Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

[xtry51]

I'd rather have them reverse Chevron def than just rule on bump stocks. That said this pushy footing around is BS. Strike every law at once and tell politicians to f*** off.

 

[CatSnoutSoup]

Bump stocks are small potatoes in the 2A world so I think SCOTUS will take up a mag limit, AWB or sensitive places case before bumpstocks

It would seem doubtless that sensitive places will end up being ruled on because New York is forcing it and the circuit is likely to join in the idiocy.

Beyond Clarence Thomas I am yet to be convinced how committed the other members are and does it extend to taking up an AWB case and/or a positive outcome. People talk like we will be able to coast from here because SCOTUS has got our back, but I will continue to be suspicious of any enterprise with John Roberts at the helm.

Magazine limits would seem like a easy layup with little blowback for the court as not even the anti-gun crowd truly believe this purposeful infringement is even effective at its stated goal.

Edit: Approved Rosters are another one that would seem a layup for the court.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Bump stocks would be effectively moot if the Hughes amendment were repealed and the registry were re-opened.

The Hughes amendment is the only reason anyone bothered with bump stocks or binary triggers or forced reset triggers.

Another reason was non-NFA states.

Hopefully SCOTUS will determine that providing a legal mechanism for full auto ownership via a tax, then refusing to accept the tax, is inconsistent with Bruen.

Magazine limits would seem like a easy layup with little blowback for the court as not even the anti-gun crowd truly believe this purposeful infringement is even effective at its stated goal

Mag limits are 100% consistent with the unstated goal - take territory wherever you can in the gun rights battle, even if it is not effective. It's just a setup for the next step ("that didn't work so we need more....")

 

[Hoover]

It would seem doubtless that sensitive places will end up being ruled on because New York is forcing it and the circuit is likely to join in the idiocy.

Beyond Clarence Thomas I am yet to be convinced how committed the other members are and does it extend to taking up an AWB case and/or a positive outcome. People talk like we will be able to coast from here because SCOTUS has got our back, but I will continue to be suspicious of any enterprise with John Roberts at the helm.

Magazine limits would seem like a easy layup with little blowback for the court as not even the anti-gun crowd truly believe this purposeful infringement is even effective at its stated goal.

Edit: Approved Rosters are another one that would seem a layup for the court.

Thomas is definitely the best on 2A but when has Roberts disappointed? He was in the majority of the NYSRPA case and as chief in the majority, he could have assigned the opinion writing to anyone and chose Thomas. That is very reassuring in a post Kennedy court.

Roberts was extremely disappointing in the Obamacare case, Gorsuch and Roberts were very disappointing in bostock. Thomas is the best followed by Alito and Barrett looks good thus far. Kavanaugh, Roberts and gorsuch are solid but could definitely be better.

After garbage picks like Souter, Kennedy, Sandra day O’Connor, stevens, etc We can’t complain too much about Roberts. Souter and stevens were as liberal and legally as incoherent as Ginsburg, they were that bad.

 

[Dench]

Not to be a Debbie-Downer, but this bump stock stuff is small potatoes compared to the real issues that need to be addressed. Bump stocks are last on the list of importance, IMO. Let the ragging begin. I NO CARE.

Its how they're banned that's the issue. Not the item.

 

[HorizontalHunter]

Its how they're banned that's the issue. Not the item.

Exactly. I have no use for a bump stock but I also don’t have much use for a government than can force you to turn in personal property, without recompense, that was purchased legally and declared illegal with the stroke of a pen by executive fiat.

Not to mention the company that was put out of business and forced to destroy their inventory.

 

[drgrant]

Not to be a Debbie-Downer, but this bump stock stuff is small potatoes compared to the real issues that need to be addressed. Bump stocks are last on the list of importance, IMO. Let the ragging begin. I NO CARE.

Bump stocks are dumb but it's not about the stocks. It's the underlying takings issue that should disturb you. I think this will eventually be addressed but not in the near term.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Its how they're banned that's the issue. Not the item.

They establish the principal on an item not likely to be fought, then once the concept is accepted, move in for the meaningful stuff.

It's a matter about getting past that pesky "compensation" issue if they outlaw any form of repeating arm more advanced than a lever action. They they will go for the lever actions.

 

[vicorjh]

Federal Judge Halts New York’s New Law Limiting Concealed Carry of Firearms in “Sensitive” Locations

Federal Judge Halts New York's New Law Limiting Concealed Carry of Firearms in "Sensitive" Locations, Says Key Provisions Are Unconstitutional | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

A federal judge on Thursday halted parts of New York’s new gun licensing law.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

U.S. District Judge Glenn Suddaby focused on multiple parts of the law, saying licensing requirements — like a rule requiring applicants to turn over information about their social media accounts — went too far.

“Simply stated, instead of moving toward becoming a shall-issue jurisdiction, New York State has further entrenched itself as a shall-not-issue jurisdiction. And, by doing so, it has further reduced a first-class constitutional right to bear arms in public for self defense … into a mere request,” wrote Suddaby, who sits in Syracuse.

The ruling would keep restrictions in place that bar firearms from being carried into schools, government buildings and places of worship, but the judge said the state couldn’t ban guns from other sensitive locations, such as Times Square.

TRO:

View: https://youtu.be/hZ-799R-3rE?t=48


View: https://youtu.be/qcKAuTJI3VI?t=78


View: https://youtu.be/JEFUX8ioXX8

 

[Dadstoys]

Federal Judge Halts New York’s New Law Limiting Concealed Carry of Firearms in “Sensitive” Locations

Federal Judge Halts New York's New Law Limiting Concealed Carry of Firearms in "Sensitive" Locations, Says Key Provisions Are Unconstitutional | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

A federal judge on Thursday halted parts of New York’s new gun licensing law.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

U.S. District Judge Glenn Suddaby focused on multiple parts of the law, saying licensing requirements — like a rule requiring applicants to turn over information about their social media accounts — went too far.

“Simply stated, instead of moving toward becoming a shall-issue jurisdiction, New York State has further entrenched itself as a shall-not-issue jurisdiction. And, by doing so, it has further reduced a first-class constitutional right to bear arms in public for self defense … into a mere request,” wrote Suddaby, who sits in Syracuse.

The ruling would keep restrictions in place that bar firearms from being carried into schools, government buildings and places of worship, but the judge said the state couldn’t ban guns from other sensitive locations, such as Times Square.

TRO:

View: https://youtu.be/hZ-799R-3rE?t=48

 

[Mass-diver]

Wow that didn’t take long.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

NY officials were so arrogant they thought bragging about their laws negating the SCOTUS decision was a good idea.

Did the vacating include the "must have specific permission to enter a business" thing?

 

[CatSnoutSoup]

“Simply stated, instead of moving toward becoming a shall-issue jurisdiction, New York State has further entrenched itself as a shall-not-issue jurisdiction. And, by doing so, it has further reduced a first-class constitutional right to bear arms in public for self defense … into a mere request,” wrote Suddaby, who sits in Syracuse.

Excellent statement, bravo Judge!

 

[vicorjh]

NY officials were so arrogant they thought bragging about their laws negating the SCOTUS decision was a good idea.

Did the vacating include the "must have specific permission to enter a business" thing?

Yes, restricted locations, in part. Ruling attached. 'restrained' is a TRO. The TRO is stayed for three business days on ruling.

"Good Moral Character" - restrained
List of Four Character References - stands.
List of Family and Cohabitants - restrained
List Social Media Accounts for Past Three Years - restrained
Such Other Information Required by the Licensing Officer - stands (for now)
Eighteen Hours of Firearm Training - stands (for now)
In-Person Interview- restrained

Places Controlled by Federal, State or Local Government - stands
Polling Places - stands
Public Areas Restricted from General Public Access for a Limited Time by a Government Entity - stands
Places of Worship or Religious Observation - stands - exception for security
Schools, Colleges, and Universities - stands (for now)
Places or Vehicles Used for Public Transportation - restrained
Public Assemblies / Protest - stands
Places Used for Entertainment or Amusement and Places Where Alcoholic Beverages Are Consumed - restrained
Times Square - restrained
All Other “Sensitive Locations” - restrained
Prohibition in “Restricted Locations” - restrained - except with regard to fenced-in farmland owned by another or fenced-in hunting ground owned by another

 

[pastera]

Such Other Information Required by the Licensing Officer - stands (for now)

While this requirement stands, it seems the Judge is restricting the scope of inquiry​

Court can imagine a set of circumstances in which it is constitutionally valid (other than non-enforcement): for example, if the licensing officer were to require only very minor follow-up information from an applicant (such as identifying information).​

There is no question that, assuming licensing is constitutional, the officer should have the ability to request clarifying information where an application is vague or incorrect.​

Eighteen Hours of Firearm Training - stands (for now)

Here the Judge absolutely put the screws to us without lube or a goodbye kiss​

He assumes training is necessary​

The Court has been persuaded by Defendants that historically Americans’ familiarity with firearms was far more common than it is today​

Then he calls out 18 hours as not excessive​

The Court has been persuaded by Defendants that historically Americans’ familiarity with firearms was far more common than it is today​

Places of Worship or Religious Observation - stands - exception for security

This is really perplexing given his reasoning leaves one to believe he would restrain​

(1) the fact that the vast majority of the states in 1868 did not have this restriction at all (which appears to be what the Supreme Court might call a piece of “overwhelming evidence of an otherwise enduring American tradition” permitting the carrying of firearms in places of worship)​

(2) the fact that one historical analogue exists actually requiring the carrying of firearms to church​

(3) the fact that not recognizing such an exception treads close to infringing one’s First Amendment right to practice religion by attending congregate religious services​

Schools, Colleges, and Universities - stands (for now)

And another oddity:​

except for the prohibition on concealed carry in “summer camps.”​

@vicorjh -thanks for extracting the list

 

[Coyote33]

In-Person Interview- restrained

Does this affect Massachusetts also?

 

[Tartakovsky]

Does this affect Massachusetts also?

No. NY is not part of 1st Circuit.

 

[pastera]

NY officials were so arrogant they thought bragging about their laws negating the SCOTUS decision was a good idea.

Did the vacating include the "must have specific permission to enter a business" thing?

Restrained

The Court respectfully disagrees with that argument, because (through this prohibition) the State of New York is now making a decision for private property owners that they are perfectly able to make for themselves (and, in fact, did before the CCIA was enacted), as well as arguably compelling speech on a sensitive issue. In any event, however, this policy dispute is irrelevant, because it does not regard the Supreme Court’s “historical tradition” standard.

 

[Hoover]

Does this affect Massachusetts also?

No, but Massachusetts passed a good moral character type requirement post NYSRPA vs bruen just like NY. SCOTUS was very clear the proper cause type subjective license requirement was unconstitutional so CA, NY, MA passed a good character subjective requirement. Same type of requirement with a different name and both were completely subjective.

A court filing in Massachusetts will cite the NY judges reasoning and a district court in Massachusetts would likely find the same thing (at least if they follow SCOTUS dictates.

 

[vicorjh]

While this requirement stands, it seems the Judge is restricting the scope of inquiry​

There is no question that, assuming licensing is constitutional, the officer should have the ability to request clarifying information where an application is vague or incorrect.​

Here the Judge absolutely put the screws to us without lube or a goodbye kiss​

He assumes training is necessary​

Then he calls out 18 hours as not excessive​

This is really perplexing given his reasoning leaves one to believe he would restrain​

And another oddity:​

@vicorjh -thanks for extracting the list

I have only skimmed the ruling but I feel that there are a number of dithering statements and would also question some of the historical analogues that were utilized to uphold certain provisions. Some of the references are derived from a couple of other states that had enacted sufficiently similar legislation around 1870 or later. One would need to dig into the references to ascertain the context at the time.

In fact, the court has stated, "... with regard to how many historical analogues constitute a “tradition,” the Court declines to adopt a “majority of states” standard ...' and has, instead, utilized a bar of three states having similar legislation sometime in the range of1856 and 1892. I do not know if that would comprise sufficient historical tradition of regulation particularly in light that these questions are directly related to a constitutional matter.

There also may be some mixing in of what appears to be interest balancing, as well.

 

[MaverickNH]

Stickley v. Winchester, State Analogues, and the Folly of Narrow Historical Focus

firearmslaw.duke.edu

We want lawyers like these opposing expanded Bruen gun rights - they'll get the smackdown quick and hard. The "federal Second Amendment as it existed in 1969" is exactly the sort of historical evidence that Thomas rejected. When lawyers resort to referencing a period of time when civil rights were abused by courts, legislatures and executives as the historical basis for limitations and restrictions of rights, they are scraping the bottom of the barrel.

"Relying primarily on Bruen itself (it appears that the city put all of its chips on the argument that 1971 was the correct historical reference date), the court determined that there was “no historical basis to permit broad prohibitions on public carry” in public parks and at public events because the historical record showed only laws that restricted public carry when done with malintent...The court, however, declined to enjoin the section of the law banning guns in city-operated recreation or community centers. The court found that these locations are analogous to locations such as government buildings and schools, which were enumerated in Heller and Bruen as sensitive places...the court found, because recreation and community centers are similar to those locations in relevant ways (the government is often the proprietor and children congregate in such places), they are properly deemed sensitive and guns may be prohibited.

...a myopic focus on Founding-era history is odd, especially when provisions protecting the right to keep and bear arms did so little work at the time. The federal government wasn’t involved in regulating guns in any way until the early 20th century, and state and local governments for the most part simply weren’t constrained by protections of the right to keep and bear arms because of the anti-incorporation doctrine and absence of state-analogue provisions in many Founding-era state constitutions. The best approach here would be to recognize that the 1969 Virginia delegates were enacting a provision coextensive with the federal Second Amendment as it existed in 1969, one that would allow for regulation of the kind that existed then. The court’s approach of focusing only on 1791 and 1868, by contrast, ultimately seems nonsensical and contrary to legislative intent."

 

[M1911]

Does this affect Massachusetts also?

No.

This is a TEMPORARY Restraining Order (TRO). It stops NY from implementing portions of this law until the court case is completed or the TRO is lifted. So it isn’t a final decision even for NY. Furthermore, this case is about a NY law and a final decision would not be binding outside of that federal district. Finally, MA doesn’t have a silly law like this.

 

[pastera]

I have only skimmed the ruling but I feel that there are a number of dithering statements and would also question some of the historical analogues that were utilized to uphold certain provisions. Some of the references are derived from a couple of other states that had enacted sufficiently similar legislation around 1870 or later. One would need to dig into the references to ascertain the context at the time.

In fact, the court has stated, "... with regard to how many historical analogues constitute a “tradition,” the Court declines to adopt a “majority of states” standard ...' and has, instead, utilized a bar of three states having similar legislation sometime in the range of1856 and 1892. I do not know if that would comprise sufficient historical tradition of regulation particularly in light that these questions are directly related to a constitutional matter.

There also may be some mixing in of what appears to be interest balancing, as well.

Given this was simply for the TRO, I don't put a lot of stock in most of it.
The one spot he was pretty definitive was training - that's a bad foreshadowing

 

[Rob Boudrie]

No.

This is a TEMPORARY Restraining Order (TRO). It stops NY from implementing portions of this law until the court case is completed or the TRO is lifted. So it isn’t a final decision even for NY. Furthermore, this case is about a NY law and a final decision would not be binding outside of that federal district. Finally, MA doesn’t have a silly law like this.

I think that TRO was stayed for 3 days to give NY time to appeal its application.

 

[dcmdon]

Bump stocks are dumb but it's not about the stocks. It's the underlying takings issue that should disturb you. I think this will eventually be addressed but not in the near term.

Yes!!

The bump stock ban is being approached the wrong way. It needs to be framed as a 5th Amendment "takings" case.

In other words, the manufacturer went to the appropriate regulatory authority and got approval for a product.

That manufacturer then sold hundreds of thousands of that product to the public, which paid about $300 for each of them.

That regulatory authority some years later decided that the product was illegal and required all the customers to either destroy or turn in all of the items that they had purchased.

Traditionally when a Gov't changes its mind it does one of 2 things.
1) it grandfathers those already owned legally.
2) it pays the public a fair price for the items in question.

In this case the Federal Gov't did neither.

Hence its an illegal "taking" of property.

And in all honesty, this is actually the most important issue. I really don't care about bump stocks. But I do care greatly about a government that can retroactively ban a product and then require you to destroy it.

 

[Mesatchornug]

Yes!!

The bump stock ban is being approached the wrong way. It needs to be framed as a 5th Amendment "takings" case.

In other words, the manufacturer went to the appropriate regulatory authority and got approval for a product.

That manufacturer then sold hundreds of thousands of that product to the public, which paid about $300 for each of them.

That regulatory authority some years later decided that the product was illegal and required all the customers to either destroy or turn in all of the items that they had purchased.

Traditionally when a Gov't changes its mind it does one of 2 things.
1) it grandfathers those already owned legally.
2) it pays the public a fair price for the items in question.

In this case the Federal Gov't did neither.

Hence its an illegal "taking" of property.

And in all honesty, this is actually the most important issue. I really don't care about bump stocks. But I do care greatly about a government that can retroactively ban a product and then require you to destroy it.

The one exception, and this is what I think they've been hanging their hat on, was alcohol. Under prohibition, some was taken and destroyed without compensation. Admittedly, I don't have a lot of time to find the examples right now, but I'll force myself to find time over the weekend to re-search it...

 

[JuergenG]

Finally, MA doesn’t have a silly law like this.

Yet.....

 

[Hoover]

No.

This is a TEMPORARY Restraining Order (TRO). It stops NY from implementing portions of this law until the court case is completed or the TRO is lifted. So it isn’t a final decision even for NY. Furthermore, this case is about a NY law and a final decision would not be binding outside of that federal district. Finally, MA doesn’t have a silly law like this.

Post bruen Massachusetts does have some good moral character requirement in the licensing similar to NY. They don’t seem to be using it to deny licenses but they’ve said it’s constitutional to reject people on a subjective moral character standard.

Also, you know the sensitive places, etc will be something Healy pushes for next year. I expect Healy will scan the NJ, NY, CA gun garbage and want to pass those here. So cases in other states will be helpful for next year. All the damn circuit courts always would cite other circuits in justifying the unconstitutional two step interest balancing to uphold every gun law.

 

[Hoover]

Thomas really is the best. I think only a small percentage of liberals realize how devastating that NYSRPA ruling was to gun control. They’re starting to learn though and they’re not taking it well.


View: https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status/1578468270461489153?s=20&t=bqi2Ds_CHOFlDwGAFwygaw

 

[Coyote33]

rather have them reverse Chevron def

Say what now?

MA doesn’t have a silly law like this.

No, but it seems most police departments have an interview process.