Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

[M1911]

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

So what?

Among all of the BS of the MA law, that is just about the least objectionable. And more importantly, whatever this TRO does or doesn't do concerning interviews in the NY law IT HAS NO IMMEDIATE IMPACT ON MA LAW. Remember the word "TEMPORARY" in Temporary Restraining Order? This isn't a final decision at the district court level. Even a final federal district court decision against the NY law would not be binding against MA (unless there is a SCOTUS decision).

Just cool your jets. The legal process takes a long time.

 

[Coyote33]

I wasn't talking about its ranking in "objectionableness".

I was referring to it from what was said earlier, and asking if that was affected. Thanks anyhow.

 

[M1911]

I was referring to it from what was said earlier, and asking if that was affected. Thanks anyhow.

Oh for goodness sakes. HOW COULD MA LAWS BE AFFECTED!!!!!!!!!

This is simply a temporary restraining order. It isn't a final decision. It concerns a law in NY, not a law in MA. NY is in a different federal district than we are, so even if there is a final decision and it is then appealed and decided at the appeals court level IT STILL WON'T BE BINDING ON MA BECAUSE WE ARE IN A DIFFERENT FEDERAL DISTRICT.

So please tell me, HOW IN THE WORLD did you think that this might somehow have immediate impact on MA law? That makes no sense at all. Yes, I'm shouting because your questions are non-sensical.

 

[Coyote33]

Lighten up, Francis. Who the hell knows what's going on here? Nobody really seems to have a handle, it's happening so fast, and erroneous reports coming in. How does one even know the difference between circuit, district, appeal, MA supreme, SCOTUS, 1st, 2nd, through 9th (are there more?)? Give it a rest already. Just because someone asks a question you feel authoritative on, doesn't mean the clock stops on the world.

 

[M1911]

Lighten up, Francis. Who the hell knows what's going on here? Nobody really seems to have a handle, it's happening so fast, and erroneous reports coming in. How does one even know the difference between circuit, district, appeal, MA supreme, SCOTUS, 1st, 2nd, through 9th (are there more?)? Give it a rest already. Just because someone asks a question you feel authoritative on, doesn't mean the clock stops on the world.

Oh for goodness sakes.

It's not that hard to understand. Do a little reading on our judicial system.

 

[Boghog1]

Then he calls out 18 hours as not excessive

bet if you mandated 18 hours of classes on the constitution to vote it would be considered excessive

 

[M1911]

bet if you mandated 18 hours of classes on the constitution to vote it would be considered excessive

I certainly don't agree with it. That said, the NRA Basic Pistol class that meets MA standards is supposed to take 10 hours. So 18 isn't an order of magnitude more. Time will tell whether that holds up to further review. (Let me be clear, while I think people should get some training before buying a gun, I do not, in any way, agree with legal mandates that require training.)

Yes, the practical impact will be to ensure that the poors, who can't afford to take time off from work and can't afford hundreds of $ for training courses, won't be able to meet the requirements, and thus won't be able to get a gun legally. That, of course, is the whole point of gun control -- it is racist to its very core.

 

[Dadstoys]

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

He may be waiting for them to abuse that one then revisit it.
Ten month wait
$700 fee .
Must hit ten bullseyes at 300 feet ect.

 

[Picton]

How does one even know the difference between circuit, district, appeal, MA supreme, SCOTUS, 1st, 2nd, through 9th (are there more?)?

To be fair, these differences are not all that hard to learn about.

And there are 12 geographical appellate circuits. I just learned that. It took about ten seconds to look it up.

 

[Coyote33]

To be fair, these differences are not all that hard to learn about.

And there are 12 geographical appellate circuits. I just learned that. It took about ten seconds to look it up.

Yeah, but watching 5 different news articles, then 15 posts, half of which are mixed up themselves, who can keep track?

 

[Hoover]

Oh for goodness sakes. HOW COULD MA LAWS BE AFFECTED!!!!!!!!!

This is simply a temporary restraining order. It isn't a final decision. It concerns a law in NY, not a law in MA. NY is in a different federal district than we are, so even if there is a final decision and it is then appealed and decided at the appeals court level IT STILL WON'T BE BINDING ON MA BECAUSE WE ARE IN A DIFFERENT FEDERAL DISTRICT.

So please tell me, HOW IN THE WORLD did you think that this might somehow have immediate impact on MA law? That makes no sense at all. Yes, I'm shouting because your questions are non-sensical.

It can certainly have an effect on a lawsuit in MA. A lot of federal judges are timid and follow the lead of other judges and courts. So recent positive ruling in CO, NY, etc will have an effect in other districts. These court fights will take years though. The Maryland AWB case may be the quickest as it’s already in the circuit court of appeals

 

[xtry51]

Say what now?



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

Chevron deference

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[M1911]

It can certainly have an effect on a lawsuit in MA. A lot of federal judges are timid and follow the lead of other judges and courts. So recent positive ruling in CO, NY, etc will have an effect in other districts. These court fights will take years though. The Maryland AWB case may be the quickest as it’s already in the circuit court of appeals

While the decision may be cited during a lawsuit, any such decision won’t be binding. So a judge may or may not agree with it and doesn’t have to follow it.

 

[pastera]

He may be waiting for them to abuse that one then revisit it.
Ten month wait
$700 fee .
Must hit ten bullseyes at 300 feet ect.

18hrs of training already seems excessive to me
What other state requires that much?

 

[chris_1001]

18hrs of training already seems excessive to me
What other state requires that much?

How many hours of training do you need to exercise your first amendment right?

Is there a class/curriculum ?

 

[Coyote33]

This is simply a temporary restraining order. It isn't a final decision. It concerns a law in NY, not a law in MA. NY is in a different federal district than we are, so even if there is a final decision and it is then appealed and decided at the appeals court level IT STILL WON'T BE BINDING ON MA BECAUSE WE ARE IN A DIFFERENT FEDERAL DISTRICT.

So please tell me, HOW IN THE WORLD did you think that this might somehow have immediate impact on MA law?

So, if it is so unimportant, and oh so temporary, why is everybody so ga-ga over it, and and tripping all over themselves here?

 

[microwave900]

Both Illinois and Maryland CCWs require about two days of classes. I don’t know the exact number of hours but it’s in the 18 ballpark.

 

[M1911]

So, if it is so unimportant, and oh so temporary, why is everybody so ga-ga over and and tripping all over themselves here?

I didn’t say it wasn’t important. It shows that this particular judge believes that NY overstepped it’s bounds and is likely to lose the lawsuit. But the lawsuit still goes forward. Do you not understand that? Do you not understand that there will be a trial and there might be multiple levels of appeals?

There will still be a lawsuit, with filings by NY State and the party bringing the lawsuit. There be hearings and motions. Some time down the road there will be testimony in open court. Then the judge will make his decision.

Once the judge has issued his decision, chances are the loser will appeal. The decision may be put on hold while the appeal is heard by a judge in federal appeals court. Then we get the same cycle of filings and hearings and motions and testimony. The appellate judge will issue his ruling,

Once the appeals court has issued their ruling, then the losing party can decide to appeal. They could appeal for an en banc hearing at the appellate court (multiple judges instead of one) or they could appeal to SCOTUS. And again we have the same cycle of motions and filings, etc.

So it could be quite a while before a final decision comes. Do you not understand that?

As for the temporary restraining order, that has been held for three days to allow NY State to appeal the TRO to the appeals court. So the TRO could be quashed by the appeals court. Or the TRO could stand. If the TRO stands, then those portions of the law restrained by the TRO will not be in place while the TRO is in place. If the TRO stands, it will likely be in place until the district court issues his final opinion.

The TRO shows that the judge does not agree with NY State about much of the law, so that foreshadows that he is likely to rule against the state in his final decision at least on parts of the law. But a final resolution is still a long way off.

Now do you understand?

 

[Dadstoys]

18hrs of training already seems excessive to me
What other state requires that much?

None that I know of , and you can be sure whatever the judge does leave them they will find a way to abuse the shit out of it.

 

[Coyote33]

Do you not understand that there will be a trial and there might be multiple levels of appeals?

No. That was not clear at all. I thought this was an announcement of some sort.

So it could be quite a while before a final decision comes. Do you not understand that?

I do now.

Now do you understand?

Yeah, I get it now, sort of. TLDR a bit, but whatever. Still doesn't mean you have to be a dick about it. I don't live and breathe to try to understand court systems and court decisions which may or may not affect me. If I don't get it, I ask a question. Thanks though, I guess.

 

[pastera]

How many hours of training do you need to exercise your first amendment right?

Is there a class/curriculum ?

I am going to answer this correctly even though I'm going to take a lot of flack for what I believe will be the eventual position of the courts.

Our children are supplied with 12-13 years of training for 1st amendment. Those with better education actually receive the quintessential 1st amendment training - Speech and Debate.
However nothing in the 1st speaks to being well trained as a necessity.
Nor do any other enumerated rights except the 2nd.
That is what this judge is recognizing - he doesn't question that familiarity with arms is required, he states that in years past it was acquired as part of the general culture.
We will see some level of training requirements being codified in case law just like prohibitions on possession in courts and schools.
My position is that we should understand this eventuality and push to not only limit scope and content but to force adoption into education
Might even get better ratios in Chicago if they have some basic training

 

[pastera]

So, if it is so unimportant, and oh so temporary, why is everybody so ga-ga over it, and and tripping all over themselves here?

Remember my post about each case building on each other
The TRO can only be issued where the plaintiff is likely to succeed.
On multiple points the judge simply stated that the defendants had NO case and will not prevail.
Even on the points where he did not grant restraint, his wording was cautious and questioning. Leading me to believe he doesn't think they are constitutional but there might be some part of the argument that a higher court needs to illuminate.

So while a TRO isn't important in and of itself, the issuance of one, especially with some of the language used, is very important in predicting the outcome of the case and can actually give insight into how to present the case during argument.

 

[pastera]

I didn’t say it wasn’t important. It shows that this particular judge believes that NY overstepped it’s bounds and is likely to lose the lawsuit. But the lawsuit still goes forward. Do you not understand that? Do you not understand that there will be a trial and there might be multiple levels of appeals?

There will still be a lawsuit, with filings by NY State and the party bringing the lawsuit. There be hearings and motions. Some time down the road there will be testimony in open court. Then the judge will make his decision.

Once the judge has issued his decision, chances are the loser will appeal. The decision may be put on hold while the appeal is heard by a judge in federal appeals court. Then we get the same cycle of filings and hearings and motions and testimony. The appellate judge will issue his ruling,

Once the appeals court has issued their ruling, then the losing party can decide to appeal. They could appeal for an en banc hearing at the appellate court (multiple judges instead of one) or they could appeal to SCOTUS. And again we have the same cycle of motions and filings, etc.

So it could be quite a while before a final decision comes. Do you not understand that?

As for the temporary restraining order, that has been held for three days to allow NY State to appeal the TRO to the appeals court. So the TRO could be quashed by the appeals court. Or the TRO could stand. If the TRO stands, then those portions of the law restrained by the TRO will not be in place while the TRO is in place. If the TRO stands, it will likely be in place until the district court issues his final opinion.

The TRO shows that the judge does not agree with NY State about much of the law, so that foreshadows that he is likely to rule against the state in his final decision at least on parts of the law. But a final resolution is still a long way off.

Now do you understand?

And if the TRO withstands appeal it leads one to believe the restrained parts of the law will not survive in the higher courts so appeal is futile.

 

[pastera]

No. That was not clear at all. I thought this was an announcement of some sort.


I do now.


Yeah, I get it now, sort of. TLDR a bit, but whatever. Still doesn't mean you have to be a dick about it. I don't live and breathe to try to understand court systems and court decisions which may or may not affect me. If I don't get it, I ask a question. Thanks though, I guess.

Given that multiple people have given less than personable responses to your questions but took the time to answer, maybe you should look at your phrasing...

I get it that as an aspie my interests deviate from normal but that doesn't free up responsibility of everyone in the gun community to have at least some basic familiarity with how civil rights cases move through the legal system.
You never know when that knowledge may keep you out of a cage

 

[Coyote33]

I just read the news and took them at face value. I did not really delve into the minutiae of it. Thanks though, everyone, for your patience. It's Saturday, heading out soon with stuff to do.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Once the appeals court has issued their ruling, then the losing party can decide to appeal. They could appeal for an en banc hearing at the appellate court (multiple judges instead of one) or they could appeal to SCOTUS. And again we have the same cycle of motions and filings, etc.

Hearings before a single judge in federal district court and an appeal before a three judge panel are "must issue". EnBanc hearings have historically been "may issue" when the pro-gun rights side is requesting a hearing and "shall issue" when the government is appealing a pro-rights ruling. In effect, our side must win three times but the government only has to win twice.

 

[cathouse01]

My position is that we should understand this eventuality and push to not only limit scope and content but to force adoption into education

You mean like this:

 

[Dench]

You mean like this:

They might teach children how to field strip a rifle but theyve failed to teach anyone how to fight on the ground.

Seems like cleaning rifles is the peak of their doctrine.

 

[SFC13557]

They might teach children how to field strip a rifle but theyve failed to teach anyone how to fight on the ground.

Seems like cleaning rifles is the peak of their doctrine.

Yup, poor leadership results in lots of dead grunts. Russian Officers do not give Warning/OP Orders to their subordinates.

 

[Picton]

I don't live and breathe to try to understand court systems and court decisions which may or may not affect me.

But this is what so many of us have been telling you. Courts ALWAYS affect you. It’s far more important to understand the judicial structure in this country than the legislative structure, IMO, and it’s easy to learn.