn't speak to that issue but them go on to reverse that statement in the same footnote.

9To 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.
Click to expand...

The question becomes can a state force you to pay for the exercise of a right or if it requires training and identification must the state provide that training and identification method at no cost.
If a background check can be performed in less than an hour then a 40 day wait is on it's face lengthy. Why can't I go into the police station for a BGC and walk out with a temporary license in an hour. Or have it such that an officer encountering an armed individual for which separate PC is established run a BGC to ascertain prohibited status (how it is done in CC states).
What constitutes "narrow, objective, and definite standards" should progress towards national CC as good cases move through the courts with the the new scrutiny standard
 
pastera said:
It didn't come out and say that state licensing was constitutional - they are saying that this opinion doesn't speak to that issue but them go on to reverse that statement in the same footnote.



The question becomes can a state force you to pay for the exercise of a right or if it requires training and identification must the state provide that training and identification method at no cost.
If a background check can be performed in less than an hour then a 40 day wait is on it's face lengthy. Why can't I go into the police station for a BGC and walk out with a temporary license in an hour. Or have it such that an officer encountering an armed individual for which separate PC is established run a BGC to ascertain prohibited status (how it is done in CC states).
What constitutes "narrow, objective, and definite standards" should progress towards national CC as good cases move through the courts with the the new scrutiny standard
Click to expand...
Good points. To the question of @nstassel clients’ predicament, an argument may be made that if the penalty for being found exercising one’s constitutional right without a license is exorbitant, then the licensing scheme is on its face, unreasonable.

$10,000 and/or min jail time for not having a license for a right clearly guaranteed by the Constitution violates the letter and spirit of the 2nd Amendment. It is a right.
 
safetyfirst2125 said:
Good points. To the question of @nstassel clients’ predicament, an argument may be made that if the penalty for being found exercising one’s constitutional right without a license is exorbitant, then the licensing scheme is on its face, unreasonable.

$10,000 and/or min jail time for not having a license for a right clearly guaranteed by the Constitution violates the letter and spirit of the 2nd Amendment. It is a right.
Click to expand...
There are cases where the law pretends to be one thing but is really about another.

For example, the penalty for having an unregistered NFA weapon is grossly out of proportion for the offense of failing to pay $200 in taxes, and it is defacto treated as a gun crime, not failure to pay a tax.
 
www.syracuse.com

NY’s new law returns fire at Supreme Court: Guns are now banned almost everywhere

Under new law, gun owners would be able to take their weapons to fewer places. See the list of all the places guns will be banned starting Sept. 1.
www.syracuse.com www.syracuse.com

New York’s sweeping new gun law lies somewhere in-between. State lawmakers defend the new restrictions as legal because they don’t single anyone out and provide objective standards for where guns can be taken.

Robert Spitzer, a gun expert and author, said it will be up to the courts to decide whether the state’s gun laws go too far. Typically, it can take a couple of years for the Supreme Court to hear a new case.

But the conservative majority could decide to review the law on an “expedited review” as early as this fall, said Spitzer, a political science professor emeritus at SUNY Cortland.
 
Tall Deval and the Witch of Eastwick are doing two things.
Keeping the flow of cash tips and campaign donation for permits schemes.
Forcing non-profit 2A advocacy groups to spend $millions more fight the states continued unconstitutional behavior. Their goal is to drag it out until Democrats believe they can pack SCOTUS with COMMIES. They know the MASJC will side with them, without any regard to what SCOTUS has done. The fed circuit for the district will ignore SCOTUS.
AG Garland will side with MA devils because that is how he rolls.
 
Bladerunner said:
New York’s sweeping new gun law lies somewhere in-between. State lawmakers defend the new restrictions as legal because they don’t single anyone out and provide objective standards for where guns can be taken.
Click to expand...
This brings to mind the earlier "Safe" act in NY, where they banned sale of 'assault' rifles and you had to register the ones you had. Made current owners felons for refusing to register. So now, you are a felon if you carry in any prohibited location, which is most everywhere. An aside, one prohibited area is 'any place of worship or religious observation'... I have not asked, but I'm pretty sure the church my wife attends (and myself on occasion) has (volunteer) security, which I strongly suspect carry. Are they now breaking the law? This is what the state wants, to have everyone concerned they can be arrested/charged and guns taken from them. NYS sucxxs.

fishgutzy said:
Forcing non-profit 2A advocacy groups to spend $millions more fight the states continued unconstitutional behavior. Their goal is to drag it out until Democrats believe they can pack SCOTUS with COMMIES.
Click to expand...
Yep, same for NYS, using my taxes against me. They have outlawed concealed carry most everywhere and (on the other Supreme Court ruling) made the state an abortion destination stop supported again by my tax dollars. There are many upstate people that are conservative, but acting gov. Hochul just does not GAF, does not even try to compromise a bit.
 
Bladerunner said:

View: https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status/1550159956955086848?t=oPasq7x25N90dncUqvhGbQ&s=19
Click to expand...


This caught my attention from the petition:

"The license to carry is a more expansive form of licensure than the firearm identification card. Holders of a license to carry may possess and carry firearms (i.e., handguns), rifles, or shotguns, either openly or in a concealed manner, in their homes or in public. Mass"

So according to horse face I can carry a shotgun in public? Or sling an AR15? because I have an LTC?? Someone is fibbing here.
 
New York Congressman Jerry Nadler openly admitted at a House Judiciary Committee hearing this week that the point of gun control legislation being pushed by Democrats is to confiscate firearms in “common use”.



When questioned by GOP North Carolina Rep. Dan Bishop if Democrats dispute that the “Assault Weapons Ban of 2021,” proposes to ban guns currently in “common use” nationwide, Nadler, chairman of the committee, replied “That’s the point of the bill.”

“So, to clarify, Mr. Chairman, you’re saying it is the point of the bill to ban weapons that are in common use in the United States today,” Bishop again asked.

“Yes,” Nadler responded, adding “The problem is that they’re in common use.”

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com www.zerohedge.com
 
Bladerunner said:
Right, but only because the dual option exists for residents. That option isn't available to non residents. Anyways, fock them.
Click to expand...
Ri is still easier ( shall issue - at the town level) for non residence ( with a resident permit in home state) provided you kiss the ring, and cross all t's and dot all I's. they are still looking like a May issue for residents, and getting one approved was a long shot before ( i have a few friends that tried, and were basically told don't apply, you won't be approved and you don't want a denial).

this is the boilerplate BS most of the towns pull, intimidate you into not applying for fear of denial following you around ( same MO as The AG's office for non residents)
 

Attachments

  • application_for_wg_concealed_carry_permit.pdf
    4 MB · Views: 10
vicorjh said:
New York Congressman Jerry Nadler openly admitted at a House Judiciary Committee hearing this week that the point of gun control legislation being pushed by Democrats is to confiscate firearms in “common use”.



When questioned by GOP North Carolina Rep. Dan Bishop if Democrats dispute that the “Assault Weapons Ban of 2021,” proposes to ban guns currently in “common use” nationwide, Nadler, chairman of the committee, replied “That’s the point of the bill.”

“So, to clarify, Mr. Chairman, you’re saying it is the point of the bill to ban weapons that are in common use in the United States today,” Bishop again asked.

“Yes,” Nadler responded, adding “The problem is that they’re in common use.”

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com www.zerohedge.com
Click to expand...
Figurative AND literal pants shitter
 
Oregon Initiative 17, voters to vote on 2nd amendment infringements, 'the reduction of gun violence act':

1) firearm owner registries
2) permits required to purchase individual firearms
3) indefinite background check delays
4) >10 round mag ban

None of which will reduce gun violence, of course. And, a legislative assault weapons ban appears in progress.


View: https://youtu.be/aw4DFINo-LM
 
Garys said:
From the pictures of seen of these things, unless someone painted it black it would seem to be hard to mistake this for a firearm.
Click to expand...
It is only a matter of time before miscreants start painting real guns orange, or dipping the front of the slide into orange paint, thus providing police justification to treat a toy as real since it could be a disguised real gun.
 
I seem to remember it happening somewhere and that was the exact reaction.

Rob Boudrie said:
It is only a matter of time before miscreants start painting real guns orange, or dipping the front of the slide into orange paint, thus providing police justification to treat a toy as real since it could be a disguised real gun.
Click to expand...
 

Similar threads

Nevada Supreme Court Upholds Ban on So-Called ‘Ghost Guns’
Replies
4
Views
208
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
The NRA Is About to Notch Another Legal Victory at the Supreme Court
Replies
13
Views
657
groundscrapers
G
New York's Radical Gun Restrictions Headed To Supreme Court
Replies
1
Views
304
Rob Boudrie
Rob Boudrie
Supreme Court and guns in the news (search 3/4/24)
Replies
0
Views
194
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