Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

Am assuming this goes back to Judge Benitez. Hope he fast tracks it, briefs due on 8/3, hearing on 8/4, ruling issued on 8/5. This time there is no reason for him to put any stay on the ruling, since his original ruling closely followed Bruen. F' the 9th Circuit. Of course they will quickly grab the case since CA for sure will appeal.
 
Back to District Court. Stall and stall some more, that is all these 9th Circuit judges do.


View: https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status/1554260700096241664?t=vJ3jh-frWmRPOX88rWFW9Q&s=19


Of course, delay, delay, delay. But the original decision from Benitez used the balanced approach as well as the history and tradition approach. So basically it's just stripping out the balanced approach text and re-issue the decision. I just wonder if the left wants the window of time to pour over laws and history books from 200 years ago to find one regulation issued by some place, somewhere, to justify their actions. As far as I know historians have already looked into this and found nothing, but who knows.
 
Am assuming this goes back to Judge Benitez. Hope he fast tracks it, briefs due on 8/3, hearing on 8/4, ruling issued on 8/5. This time there is no reason for him to put any stay on the ruling, since his original ruling closely followed Bruen. F' the 9th Circuit. Of course they will quickly grab the case since CA for sure will appeal.
It's one big circle jerk. They get to have a redo, but if you read the opposition to the motion filed by FPC, it pretty much says there is zero chance text and tradition will support the States' position, which we already know. This entire show is like what happens when tyrannical dictators are beheaded, but the axe bearer doesn't get a clean chop, leaving some bone and flesh still attached. He needs a second final blow to fully finish the job. The reckoning on this decision is coming, hopefully sooner rather than later.
 
So, since restriction removal is automatic from the state, and not him; and the background check is already done, do you have your new license in hand yet? If not, tomorrow?
He had the check done in ten minutes (needed a new license as my old one had expired) and ordered the new card. So I should have it imminently.

Seems Salem's tact is going to be to run a re-check just to ensure nothing has come up since you last applied, and re-issue providing the check comes back clear.
 
Am assuming this goes back to Judge Benitez. Hope he fast tracks it, briefs due on 8/3, hearing on 8/4, ruling issued on 8/5. This time there is no reason for him to put any stay on the ruling, since his original ruling closely followed Bruen. F' the 9th Circuit. Of course they will quickly grab the case since CA for sure will appeal.

Yes, but if CA once again appealed, and it once again went to the 9th Circuit but this time they concurred "no AWB for you CA," does that effect the whole Federal Circuit? In other words ARs for everyone in HI.
So would CA appeal to the circuit?

I ask because I honestly don't know.

🐯
 
He had the check done in ten minutes (needed a new license as my old one had expired) and ordered the new card. So I should have it imminently.

Seems Salem's tact is going to be to run a re-check just to ensure nothing has come up since you last applied, and re-issue providing the check comes back clear.
The FRB already reissued all the restricted LTCs. He should have yours in his hands already. This is an unnecessary delaying tactic.

I hope their tack runs them aground.
 
All this printing didn’t seem to slow down renewals, as I feared. Had my renewal in about 5-6 weeks. Slow anywhere else but Mass, where we find this ok. But I’ll take it.
 
I hope their tack runs them aground.

Aye aye Cap'n! Not often you see that statement presented correctly.


Admiral I think, actually.

or53vGu.jpg



🐯
 
Yes, but if CA once again appealed, and it once again went to the 9th Circuit but this time they concurred "no AWB for you CA," does that effect the whole Federal Circuit? In other words ARs for everyone in HI.
So would CA appeal to the circuit?

I ask because I honestly don't know.

🐯

The 9th circuit only impacts Alaska, Hawaii, Arizona, California and the territory of Guam.
 
The 9th circuit only impacts Alaska, Hawaii, Arizona, California and the territory of Guam.
9th includes Hawaii

Dumping back to the district is BS - California is arguing that they would have presented a different case under Bruen therefore it needs to go back for another bite.
Cali starts with

In addition, the district court’s common-use analysis was based on a view that the Second Amendment protects “guns commonly owned by lawabiding citizens for lawful purposes.”
Again, Bruen casts doubt on this interpretation. In Bruen, the Court indicated that to qualify as protected “arms,” the weapon must be commonly used for lawful self-defense—not simply manufactured, produced, sold, or owned.

Only if the “plain text” of the Second Amendment covers the regulated conduct will the Second Amendment “presumptively” protect that conduct, requiring the government to then demonstrate that the challenged law is “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Id. at 2135.

They are trying to ague that in common use only applies to the direct use for self defense which would allow the early banning of any new technology simply because it hasn't reached a large enough market share to be used commonly in self defense actions.
However, all of these opinions harken back to the 'in common use" phrase from Miller.
And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

Notice that the use of the phrase here simply means that the arms are generally available and used with no implication as to the purpose for which they are employed.
California is trying to mangle the meaning of "tradition of broadly prohibiting the public carry of commonly used firearms for self-defense." by linking commonly used and self defense.
They ignore that the term "commonly used" is generally linked to "for lawful purposes" everywhere in the case law
The Second Amendment guaranteed to “all Americans” the right to bear commonly used arms in public subject to certain reasonable, well-defined restrictions. Heller, 554 U. S., at 581


California is attempting to get a second bite with the following:
But Bruen did change the nature and requirements of the Attorney General’s defense of the AWCA. And even if there were room for debate on this point, the district court should have the opportunity to assess the effects of Bruen on its textual and historical analysis.

And, yet again, the 9th is proving itself a circus by placing it's thumb on the scales.
 
Noticed that I quoted a portion of California's response but failed to discuss it (as if I'm an important authority [rofl] )
Appellant's Reply

Bruen specifies that the Second Amendment’s protective scope is limited to its “plain text.”
Reference from Bruen:
In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest.

Cali's position:
Only if the “plain text” of the Second Amendment covers the regulated conduct will the Second Amendment “presumptively” protect that conduct, requiring the government to then demonstrate that the challenged law is “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Id. at 2135.

So California is arguing that the 2nd is a granted right to the people versus a restriction from government infringement of an existing right. It is only under this light that the prefatory clause gains more power than simple illumination of the government's interest in preserving that right.

California truncates Bruen's "plain text" argument before the following:
Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”
If the plain text portion is read in full context it is clear that the second amendment is unburdened with the very narrow exceptions of regulations that are clearly analogous to those in place at the time - none of which are pertinent to an AWB since the arms necessary to prevail in the revolution were by and large held by private individuals even warships (an easy equivalent to heavy battle tanks of today).

In light of the militia act, restrictions on magazines are prima facia unconstitutional.
That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter,How to be armed and accoutred. provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. 1803, ch. 15.That the commissioned officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger and espontoon, and that from and after five years from the passing of this act, all muskets for arming the militia as herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound. And every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

One cannot argue that the 1792 Militia Act is not contemporary for purpose of this examination.
The enlightening of the militia clause of the 2nd shows what would be considered a minimum of the scope of what was considered acceptably "common" at the time.
Since the Act required a minimum of a box containing 24 cartridges to be held in a pouch, the box must have meaning. That meaning is clear if one reads it as a "box magazine" which is is the full and correct name of a box for the specific purpose of carrying cartridges at the ready for use. Therefore, any limitation on a box magazine would be that, for militia purposes, it would be required to have a capacity of at least 24 cartridges. Stating that the person shall "provide himself" shows that possession was not only legal but necessary.
The act also requires the person to be "accoutred" with the required items which shows that one must bear the items not just possess them.

The only contemporary restriction on arms possessed was to require those arms and accoutrements (accessories) in common military use. The analogous contemporary equipment today would be select fire arms both magazine and belt fed. Therefore the AWB cannot be constitutional when taken in a History, Tradition and Textual context.
 
The 9th circuit only impacts Alaska, Hawaii, Arizona, California and the territory of Guam.

Sorry, I believed that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals covered: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands.

MLsDNvu.png


Edit: Forgot to add the question once again. So a new CA appeal being rejected would affect the whole 9th Circuit; would CA appeal? In other words AR's for HI.

🐯
 
Last edited:
Edit: Forgot to add the question once again. So a new CA appeal being rejected would affect the whole 9th Circuit; would CA appeal? In other words AR's for HI.

🐯
If the 9th decided the case it would not only hold for all of the 9th circuit areas but it would also be influential in other circuits.
By vacating and remanding, the case will only effect California.
SCOTUS punted these cases back to the circuits so no national precedent was created and now the 9th is following suit.
 
9th includes Hawaii

Dumping back to the district is BS - California is arguing that they would have presented a different case under Bruen therefore it needs to go back for another bite.
Cali starts with






They are trying to ague that in common use only applies to the direct use for self defense which would allow the early banning of any new technology simply because it hasn't reached a large enough market share to be used commonly in self defense actions.
However, all of these opinions harken back to the 'in common use" phrase from Miller.


Notice that the use of the phrase here simply means that the arms are generally available and used with no implication as to the purpose for which they are employed.
California is trying to mangle the meaning of "tradition of broadly prohibiting the public carry of commonly used firearms for self-defense." by linking commonly used and self defense.
They ignore that the term "commonly used" is generally linked to "for lawful purposes" everywhere in the case law



California is attempting to get a second bite with the following:


And, yet again, the 9th is proving itself a circus by placing it's thumb on the scales.

Even with CA attempting to link commonly used with self-defense, I have yet to see an argument that ties the commonly used standard strictly to civilian use. So even accepting the link with self-defense, wouldn't say, any bearable arm used by law enforcement that has a defensive use meet the standard of common use? If LE finds there is value in the MP5 as a defensive weapon for officers then civilians should have them too.

Speaking of MP5's, I heard that Mass SP has a cache of MP5's slated to be destroyed, They are being replaced, so no longer in use, and since they can't be legally transferred to anyone (maybe other than another department) they are being destroyed.
 
Even with CA attempting to link commonly used with self-defense, I have yet to see an argument that ties the commonly used standard strictly to civilian use. So even accepting the link with self-defense, wouldn't say, any bearable arm used by law enforcement that has a defensive use meet the standard of common use? If LE finds there is value in the MP5 as a defensive weapon for officers then civilians should have them too.

Speaking of MP5's, I heard that Mass SP has a cache of MP5's slated to be destroyed, They are being replaced, so no longer in use, and since they can't be legally transferred to anyone (maybe other than another department) they are being destroyed.
The issue is that the decision will be a California district court opinion which has effectively zero influence.
California will be smart to let the AWB go down and not appeal the loss.
However, if they do appeal then game on...
 
Even with CA attempting to link commonly used with self-defense, I have yet to see an argument that ties the commonly used standard strictly to civilian use. So even accepting the link with self-defense, wouldn't say, any bearable arm used by law enforcement that has a defensive use meet the standard of common use? If LE finds there is value in the MP5 as a defensive weapon for officers then civilians should have them too.

Speaking of MP5's, I heard that Mass SP has a cache of MP5's slated to be destroyed, They are being replaced, so no longer in use, and since they can't be legally transferred to anyone (maybe other than another department) they are being destroyed.
seems like a great time for a lawyer to remind the state that, try as they might, LE remain civilians.
 
Last edited:
Noticed that I quoted a portion of California's response but failed to discuss it (as if I'm an important authority [rofl] )
Appellant's Reply


Reference from Bruen:


Cali's position:


So California is arguing that the 2nd is a granted right to the people versus a restriction from government infringement of an existing right. It is only under this light that the prefatory clause gains more power than simple illumination of the government's interest in preserving that right.

California truncates Bruen's "plain text" argument before the following:

If the plain text portion is read in full context it is clear that the second amendment is unburdened with the very narrow exceptions of regulations that are clearly analogous to those in place at the time - none of which are pertinent to an AWB since the arms necessary to prevail in the revolution were by and large held by private individuals even warships (an easy equivalent to heavy battle tanks of today).

In light of the militia act, restrictions on magazines are prima facia unconstitutional.


One cannot argue that the 1792 Militia Act is not contemporary for purpose of this examination.
The enlightening of the militia clause of the 2nd shows what would be considered a minimum of the scope of what was considered acceptably "common" at the time.
Since the Act required a minimum of a box containing 24 cartridges to be held in a pouch, the box must have meaning. That meaning is clear if one reads it as a "box magazine" which is is the full and correct name of a box for the specific purpose of carrying cartridges at the ready for use. Therefore, any limitation on a box magazine would be that, for militia purposes, it would be required to have a capacity of at least 24 cartridges. Stating that the person shall "provide himself" shows that possession was not only legal but necessary.
The act also requires the person to be "accoutred" with the required items which shows that one must bear the items not just possess them.

The only contemporary restriction on arms possessed was to require those arms and accoutrements (accessories) in common military use. The analogous contemporary equipment today would be select fire arms both magazine and belt fed. Therefore the AWB cannot be constitutional when taken in a History, Tradition and Textual context.

They will fail. They can invent things all they way. By the same logic, we can interpret 1A in a 1700’s context as well. The smack down by SC will be ugly.
 
I thought I read on here somewhere the SC does not have the ability to "smack down" or do much else here; ie: enforcement is someone else's business. No?
SCOTUS will issue injunctions if their rulings are being ignored. Those enjoin local authorities to take action.

But the “smack down” being suggested here will be a comprehensive evisceration of the logic CA is using in their filing.
 
SCOTUS will issue injunctions if their rulings are being ignored. Those enjoin local authorities to take action.

But the “smack down” being suggested here will be a comprehensive evisceration of the logic CA is using in their filing.
California knows that it's "new" argument will fail, that's not the point

The point is to move the decision down from the appellate level to district. This limits the reaching impact of the decision to only California.
If the SC had taken the case then all seven AWB states plus DC fall.
If the 9th decides then it extends to Hawaii and it's "informative" to other circuits.
 
Back
Top Bottom