Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

MaverickNH

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
5,775
Likes
4,428
Location
SoNH

As litigators and judges grapple with Bruen’s historical tradition test, one issue that is sure to surface repeatedly is the status of group prohibitions on gun possession. Notably absent from the list of “presumptively lawful” restrictions in Heller is the federal prohibition on gun possession by those convicted of domestic-violence misdemeanor offenses, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9). The provision was recently expanded by the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act to cover offenses against non-spouse victims with whom the perpetrator has a “continuing serious relationship of a romantic or intimate nature.”…

Justice Thomas also wrote, in a section not joined by Justice Sotomayor, that, “[t]o be constitutional, . . . a law that broadly frustrates an individual’s right to keep and bear arms must target individuals who are beyond the scope of the ‘People’ protected by the Second Amendment,” and opined that there was no “other fundamental constitutional right that a person could lose forever by a single conviction for an infraction punishable only by a fine.”…

After Bruen, the more fundamental question seems to be whether 922(g)(9) is sufficiently rooted in historical tradition given the lack of direct analogues throughout most of American history

…Justice Thomas is suspicious of the entire enterprise of disarming misdemeanants—whether domestic violence offenders, violent misdemeanants, or otherwise. But what of Bruen’s historical approach and the fact that a neat felony/misdemeanor dividing line did not exist at the time of the Founding?


Legal gun control advocates continue to struggle with “historical approach” - it’s not Founding-era only but not post-Sullivan Act (1911) either. The courts will be sliding on that slippery slope a good deal before they reach stable ground.

1663627537976.jpeg
 

MaverickNH

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
5,775
Likes
4,428
Location
SoNH

“10 days after New York passed a set of revised licensing and gun laws post-Bruen (known colloquially as the Concealed Carry Improvement Act, or CCIA), those laws were challenged in federal court. The case is Antonyuk et al. v. Bruen, Docket No. 1:22-cv-00734 in the Northern District of New York. Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby is presiding over the case.

In a 37-page complaint, the plaintiffs—Ivan Antonyuk (who lives in Schenectady County, NY), Gun Owners of America, Inc., Gun Owners Foundation, and Gun Owners of America New York, Inc.—challenged most aspects of New York’s revised gun laws, including: the “good moral character” requirement (which long pre-dates Bruen); the requirement that applicants attend an in-person interview and submit character references and a list of social media accounts; New York’s sensitive-places prohibition; New York’s default rule that guns are prohibited on private property unless explicitly allowed; and the time and cost of New York’s training requirements. The complaint asserts § 1983 claims under both the First and Second Amendments.

After filing their complaint on July 11, the plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction on July 20. The state subsequently requested additional time to respond to the PI motion. Judge Suddaby granted that motion in part and set the following briefing schedule, noting that the CCIA is set to take effect on September 1: defendant’s response was due on August 15, plaintiffs’ reply is due on August 22, and the preliminary injunction hearing is set for August 23. New York subsequently requested, and was granted, leave to file a response brief longer than the court’s default page limi… New York filed its 65-page response brief (attaching 54 exhibits) on August 15…

The briefs illustrate a fundamental disagreement over Bruen’s stance on shall-issue regimes that retain some discretionary elements
.”

The same Court has not been a friend of RKBA, so it’ll be an uphill battle.


"Antonyuk is not the only ongoing case dealing with sensitive places. Angelo v. District of Columbia, currently pending in the federal district court in Washington, D.C., was filed on June 30 and involves a challenge by several permitholders to Washington D.C.’s designation of the Metro as a sensitive place where guns are banned (the law was passed in 2014, and went into effect the following year)...

As to the Metro specifically, the District seems more likely to succeed on its activities-based argument: that the Metro prohibition is sufficiently similar to “early American laws prohibiting the carrying of arms near parades and on trains” because such laws illustrate a historical tradition of prohibiting guns in areas of dense congregation or around official government activities. Specifically, the airport/airplane comparison seems apt, as those are also locations which simply did not exist at the time of the Founding but where few doubt that guns can be banned today...

The plaintiffs cite an 1803 observation by St. George Tucker that it was common for Americans to leave home armed with a rifle or musket. The District, on the other hand, relies on historical laws in the militia context as evidence that normal civilians did not commonly carry arms in public at the time. If judges are to evaluate modern gun regulations by reference to historical laws, there should presumably be some showing that people actually used guns in the manner contemplated during the Founding Era. If guns were not normally carried in certain public settings as a matter of custom, then what we today view as a lack of regulation may just be evidence that there was no need for government to regulate in that setting. The difficult question, of course, is how courts should resolve differing accounts of social custom that might exist in the historical record.
"
 

pastera

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Nov 17, 2011
Messages
9,073
Likes
10,697
Location
Taunton

"Antonyuk is not the only ongoing case dealing with sensitive places. Angelo v. District of Columbia, currently pending in the federal district court in Washington, D.C., was filed on June 30 and involves a challenge by several permitholders to Washington D.C.’s designation of the Metro as a sensitive place where guns are banned (the law was passed in 2014, and went into effect the following year)...

As to the Metro specifically, the District seems more likely to succeed on its activities-based argument: that the Metro prohibition is sufficiently similar to “early American laws prohibiting the carrying of arms near parades and on trains” because such laws illustrate a historical tradition of prohibiting guns in areas of dense congregation or around official government activities. Specifically, the airport/airplane comparison seems apt, as those are also locations which simply did not exist at the time of the Founding but where few doubt that guns can be banned today...

The plaintiffs cite an 1803 observation by St. George Tucker that it was common for Americans to leave home armed with a rifle or musket. The District, on the other hand, relies on historical laws in the militia context as evidence that normal civilians did not commonly carry arms in public at the time. If judges are to evaluate modern gun regulations by reference to historical laws, there should presumably be some showing that people actually used guns in the manner contemplated during the Founding Era. If guns were not normally carried in certain public settings as a matter of custom, then what we today view as a lack of regulation may just be evidence that there was no need for government to regulate in that setting. The difficult question, of course, is how courts should resolve differing accounts of social custom that might exist in the historical record.
"
Response:
They start with the old tired argument of lack of standing:
Plaintiffs must instead show that they have “been personally threatened with prosecution,” id. at 1255, in the sense of being “singled out or uniquely targeted Case 1:22-cv-01878-RDM Document 18 Filed 09/16/22 Page 20 of 44 15 by the D.C. government for prosecution,” Parker, 478 F.3d at 374–75. “[F]eared injury” is “insufficiently imminent.” Id. (holding that “a general threat of prosecution” does not suffice).
Requiring a person to place themselves at jeopardy of permanent loss of rights by exercising that right is BS.

Then they go on to say that places where people can't physically defend themselves are sensitive places where they should not be able to have the tools required for self defense.
These laws were designed to, among other things, protect vulnerable groups of people who, because of their age or physical state, cannot easily escape attack, much less defend themselves
They are quoting 1870's Texas law but the idea is confounding - the persons most in need of protection from the lawless are prohibited from being prepared to defend themselves.

And then this great reason:
Because citizens “can preserve an undiminished right of self-defense by not entering those places” or by “taking an alternate route,” Class, 930 F.3d at 463–65, laws restricting guns “in sensitive locations” “neither prohibit nor broadly frustrate any individual from generally exercising his right to bear arms,”
So since they principally exclude the entirety of areas of commerce and social interaction, a person may enjoy their 2nd amendment rights only by forgoing all other protected activities
Such laws were intended to prevent the carrying of firearms from hindering the government’s operation or chilling the exercise of other constitutional rights.

What they leave out is that most of the laws quoted is the parts where purpose of timing is called out - polling places were excluded while voting, churches excluded without proper purpose, etc.
 

Mesatchornug

Instructor
NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
7,831
Likes
13,936
Location
People's Republik
So, all this big talk about those with a felony, great.

How about the whole thing with "mis-da-felony" in Massachusetts? Is it asking too much to do something there? Sorry to be doubtful of anything happening...
Indictment is different from conviction

We eat the elephant one bite at a time.
 

Dennis in MA

NES Member
Rating - 100%
25   0   0
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
32,554
Likes
26,036
RINO Governor (Faker) Signs Laws That Violates Bruen Decision (MA, suitability):


View: https://youtu.be/paKm73Qzecw?t=63


Our case will never be heard. It'll just be considered moot at some point before next September after 2 other cases are ruled on. Even our liberal douchebags are second-class liberal douchebags. ROFL!!!
 

vicorjh

NES Member
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Jan 9, 2015
Messages
5,105
Likes
12,064
Just this past Tuesday?????

Was there even a post about it?

What law?

Firearm Licensing

The recent New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen Supreme Court decision stripped local police chiefs of significant discretion regarding who may possess and carry a firearm. In the wake of this decision, this bill amends Massachusetts law to bring gun licensing provisions into compliance with the Supreme Court decision and to ensure that individuals seeking a license to carry are first interviewed personally by their local police chief.


Jim Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners Action League, told the Herald that as far as he knows none of the 500,000 lawful gun owners his group represents were consulted about the bill ...

Wallace also said the state’s “suitability” language, which remains in the law, is entirely at odds with the high court’s ruling. Healey’s office told the Herald the state is moving toward compliance.

“We’ve been working with our colleagues in the Legislature to amend the state’s licensing statute in response to Bruen. We look forward to continuing to work with them next session to further strengthen our gun laws and protect public safety,” a spokeswoman for Healey’s office said.


State legislators tweaked several sections of state law as a result of Bruen, making changes they said would put the state in compliance with the decision “while preserving many of the protections that are currently in place,” as Senate Ways and Means Chair Michael Rodrigues put it Saturday.

The proposal removes language requiring a license to carry applicant to have “good reason to fear injury” to themselves, their property, “or for any other reason, including the carrying of firearms for use in sport or target practice only.”

A licensing authority could still deny an application if it determines a person is “unsuitable” based on “reliable, articulable, and credible information” that the applicant has “exhibited or engaged in behavior” that “may create a risk to public safety or a risk of danger to self or others.”

 
Last edited:

SBrackett

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Mar 15, 2005
Messages
119
Likes
100
Location
ME, USA
A licensing authority could still deny an application if it determines a person is “unsuitable” based on “reliable, articulable, and credible information” that the applicant has “exhibited or engaged in behavior” that “may create a risk to public safety or a risk of danger to self or others.”
How about “suitability” is based on factual information?

Just a thought.
 

Picton

NES Member
Rating - 100%
36   0   0
Joined
Sep 17, 2012
Messages
24,339
Likes
42,043
Location
MA
How about “suitability” is based on factual information?

Just a thought.

In practice, that's what it will have to be. CoPs are unlikely to stick their necks out. Some might, but then they'll lose in court and the law will go away.

The law can say what it likes. Until someone enforces it, knowing the courts will smack them down, it's posturing.
 

pastera

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Nov 17, 2011
Messages
9,073
Likes
10,697
Location
Taunton
In practice, that's what it will have to be. CoPs are unlikely to stick their necks out. Some might, but then they'll lose in court and the law will go away.

The law can say what it likes. Until someone enforces it, knowing the courts will smack them down, it's posturing.
This - they can use the suitability clause to deny people who can't handle life without the police getting involved on a regular basis but don't get to the point of actual prohibited status.
And they will get away with it since someone that is a police encounter frequent flyer is unlikely to have the resources to fight a denial.
However, if any rabid anti-gun chief goes FR then it will get struck down for being too vague.
 

MaverickNH

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
5,775
Likes
4,428
Location
SoNH

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)
Listening to this today...

Apparently, NY scoured laws in the states since 1776 and compiled a list of who's, what's and where's that restricted guns and went as broad as possible. In effect, NY took all US history, threw it against the wall in their new laws, and will litigate to see what sticks and for how long. And made up some new stuff too. Freely admitted as a strategy.

One panelist said NYC's laws treat everyone in a car/room with an "illegal gun" as culpable, and 18 teens were sent to Rikers - crazy shit!

Volokh flew from CA to NYC Friday, wake up with COVID and is sitting in his hotel for 5 days. He had 4 vax shots and was at the speakers dinner Friday evening. Let's see who gets COVID! 😷
 
Last edited:

Dennis in MA

NES Member
Rating - 100%
25   0   0
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
32,554
Likes
26,036
Ergo, Catholics and blacks, and ESPECIALLY Black Catholics will be banned from any sort of firearm ownership. [rofl]

It's going to end bad for them. I'm not even a bit nervous. When you shit all over a plain-text writing of a ruling, the ruling body tends to make it even MORE plainer. Like "Short of X, you're not banning shit. Because you can't play nice."
 
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
28,020
Likes
33,737
Location
NH (CT Escapee)
Listening to this today...

Apparently, NY scoured laws in the states since 1776 and compiled a list of who's, what's and where's that restricted guns and went as broad as possible. In effect, NY took all US history, threw it against the wall in their new laws, and will litigate to see what sticks and for how long. And made up some new stuff too. Freely admitted as a strategy.

I can't wait to see NY dem lawyers using slavery based laws to defend their new laws.
 

Mesatchornug

Instructor
NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
7,831
Likes
13,936
Location
People's Republik
I can't wait to see NY dem lawyers using slavery based laws to defend their new laws.
The irony when the much-maligned NRA pulls out their original charter to remind them "we were founded in part to ensure freed blacks have access to firearms." If Wayne could get out of his own way to do that, I might toss them a couple bucks.

Since he can't be bothered, I'll throw a few to Maj instead.
 
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
43,496
Likes
25,547
Ergo, Catholics and blacks, and ESPECIALLY Black Catholics will be banned from any sort of firearm ownership. [rofl]

It's going to end bad for them. I'm not even a bit nervous. When you shit all over a plain-text writing of a ruling, the ruling body tends to make it even MORE plainer. Like "Short of X, you're not banning shit. Because you can't play nice."
Especially when you announce your intention is to negate the effects of the ruling.
 

HarryPottar

NES Member
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
1,600
Likes
1,878
Location
New England
I’m not a lawyer, nor have I ever played one on TV

Watch from 4 minutes mark, Supreme Court as defined the 4 sensitive places you can not carry guns.


View: https://youtu.be/_MODu98jMlQ


Court House
Legislative Buildings
Polling Places
Schools, but as a student

Not sure how this impacts life in the real world.
 
Top Bottom