Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

I'm going to post this here since it's a direct result of Bruen. The dupe police can let me know if someone else has already posted it.

 
GOAL's has a new NYSRPA vs. Bruen t-shirt featuring Justice Thomas.

BIDGaCX.png


At the GOAL store


And they have big boy sizes.
I am 6'4" (yes unusual for a tabby cat) and anything under 4x shrinks in length first wash to show my belly button (also unusual for a tabby cat).

Get a cool shirt, tout the Bruen decision, honor Justice Thomas, and support GOAL all at the same time.

Too cool, yes?


Note: I had to go to the bottom right corner to set currency to US $ it defaulted to Euro

🐯
 

Panel 1 – 8:45-9:45 am – Keynote Discussion: Criminal Justice and Prosecutorial Discretion in the Wake of Bruen

Moderator: Vincent Southerland (NYU)

Panelists: Alvin Bragg (Manhattan District Attorney), Zellnor Myrie (New York State Senator), Steven Wu (Chief of Appeals, Manhattan DA’s Office)

Panel 2 – 9:50-10:55 am – Bruen’s Methodology and Practical Consequences for Legislation and Criminal Law

Moderator: Mark Tushnet (Harvard)

Panelists: Cynthia Lee (George Washington), Eric Ruben (SMU), Eugene Volokh (UCLA)

Panel 3 – 11:00-12:05 pm – Sensitive Places and the Challenges of Applying Bruen in the Lower Courts

Moderator: Jamal Greene (Columbia)

Panelists: Joseph Blocher (Duke), Jacob Charles (Pepperdine), Adam Samaha (NYU), Reva Siegel (Yale)

Panel 4 – 12:40-1:45 pm – After Bruen: Implications for Law Enforcement, Stare Decisis, and Supreme Court Legitimacy

Moderator: Sanford Levinson (Texas)

Panelists: Brandon del Pozo (Rhode Island Hospital), Mary Anne Franks (Miami), Barry Friedman (NYU), Haley Proctor (Missouri)
 
In case you haven’t guessed it by looking at that lineup of speakers, the firearms law center at Duke is not, in any way, objective about firearms law. They are very pro gun control.
 
Last edited:
I hope the audience loads up with pro-rights people.

Whoever is going needs to find out how to get their questions submitted. Often times, it is all hammered out BEFORE the event even begins.
 
I stayed over in the guest room of someone from Upstate NY in Saratoga this weekend and saw this on the nightstand. The owner said they have them in each room in case of intruders. I just said, it’s a good idea to have some form of self-defense in a home. Given I was a guest, I didn’t say anything more…

43DD159C-9905-4B9F-88F2-9BD2413C730A.jpeg
 
Here’s a weird one - an Ohio judge addressing historical analysis as per Bruen. It seems the judge is stuck on a what-if - what if Blacks and women had the vote during the founding era and those earlier times Thomas expanded on a relevant in such analyses. But history is not what might have happened if things had been different, is it?


"Importantly, the glaring flaw in any analysis of the United States' historical tradition of firearm regulation in relation to Ohio's gun laws is that no such analysis could account for what the United States' historical tradition of firearm regulation would have been if women and nonwhite people had been able to vote for the representatives who determined these regulations. How would this problem be addressed in any modern analysis of historical gun regulations? It cannot simply be ignored. And even if a court tries to take the views of women and nonwhite people into account, are there sufficient materials on their views available to enable reliable conclusions to be made?"
 
Here’s a weird one - an Ohio judge addressing historical analysis as per Bruen. It seems the judge is stuck on a what-if - what if Blacks and women had the vote during the founding era and those earlier times Thomas expanded on a relevant in such analyses. But history is not what might have happened if things had been different, is it?


"Importantly, the glaring flaw in any analysis of the United States' historical tradition of firearm regulation in relation to Ohio's gun laws is that no such analysis could account for what the United States' historical tradition of firearm regulation would have been if women and nonwhite people had been able to vote for the representatives who determined these regulations. How would this problem be addressed in any modern analysis of historical gun regulations? It cannot simply be ignored. And even if a court tries to take the views of women and nonwhite people into account, are there sufficient materials on their views available to enable reliable conclusions to be made?"

What a Neanderthal , he didn't even mention trans people.
 
Here’s a weird one - an Ohio judge addressing historical analysis as per Bruen. It seems the judge is stuck on a what-if - what if Blacks and women had the vote during the founding era and those earlier times Thomas expanded on a relevant in such analyses. But history is not what might have happened if things had been different, is it?


"Importantly, the glaring flaw in any analysis of the United States' historical tradition of firearm regulation in relation to Ohio's gun laws is that no such analysis could account for what the United States' historical tradition of firearm regulation would have been if women and nonwhite people had been able to vote for the representatives who determined these regulations. How would this problem be addressed in any modern analysis of historical gun regulations? It cannot simply be ignored. And even if a court tries to take the views of women and nonwhite people into account, are there sufficient materials on their views available to enable reliable conclusions to be made?"
And therefore to my hypothesis that women getting the right to vote started the decline of the American way of life. No disrespect to NES gun loving, intelligent women.
 
From the link (WTF):

"A 2020 amendment to the UHA, signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom (D.), added a new requirement that for every new semiautomatic handgun approved to the roster, three previously approved handguns must be removed. That provision went into effect last month."
 
From the link (WTF):

"A 2020 amendment to the UHA, signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom (D.), added a new requirement that for every new semiautomatic handgun approved to the roster, three previously approved handguns must be removed. That provision went into effect last month."
. . . until there is only 1!!
 
From the link (WTF):

"A 2020 amendment to the UHA, signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom (D.), added a new requirement that for every new semiautomatic handgun approved to the roster, three previously approved handguns must be removed. That provision went into effect last month."

Doesn't seem to matter anyway since I am under the impression they can't have new guns on the list without a form of microstamping that doesn't exist.
 
From the link (WTF):

"A 2020 amendment to the UHA, signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom (D.), added a new requirement that for every new semiautomatic handgun approved to the roster, three previously approved handguns must be removed. That provision went into effect last month."
I wish they would do that with welfare recipients.
 
I stayed over in the guest room of someone from Upstate NY in Saratoga this weekend and saw this on the nightstand. The owner said they have them in each room in case of intruders. I just said, it’s a good idea to have some form of self-defense in a home. Given I was a guest, I didn’t say anything more…

View attachment 660637
What is that, a bundle of sticks with duct tape around them?
 
GOAL's has a new NYSRPA vs. Bruen t-shirt featuring Justice Thomas.

BIDGaCX.png


At the GOAL store


And they have big boy sizes.
I am 6'4" (yes unusual for a tabby cat) and anything under 4x shrinks in length first wash to show my belly button (also unusual for a tabby cat).

Get a cool shirt, tout the Bruen decision, honor Justice Thomas, and support GOAL all at the same time.

Too cool, yes?


Note: I had to go to the bottom right corner to set currency to US $ it defaulted to Euro

🐯

It's sad that the image is. . . . . a mASS legal frame transfer.

Here’s a weird one - an Ohio judge addressing historical analysis as per Bruen. It seems the judge is stuck on a what-if - what if Blacks and women had the vote during the founding era and those earlier times Thomas expanded on a relevant in such analyses. But history is not what might have happened if things had been different, is it?


"Importantly, the glaring flaw in any analysis of the United States' historical tradition of firearm regulation in relation to Ohio's gun laws is that no such analysis could account for what the United States' historical tradition of firearm regulation would have been if women and nonwhite people had been able to vote for the representatives who determined these regulations. How would this problem be addressed in any modern analysis of historical gun regulations? It cannot simply be ignored. And even if a court tries to take the views of women and nonwhite people into account, are there sufficient materials on their views available to enable reliable conclusions to be made?"

He also should mention we didn't consider if Aliens or Dinosaurs were around at the same time. It's very likely that 2A would look dramatically different - it would be not a right but a REQUIREMENT. It simply cannot be ignored!

It's the "Ronco 2000" self protector, as seen in TV.

You'd be better off with some big-ass realistic dildo. Nobody wants to be beaten with that. LOL
 
I stayed over in the guest room of someone from Upstate NY in Saratoga this weekend and saw this on the nightstand. The owner said they have them in each room in case of intruders. I just said, it’s a good idea to have some form of self-defense in a home. Given I was a guest, I didn’t say anything more…

View attachment 660637
It's missing something.

90px-Fasces.svg.png
 
Back
Top Bottom