This one may be harder to pass SCOTUS muster even by the new standard. This doesn't speak directly to who can bear arms. The judge leaves the door open for a commercial regulation to be passed in its wake. We'll see where it goes - maybe the SC won't grant ceratori to this case if it should be appealed up.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread
- Thread starter soloman02
- Start date
Think of it this way.
You are an FFL
You make you living off of that FFL
The ATF says they will yank your FFL if you don't follow their rules (note rules, not laws)
The ATF has a rule that says you will put a serial number on it.
What do you do?
Besides, they can claim the number is for tracking the check-in and check-out of the gun to/from the FFL, nothing to do with the laws, just a process that must be followed.
From a bill Clinton judge too.
The 4th circuit is a very liberal circuit so don’t be surprised is a 3 judge panel reverses it.
CatSnoutSoup
NES Member
Yeah SCOTUS may not bite on this one. They may draw a distinction between a citizen constructing an unserialized gun for their own personal use and the action of obliterating an existing number from a commercially manufactured firearm.
Last edited:
pdm
NES Member
Yeah, at best its that circuit. Realistically for now it's the district.
It won’t apply to the circuit until after a circuit court decision. The RI mag limit case will only apply there not Massachusetts until the 1st circuit rules.
Obama packed the 4th with idiot judges. Their Kolbe vs hogan en banc ruling was a joke. They are a very activist court and as bad as the 1st and and 9th. Those are the 3 worst of the 11 circuits.
pdm
NES Member
Let's get a split in the circuits and watch for Thomas' legal laser eyes to light up.
The early cases to watch are bianchi vs Frosh, Marylands AWB and mag limits. That’s at the 4th now and with a favorable panel. The Clinton judge won’t the dissent in the previous AWB case and the trump judge should be good. The other is an Obama judge who stinks on 2A.
Then there’s Miller vs bonta AWB case in CA and Duncan vs bonta, mag limits. Both are before benetiz who previously stuck them down and has fast tracked both case. Opinions on them should happen by January. Then the 9th gets them.
We should have a lot settled within 2 years. We may need SCOTUS to take another case and re enforce their commands again. There are some rabid anti 2A judges on the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 9th. We’ll know by this time next year it they’ll ignore SCOTUS or not
I believe the rule states an unserialized firearm, so no they thought of that too.
MaverickNH
NES Member
Another “fruits of Bruen” outcome favorable to 2ndA RKBA:
reason.com
The government tries to call public housing “sensitive places” and loses. The more government can give us, the more it can take away.
“On April 19, 2018, Kinsley Braden signed a lease agreement with Columbia Housing for the privilege of residing at 103 West Willow Street in Creekside Acres. The lease agreement incorporated by reference the Community Housing Rules, which prohibited, inter alia, any resident from possessing a firearm on the premises. In relevant part, the Community Housing Rules read: "No Weapons & Firearms. The possession or use of any type of weapon, firearm, or dangerous object is strictly prohibited within the boundaries of the property."
Columbia Housing is a government entity acting as the landlord of the Creekside Acres residences…. For this reason, the actions of Columbia Housing and the policies of Creekside Acres must conform to the Constitution….
[T]he circuit court reasoned that by agreeing to the Community House Rules in the lease agreement, which prohibit possession of a firearm within the leased premises, "Mr. Braden voluntarily waived any rights he may have to possess a firearm on the premises." However, in reaching this conclusion the circuit court did not consider the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, which "prevent the government from coercing people into giving" up constitutional rights..”
Public Housing Complexes May Not Ban Gun Possession by Tenants
From today's decision in Columbia Housing & Redevelopment Corp. v. Braden, decided today by the Tennessee Court of Appeals, in…
reason.com
The government tries to call public housing “sensitive places” and loses. The more government can give us, the more it can take away.
“On April 19, 2018, Kinsley Braden signed a lease agreement with Columbia Housing for the privilege of residing at 103 West Willow Street in Creekside Acres. The lease agreement incorporated by reference the Community Housing Rules, which prohibited, inter alia, any resident from possessing a firearm on the premises. In relevant part, the Community Housing Rules read: "No Weapons & Firearms. The possession or use of any type of weapon, firearm, or dangerous object is strictly prohibited within the boundaries of the property."
Columbia Housing is a government entity acting as the landlord of the Creekside Acres residences…. For this reason, the actions of Columbia Housing and the policies of Creekside Acres must conform to the Constitution….
[T]he circuit court reasoned that by agreeing to the Community House Rules in the lease agreement, which prohibit possession of a firearm within the leased premises, "Mr. Braden voluntarily waived any rights he may have to possess a firearm on the premises." However, in reaching this conclusion the circuit court did not consider the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, which "prevent
Another “fruits of Bruen” outcome favorable to 2ndA RKBA:
Public Housing Complexes May Not Ban Gun Possession by Tenants
From today's decision in Columbia Housing & Redevelopment Corp. v. Braden, decided today by the Tennessee Court of Appeals, in…
The government tries to call public housing “sensitive places” and loses. The more government can give us, the more it can take away.
“On April 19, 2018, Kinsley Braden signed a lease agreement with Columbia Housing for the privilege of residing at 103 West Willow Street in Creekside Acres. The lease agreement incorporated by reference the Community Housing Rules, which prohibited, inter alia, any resident from possessing a firearm on the premises. In relevant part, the Community Housing Rules read: "No Weapons & Firearms. The possession or use of any type of weapon, firearm, or dangerous object is strictly prohibited within the boundaries of the property."
Columbia Housing is a government entity acting as the landlord of the Creekside Acres residences…. For this reason, the actions of Columbia Housing and the policies of Creekside Acres must conform to the Constitution….
[T]he circuit court reasoned that by agreeing to the Community House Rules in the lease agreement, which prohibit possession of a firearm within the leased premises, "Mr. Braden voluntarily waived any rights he may have to possess a firearm on the premises." However, in reaching this conclusion the circuit court did not consider the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, which "preventthe government from coercing people into giving" up constitutional rights..”
There have been other rulings on this in district courts. No SCOTUS opinion specifically on this so its not uniform across the country thus the need for more lawsuits
Federal court overturns gun bans in Public Housing
A federal District Court judge recently ruled that banning the lawful possession of firearms by Public Housing residents is unconstitutional. In a case brought against
affordablehousingonline.com
Dennis in MA
NES Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 38,350
- Likes
- 33,298
They can also rather quickly issue a "take this back and try again" order as well. They didn't have to hear the CA law - they just kicked it back. I'm thinking hte SC may not have to rule on a TON of things. Just kick enough bad decisions back that it sets it's own precedence.
pdm
NES Member
I just want to see a bunch of YT videos with Thomas' face with laser eyes when the case(s) get up to SCOTUS. I'm a simple man, I like simple things.
xtry51
NES Member
Good video summarizing current state of CA AWB case (Miller). Judge will likely have a scathing ruling against CA in 3ish weeks.
View: https://youtu.be/iHc5gEifgr8
View: https://youtu.be/iHc5gEifgr8
The briefs are due in November, an opinion will not come until at least the end of December.
Benetiz already struck the CA AWB down last year under a lesser standard. His opinion will probably be quite similar to that opinion before the 9th vacated and remanded it. The real watch will be what the 9th circuit does. The 9th is a 16-13 democrat nominated judges to GOP court. Who the random 3 judge panel is will be very important and if it goes en banc, that panel will be the chief (a liberal Obama judge) and 10 randomly selected judges.
We’ll likely see a ruling from the 4th circuit on Marylands mag limits and AWB by early summer 2023. That case is further along than CA because it wasn’t remanded back to the district court case is bianchi vs Frosh
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,555
- Likes
- 33,621
It will go en banc unless our side loses at a lower level, and then en banc will not be grated. The case will be won or lost based on the panels selected, not the merits of the case.
The 9th is a 16-13 dem vs GOP nominated judge court but there have been some changes in the past few years. Only active judges sit for en banc and some of the hardcore lib Clinton put on there are gone. Graber, paez, fletcher, etc took senior status so they’re out of an en banc mix. The anti 2A Thomas is also no longer chief, he was a POS. Thomas was on the losing side so a 2-1 panel for peruta which was peruta vs gore the San Diego sheriff. Kamala Harris was AG and asleep because she wasn’t a party to the case at all. When peruta won, San Diego sheriff declined to appeal the 9th circuit to en banc. The case should have been settled. Thomas one the one who pushed hard for en banc and allowed California AG Harris to join the case after she wasn’t part of it before. That was complete BS and shouldn’t have been allow. I remember thomas and Alito were ticked off in their dissent of cert in SCOTUS.
The 9th is so unique because the en banc isn’t the full court. I agree we’ll know the outcome the day they randomly select the judges. When Duncan vs bonta, the mag limit case was taken en banc, the second the en banc drawing pulled 6 democrat judges of the 11, it was a loss.
Public Housing Authority Gun Ban Ruled unconstitutional (Tennessee):
View: https://youtu.be/kpH4x1q10e4
View: https://youtu.be/kpH4x1q10e4
Are there any articles which make this announcement, instead of a blowhard youtube thing? Would like to share this information, but not a video.
FFS. Go look.
Edit: nevermind. Linked right in the blowhards video. For those that are actually interested.
Here, https://www.saf.org/wp-content/uplo...IA-HOUSING-REDEVELOPMENT-CORP.-v.-KINSLEY.pdf
"Because Columbia Housing is a government entity acting as a landlord of property
it owns, it must establish that its leasehold restrictions on firearms is “consistent with the
Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2130. We find that
it has failed to do so. Moreover, because broad-reaching prohibitions on possession of
handguns in the home for self-defense are “historically unprecedented,” see id. at 2128, we
hold that Columbia Housing’s overly broad prohibition against handguns in Mr. Braden’s
home is an unconstitutional condition. Thus, the prohibition against handguns is an
unenforceable provision of Mr. Braden’s lease agreement. Accordingly, Mr. Braden’s
possession of a handgun in his home did not constitute a breach of the lease agreement.
IN CONCLUSION
The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and this matter is remanded for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion. Costs of appeal assessed against the Appellee,
Columbia Housing & Redevelopment Corporation."
Last edited:
Thanks. I didn't even click the link, that's how repulsive those youtube things are.
For the rest of you:
Public Housing Authority Gun Ban Ruled unconstitutional (Tennessee only)
details in this link to the case:
CONCLUSION
The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and this matter is remanded for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion. Costs of appeal assessed against the Appellee,
Columbia Housing & Redevelopment Corporation."
(Sometimes, it is like pulling teeth!)
For the rest of you:
Public Housing Authority Gun Ban Ruled unconstitutional (Tennessee only)
details in this link to the case:
CONCLUSION
The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and this matter is remanded for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion. Costs of appeal assessed against the Appellee,
Columbia Housing & Redevelopment Corporation."
Last edited:
Public Housing Complexes May Not Ban Gun Possession by Tenants
From today's decision in Columbia Housing & Redevelopment Corp. v. Braden, decided today by the Tennessee Court of Appeals, in…
reason.com
Someone else posted on this a few days ago, the YouTube video is old news.
Also, other courts have struck down public housing gun bans in the past, these cases have been decided years ago but they have not gone up to circuit courts or SCOTUS so the decisions are only bind8ng on the district of that court.
SFC13557
NES Member
I can't believe public housing bans on Firearms have survived legal challenges so far. What authority/laws do these anti's cite for their rules?
Because gunz
As if they need either
SFC13557
NES Member
Correct, because they can with Leftist Judges in their back pocket. Bad enough that public housing projects are riddled with crime and were a bad idea from the get-go prohibiting residents from owning firearms for protection is beyond criminal.
NJ, justifiable need / good cause knocked down.
View: https://youtu.be/c8_4hR48md0
If you are easily offended by YouTube commentators, skip this video and see here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.452993/gov.uscourts.njd.452993.51.0.pdf
View: https://youtu.be/c8_4hR48md0
