Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

CatSnoutSoup said:
Perhaps you missed the prior point about SCOTUS rulings. If NY law is once again ruled unconstitutional and they still refuse to accept it, then it’s time for the people not to accept its legitimacy.

🐯
Click to expand...
Perhaps you missed the prior point about going to jail. If NY law is once again ruled unconstitutional and they still refuse to accept it, then nothing will happen once again, since there is no way to punish them, but they have the means to punish you.


M1911 said:
I think they will, but they will have to get slapped upside the head by SCOTUS a few more times.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but does anybody really see that happening? I would think they would have done something right away, to nip it in the bud.
 
Coyote33 said:
Perhaps you missed the prior point about going to jail. If NY law is once again ruled unconstitutional and they still refuse to accept it, then nothing will happen once again, since there is no way to punish them, but they have the means to punish you.
Click to expand...
Well… sure, until your lawyer files a habeas corpus writ in the nearest US court.

You’d be sent straight home, where you could ask that same lawyer to file a lawsuit against NYS.
 
Coyote33 said:
I just don't have much hope of seeing much movement with any of this; or at least for the next couple years.
Click to expand...
Good, because it‘ll probably take about that long. But eventually, NYS will lose.

I’d imagine very few NY LEOs will be vigorously enforcing this statute in the meantime. They know they’ll land in litigation if they do.
 
I can imagine these people hitting 35-40 and realizing A) no amount of makeup is going to hide the fact that they're a dude in a dress, each year looking a little worse and B) there's no going back to the way they were. That's gotta be hard to accept. Dudes don't want them. Even guys that are into trannies don't want some 40 year old. Women don't want them regardless of how they look. They're alone, miserable and irreparable changed.
 
Chevy 2 65 said:
Another 50 year wait
Click to expand...
Nah. I’d say 1-3 to get the current concealed carry stupidity mostly straightened out. The social media account BS won’t fly, the entire NYC as a “sensitive location”, etc. won’t fly. Both will have SCOTUS cocked and ready to smack them down. It wouldn’t surprise if a district court or appellate court did it for them.
 
Chevy 2 65 said:
New York will NEVER accept any 2A ruling not in their favor. What can SCOTUS do about it?
Seems to me any state can just ignore any ruling they do not agree with.
Click to expand...
I have a vision of an “activist” SCOTUS enjoining fedgov from providing any funding to NYS until they get in line. No disaster money, no highway money, no school money, no epa money.

When the people are staring at flooded streets, bridges falling into the Hudson, no teachers because the schools (with ceilings caving in) have no money to pay them and undrinkable water, maybe, just maybe, they’ll burn Albany to the ground.

A boy can hope, right?
 
Picton said:
Well… sure, until your lawyer files a habeas corpus writ in the nearest US court.

You’d be sent straight home, where you could ask that same lawyer to file a lawsuit against NYS.
Click to expand...
When has this ever happened in regards to the 2nd Amendment?


1662097650776.png


rali said:
I have a vision of an “activist” SCOTUS enjoining fedgov from providing any funding to NYS until they get in line. No disaster money, no highway money, no school money, no epa money.

When the people are staring at flooded streets, bridges falling into the Hudson, no teachers because the schools (with ceilings caving in) have no money to pay them and undrinkable water, maybe, just maybe, they’ll burn Albany to the ground.

A boy can hope, right?
Click to expand...

1662097650776.png
 
Last edited:
The new NYSRPA case against the new crap has been filed - it includes actions under the 1st,2nd, 4th, 14th and usc 42 sec 1983 and 1985
Once this goes through, amd.it will, 1983 gives action against individuals trying to enforce the infringements where 1985 let's us go against those pushing to enforce the infringements all with the power to punch through qualified immunity.
How many cops will enforce a law ruled unconstitutional if they know doing so will very likely result in multi-million dollars damage awards?
How many people in the executive branch will push the police chiefs to arrest people if they know it will result in conspiracy charges and even bigger awards?

And Bruen II stands a good chance of being fast tracked given the fact it is a result of the state's blatant FU to SCOTUS.
 
xtry51 said:
Not holding my breath, but revoking QI and making the individuals liable is the only way this thing stops.
Click to expand...
My predictions are not short term (<1 yr). I expect this intrastate f***ery to be quashed in 2-3 years with some form of interstate carry in the medium term (~5 years).
But before the first case asking for interstate carry recognition happens we need to stomp the "sensitive places" dodge into the smallest box we can - I don't believe it will ever go away since judges understand their court IS a public*** court and they certainly don't want people in THIER courts carrying, therefore they, including SCOTUS, will do anything necessary to keep the canard of sensitive places alive. The exception to this is that I believe the home state rule could be attacked before clearly definition of sensitive places without risk.


*** - I am clearly delineating public from private here because any private entity has the right to exclude whomever they choice for whatever reason they choose including sexist, racist scum-baggery reasoning.
 
Coyote33 said:
When has this ever happened in regards to the 2nd Amendment?


View attachment 657136
Click to expand...

Again, you've got to realize: this is a whole new landscape now. Bruen's legal tests and logic leave no room for this law to stand. There's no equivocation there. So an arrest on this new law is unconstitutional, which I suspect the LEOs of New York state know quite well:

pastera said:
How many cops will enforce a law ruled unconstitutional if they know doing so will very likely result in multi-million dollars damage awards?
How many people in the executive branch will push the police chiefs to arrest people if they know it will result in conspiracy charges and even bigger awards?
Click to expand...

I find these points compelling, too.

Go to NYS. Break this law. Dare them to arrest you. If they do, you'll be the Gandhi of 2A before the day is out.
 
Picton said:
Again, you've got to realize: this is a whole new landscape now. Bruen's legal tests and logic leave no room for this law to stand. There's no equivocation there. So an arrest on this new law is unconstitutional, which I suspect the LEOs of New York state know quite well:
Click to expand...
Just because they know it won't stop them from doing what they are told. They are still working for the people who want this.


Picton said:
I find these points compelling, too.

Go to NYS. Break this law. Dare them to arrest you. If they do, you'll be the Gandhi of 2A before the day is out.
Click to expand...
You mean they will be in jail, without much voice, before the day is out?

YOU FIRST!!!
 
Last edited:
Coyote33 said:
Just because they know it won't stop them from doing what they are told. They are still working for the people who want this.
Click to expand...

Which is why the new lawsuit adds 42 U.S. Code § 1983 and 42 U.S. Code § 1985
(edit: on reread of the complaint it does not call out 1985)
1983 said:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress,
Click to expand...

Edit: Section 1985 was not actually called out however I do believe that it does apply as the governor and her employees admittedly worked together to create a regulatory scheme designed to render the Bruen decision moot by infringing on a person's 1st,2nd, and 4th rights in such a manner to make the exercise of the 2nd unworkable and socially ostracizing.
1985 said:
in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.
Click to expand...
Coyote33 said:
You mean they will be in jail, without much voice, before the day is out?
Click to expand...
This is why the new lawsuit is necessary - We need to get a declaration defining the limits of sensitive places exceptions which have little standing in history, text or tradition.
firearmslaw.duke.edu

New York’s Response to Bruen: The Outer Limits of the “Sensitive Places” Doctrine

firearmslaw.duke.edu firearmslaw.duke.edu
papers.ssrn.com

The 'Sensitive Places' Doctrine: Locational Limits on the Right to Bear Arms

Where may the government prohibit the bearing of arms? In District of Columbia v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court offered a short answer: “in sensitive places su
papers.ssrn.com


Edited to insert link to the new lawsuit
 
Last edited:
Picton said:
Exactly. That’s precisely what happened to Gandhi.

Remember how that worked out in the end?
Click to expand...
That's what right of center people of today don't understand. Gandhi, Rosa Parks, MLK, etc risked their lives and spent time in jail. People today can't spend an afternoon at a rally because they can't use a sick day
 
headednorth said:
That's what right of center people of today don't understand. Gandhi, Rosa Parks, MLK, etc risked their lives and spent time in jail. People today can't spend an afternoon at a rally because they can't use a sick day
Click to expand...
It's not spending a few hours, days in jail it's the legal consequences like having your LTC revoked and your firearms confiscated and you losing your job.
 
Dench said:
Gandhi, Rosa Parks and MLK aren't normal people, though.
Click to expand...
Well Rosa Parks was but Gandhi and MLK were leaders of a movement and had much support from their followers which meant they could afford to spend days/weeks in jail and come out a hero. Try that in Ma/NY and you'd be an anti-govt. MAGA semi-Fascist. You'd be front page news in the Globe/NY Times and lose your job, etc.
 

Similar threads

Nevada Supreme Court Upholds Ban on So-Called ‘Ghost Guns’
Replies
4
Views
222
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
The NRA Is About to Notch Another Legal Victory at the Supreme Court
Replies
13
Views
697
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