Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

[pastera]

Isn't that what they said about Roe vs. Wade also?

Roe was bad case law from day one
No we'll respected legal scholar Saud otherwise regardless of which side of the debate they were on.
Current SCOTUS sent the issue back to the states where it belonged in the first place per the 10th. Some states will push the issue too far on both sides and get smacked for doing so.
2nd is codified in the constitution therefore a federal issue. It was states trying to nullify the right that sparked the kick back from SCOTUS - since Vermont type constitutional carry has already been explored as a limit, there isn't a less regulated schema to explore and Heller, McDonald, Caetano and now Bruen are creating limits on how restrictive states can be.
The harder states push the further scotus will move the line towards freedom.

 

[Hoover]

A friend of mine is an attorney. His personal view is pro-choice, but he told me that the Roe decision was the worst SCOTUS decision that he'd ever read.

Not as bad as dread Scott, korematsu but definitely top 5. Roe had no legal basis, they wanted abortion and invented the right to privacy. There were abortion laws in most states for the history of the country, no one had ever questioned whether abortion was a right until the 7 dimwits on SCOTUS tin the majority. Burger, Brennan, Blackmun. There were so really terrible justices in the 1960s and 70s

 

[Hoover]

Today at 10am SCOTUS hears two cases on affirmative action in college admissions. One case is against Harvard (private university), the second is against the university of North Carolina (public). Harvard like almost all universities accepts govt money so they have to that means their admissions mayst follow certain standards.

The new justice Jackson was on a Harvard board so she has recused herself and will not be part of the Harvard decision. The cases were accepted together as one but they split them a few months ago so Jackson could sit and hear the North Carolina case.

In cases challenging affirmative action, court will confront wide-ranging arguments on history, diversity, and the role of race in America - SCOTUSblog

In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled in Grutter v. Bollinger that universities may consider race in their admissions processes as part of their efforts to achieve diversity on campus. On Oct. 31, the justices will hear oral arguments in a pair of cases asking them to overturn Grutter and outlaw race-bas

www.scotusblog.com

The live feed of the hearing is here and starts at 10, SCOTUS is prompt, they get right to the cases. Live Oral Argument Audio



It’s very unlikely this court will uphold using race as a factor in admissions (aka uphold affirmative action in admissions). In 2 previous SCOTUS cases the court limited the use of affirmative action today the plaintiffs seek to end it for good.

A decision won’t be issued untold probably the end of June, most hot button issue cases are released at the end of the term, but expect a liberal meltdown when it happens. It will probably be a 6-3 decision in the UNC case and 6-2 in the Harvard. Roberts has always been very strongly against affirmative action.

 

[MaverickNH]

Today at 10am SCOTUS hears two cases on affirmative action in college admissions. One case is against Harvard (private university), the second is against the university of North Carolina (public). Harvard like almost all universities accepts govt money so they have to that means their admissions mayst follow certain standards.

The new justice Jackson was on a Harvard board so she has recused herself and will not be part of the Harvard decision. The cases were accepted together as one but they split them a few months ago so Jackson could sit and hear the North Carolina case.

In cases challenging affirmative action, court will confront wide-ranging arguments on history, diversity, and the role of race in America - SCOTUSblog

In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled in Grutter v. Bollinger that universities may consider race in their admissions processes as part of their efforts to achieve diversity on campus. On Oct. 31, the justices will hear oral arguments in a pair of cases asking them to overturn Grutter and outlaw race-bas

www.scotusblog.com

The live feed of the hearing is here and starts at 10, SCOTUS is prompt, they get right to the cases. Live Oral Argument Audio



It’s very unlikely this court will uphold using race as a factor in admissions (aka uphold affirmative action in admissions). In 2 previous SCOTUS cases the court limited the use of affirmative action today the plaintiffs seek to end it for good.

A decision won’t be issued untold probably the end of June, most hot button issue cases are released at the end of the term, but expect a liberal meltdown when it happens. It will probably be a 6-3 decision in the UNC case and 6-2 in the Harvard. Roberts has always been very strongly against affirmative action.

As I mentioned elsewhere, NYT & WaPo have certainly written their Editorials and articles, just waiting to seed quotes in from the arguments declare illegitimacy +4 for SCOTUS. I doubt BLM/Antifa will be stirring up mobs - Harvard, Yale, etc., student associations funded busses of protestors sent to DC for the cameras.

 

[MaverickNH]

Federal Judge Strikes Down New York’s Ban on Firearms in Places of Worship | Duke Center for Firearms Law

firearmslaw.duke.edu

Interesting arguements raised wrt dates of historical analogs, based on: “… eras in the distant past seem closer together in our perception than recent events separate[d] by the same amount of time.” This is a documented phenomenon in psychology known as “temporal compression.” Researchers have found “evidence that memories are [] logarithmically compressed with time: the farther from the present the memory, the less discriminable it is from an earlier memory.” It stands to reason that historical analysis is susceptible to this same fallacy, and that judges and lawyers must guard against it when examining the historical record…Why should a cluster of laws passed in certain British colonies in the early 1600s be more indicative of an American tradition codified in 1791 than laws passed from 1870-1890 (a conclusion that Hardaway and other decisions treat as obvious)?“

That very smart people are making these arguments suggests they are scraping the bottom of the barrel and/or throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. On a log scale, 1890 and 1619 (the span of newer and older laws the authors reference) are way far back and closer together. “Temporal compression” is more about compression of the past before one’s own lifetime compared to time within one’s own lifetime, not the 1600s vs the 1800s. In fact, the research they reference addresses a past-future span of just a year or so, not centuries. They are grasping at straws.

Alhil Amar argues that 1760-1840 was the span of defining our founding principles. Laws passed thereafter would be either consistent with or depart from such founding principles, and thus of less relevance as historical analogs. Laws passed before would be shaping of the founding era doctrines.

The Words That Made Us

A history of the American Constitution's formative decades from a preeminent legal scholarWhen the US Constitution won popular approval in 1788, it was the c...

www.basicbooks.com

 

[Hoover]

As I mentioned elsewhere, NYT & WaPo have certainly written their Editorials and articles, just waiting to seed quotes in from the arguments declare illegitimacy +4 for SCOTUS. I doubt BLM/Antifa will be stirring up mobs - Harvard, Yale, etc., student associations funded busses of protestors sent to DC for the cameras.

You’ll see some college protests, but they’ll be small. The real gnashing of teeth will be the race agenda politicians and the media. It’s a virtue signal issue for the DC to NY white liberal crowd.

 

[Hoover]

As I mentioned elsewhere, NYT & WaPo have certainly written their Editorials and articles, just waiting to seed quotes in from the arguments declare illegitimacy +4 for SCOTUS. I doubt BLM/Antifa will be stirring up mobs - Harvard, Yale, etc., student associations funded busses of protestors sent to DC for the cameras.

Every time you see a Black Lives Matter sign in the burbs one Cambridge, etc they’re not signs in support of black people, they’re signs put out by white liberals to impress their white liberal neighbors. They don’t give a damn about black people they are virtue signaling their neighbors that they’re woke and one of them.

The white liberals who will flip about affirmative action are the same virtue signaling people.

 

[SFC13557]

"I don't know who you are, but like your thinking 5 yrs ago I decided it was time to escape MA for Free America! It truly is refreshing up here in NH and I find almost everyone is a like-minded individual.

Thank you for your service!!"

I took one of your classes years ago on Ma. gun laws in Westfield or Southhampton at their gun club.

 

[SFC13557]

Every time you see a Black Lives Matter sign in the burbs one Cambridge, etc they’re not signs in support of black people, they’re signs put out by white liberals to impress their white liberal neighbors. They don’t give a damn about black people they are virtue signaling their neighbors that they’re woke and one of them.

The white liberals who will flip about affirmative action are the same virtue signaling people.

It's quite hysterical that the more white and affluent the Towns are the more BLM, homosexual pride signs you see. White Guilt or just peer pressure?
Drive thru Concord Center and see the huge BLM banner hanging between the pillars of the Congregational Church.

 

[Hoover]

It's quite hysterical that the more white and affluent the Towns are the more BLM, homosexual pride signs you see. White Guilt or just peer pressure?
Drive thru Concord Center and see the huge BLM banner hanging between the pillars of the Congregational Church.

The signs are for their neighbors, they probably don’t see a black person in person in an average week. In polling the most supportive of defund the police type issues are white liberal in wealthy suburbs. In their brain dead heads they think attacking cops is standing up for black people. White liberals are racist, they think black people are lesser and need the white liberals to advance black people because black people cant do it on their own.

The white liberals are in their extremely safe 97% white towns, gate communities in some areas so defunding cops urban areas won’t affect them, it will only mean more black people being subjected to increasing crime as we see over the past few years.

 

[SFC13557]

The signs are for their neighbors, they probably don’t see a black person in person in an average week. In polling the most supportive of defund the police type issues are white liberal in wealthy suburbs. In their brain dead heads they think attacking cops is standing up for black people. White liberals are racist, they think black people are lesser and need the white liberals to advance black people because black people cant do it on their own.

The white liberals are in their extremely safe 97% white towns, gate communities in some areas so defunding cops urban areas won’t affect them, it will only mean more black people being subjected to increasing crime as we see over the past few years.

Check out the demographics of Concord, Ma. I drove thru the center for over 20yrs, twice a day commuting to LL/HAFB and NEVER say a Black Person in town unless a town employee or delivery driver. The average White family couldn't buy a house in Concord never mind a Black family. No Section 8 housing either so where's the diversity. Oh right, it's hanging from the church.

 

[SFC13557]

NJ lawmaker admits bill has nothing to do with criminals, just law-abiding peasants​

Excerpts from Townhall.com, you can read the full article there.

"We’ve been covering the topic of the proposed bill(s) in New Jersey which will completely eviscerate a law abiding citizen’s ability to carry a firearm for self-protection. Tom recently brought up how a Senate committee voted to advance the measure, as well as it stalling in the Assembly, with a full vote postponed. I recently discussed the flaw in the bill that would have outlawed common items nearly everywhere in the state, which the jackals seem to be reconciling. A recent interview with the Assembly bill’s primary sponsor, Joe Danielsen, really puts the icing on the cake on how hubris and or clueless he is. I’m constantly reminded to not confuse ignorance with malice. I think there’s a little of both in the Assemblyman. Not that Danielsen needed any help to make himself sound like a jackass, in my opinion, he outdid himself quite nonchalantly during an October 26th interview, blowing up his motives.

The bill (S3214/A4769) is supposed to do what? According to Danielsen, it’s a commonsense measure that’ll make us all safer.

“As a recreational hunter, I know that commonsense gun reform doesn’t stop sportsmen like me from continuing traditions that have been passed down through our families for generations. As a father, I know how important it is to keep our communities and schools safe. There is nothing at odds with promoting responsible gun ownership, gun safety, gun education, and gun training while upholding the Second Amendment. I am proud to author this legislation that will strike a balance between promoting public safety and allowing people to exercise their Constitutional rights.” – Facebook post from Joe Danielsen
The bill (S3214/A4769) is supposed to do what? According to Danielsen, it’s a commonsense measure that’ll make us all safer.

“As a recreational hunter, I know that commonsense gun reform doesn’t stop sportsmen like me from continuing traditions that have been passed down through our families for generations. As a father, I know how important it is to keep our communities and schools safe. There is nothing at odds with promoting responsible gun ownership, gun safety, gun education, and gun training while upholding the Second Amendment. I am proud to author this legislation that will strike a balance between promoting public safety and allowing people to exercise their Constitutional rights.” – Facebook post from Joe Danielsen

“I’m proud to share with you that legislation A4769, which I am the prime sponsor of, has been passed through the Assembly Judiciary Committee, and is now referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. A4769 creates new disqualifications from the permit process such as past violations of restraining orders, domestic violence convictions, or those experiencing mental health crises.

Another important component of this legislation is that it prohibits permit holders from carrying handguns in sensitive areas, with categories including schools, government buildings, polling places, bars and restaurants, theaters, sporting arenas, airports, casinos and childcare facilities. This historic legislation ensures New Jersey will have common sense gun safety laws that will keep our residents safe.

Always at your Service,

Joe Danielsen” – Facebook post from Joe Danielsen

 

[bigbravehog]

It's quite hysterical that the more white and affluent the Towns are the more BLM, homosexual pride signs you see. White Guilt or just peer pressure? Ignorant indoctrination
Drive thru Concord Center and see the huge BLM banner hanging between the pillars of the Congregational Church.

FIFY

 

[bfm]

Check out the demographics of Concord, Ma. I drove thru the center for over 20yrs, twice a day commuting to LL/HAFB and NEVER say a Black Person in town unless a town employee or delivery driver. The average White family couldn't buy a house in Concord never mind a Black family. No Section 8 housing either so where's the diversity. Oh right, it's hanging from the church.

Well, Concord is slightly below the MA average in % of population that is black, but they make up for it with an above average % of asian.

A few years ago talking to then Somerville mayor Curtatone, he was talking about how diverse Somerville was. I said sure if you mean we have caucasians from a lot of different countries. Somerville is slightly less white than MA as a whole but also slightly less black and slightly higher asian and hispanic.

 

[Garys]

I don't know if this was posted in this like, but it supports the idea that courts will be striking down laws fairly quickly.

Federal Judge Strikes Down New York’s Ban on Firearms in Places of Worship | Duke Center for Firearms Law

firearmslaw.duke.edu

The plaintiffs in Hardaway are a reverend and a bishop in upstate New York, both of whom have active concealed-carry licenses. The plaintiffs allege that they consistently carried guns on church property “for self-defense and to keep the peace,” under New York’s prior law which permitted license-holders to carry in most locations, and would continue doing so but for the state’s new law which designated places of worship (among many other locations) as sensitive places where guns are prohibited. The judge first engaged in a lengthy standing analysis, ultimately finding that the plaintiffs face a sufficiently imminent threat of prosecution, based on statements by New York politicians and law enforcement officials that the new law would be actively enforced.

 

[Coyote33]

I don't know if this was posted in this like, but it supports the idea that courts will be striking down laws fairly quickly.

So, how does this work? Does their legislature then have to reconvene and vote to remove it from the law books?

 

[Garys]

Not at this point. There is a split between two federal judges in the same Circuit. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals will probably end up settling the question within the circuit, but one of the parties involved will likely appeal to SCOTUS.

So, how does this work? Does their legislature then have to reconvene and vote to remove it from the law books?

 

[M1911]

So, how does this work? Does their legislature then have to reconvene and vote to remove it from the law books?

This is simply a temporary restraining order. It is not a final decision. There will be addition judicial proceedings and if the state loses they may appeal.

 

[Coyote33]

And again, just for clarity, does this, or does this not affect other states, such as Massachusetts?

 

[Coyote33]

Not at this point. There is a split between two federal judges in the same Circuit. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals will probably end up settling the question within the circuit, but one of the parties involved will likely appeal to SCOTUS.

This is simply a temporary restraining order. It is not a final decision. There will be addition judicial proceedings and if the state loses they may appeal.

Oh, I see. Sounds like you were getting a bit ahead of yourselves then.

I guess we need to take these pronouncements on here with a big grain of salt.

 

[pastera]

And again, just for clarity, does this, or does this not affect other states, such as Massachusetts?

No, even if it was at the appellate level it would only effect that circuit

 

[pastera]

Oh, I see. Sounds like you were getting a bit ahead of yourselves then.

I guess we need to take these pronouncements on here with a big grain of salt.

No, a lot of these TROs are foreshadowing of what will happen.
NY's law on no carry in private property without posting or direct permission in churches impermissibly infringes on both the first and second amendments

The judge that allowed the law to stand used a legal argument not allowed by Bruen and rejected by multiple other courts already.

It would be better to take these pronouncements with a decent dose of reading.

 

[M1911]

And again, just for clarity, does this, or does this not affect other states, such as Massachusetts?

We have already explained this to you. This does not directly affect MA. Once again, with feeling, this is not a final decision. This is simply a temporary restraining order.

This is just the local district, not the appeals court. Once there is a final decision in the local district, if NY loses, then they can appeal. They will appeal to the 2nd District appeals court. If NY loses that appeal and does not appeal to SCOTUS, then the case would be binding in the 2nd District. But we are in the 1st District so that appellate decision would not be binding in our district.

If NY loses at appeal and then appeals to SCOTUS, AND if SCOTUS agrees to hear the appeal AND if NY loses the appeal THEN it would be binding in MA.

Notice all the IFs in the paragraph above?

Furthermore, there is currently no law in MA banning carry in a church, so there would be no change to MA law as a result of a decision in this case. Would such a district or appeals court decision set a precedent that would be referred to in any similar case in MA? Yes, it would. But it would not be binding.

Stop holding your breath. The wheels of Justice will be turning for a while.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

Today at 10am SCOTUS hears two cases on affirmative action in college admissions. One case is against Harvard (private university), the second is against the university of North Carolina (public). Harvard like almost all universities accepts govt money so they have to that means their admissions mayst follow certain standards.

The new justice Jackson was on a Harvard board so she has recused herself and will not be part of the Harvard decision. The cases were accepted together as one but they split them a few months ago so Jackson could sit and hear the North Carolina case.

In cases challenging affirmative action, court will confront wide-ranging arguments on history, diversity, and the role of race in America - SCOTUSblog

In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled in Grutter v. Bollinger that universities may consider race in their admissions processes as part of their efforts to achieve diversity on campus. On Oct. 31, the justices will hear oral arguments in a pair of cases asking them to overturn Grutter and outlaw race-bas

www.scotusblog.com

The live feed of the hearing is here and starts at 10, SCOTUS is prompt, they get right to the cases. Live Oral Argument Audio



It’s very unlikely this court will uphold using race as a factor in admissions (aka uphold affirmative action in admissions). In 2 previous SCOTUS cases the court limited the use of affirmative action today the plaintiffs seek to end it for good.

A decision won’t be issued untold probably the end of June, most hot button issue cases are released at the end of the term, but expect a liberal meltdown when it happens. It will probably be a 6-3 decision in the UNC case and 6-2 in the Harvard. Roberts has always been very strongly against affirmative action.

Partick Strawbridge is good. I smelled historical in the beginning. Yes, race plays no role, What social economic barriers, what does that mean? Non-Black kids, don't have so called economic barriers? Who the f*** is that justice woman talking, with Starwbridge in the beginning? A little lower, a lot lower SAT tests. WAT?
She kept on interrupting him mid sentence. Never mind the one with the high pitch voice, WOW.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

It should be based on facts, not color.

 

[M1911]

Oh, I see. Sounds like you were getting a bit ahead of yourselves then.

I guess we need to take these pronouncements on here with a big grain of salt.

The judge granted the TRO and did so on a timely basis. He clearly thinks that the state has no case. That doesn't guarantee that his final ruling will be against the state, but it is positive. So it is a good sign, but there is a long way to go.

But by now you should realize any time that you read an article about a temporary restraining order that the restraining order is temporary. It isn't a final decision. Furthermore, you should by now understand the difference between the federal district court, the federal appeals court, and the Supreme Court of the United States. You should understand that even a final decision by a district court is subject to multiple appeals.

 

[EJFudd]

And again, just for clarity, does this, or does this not affect other states, such as Massachusetts?

No.

I guess we need to take these pronouncements on here with a big grain of salt.

Yes.

 

[42!]

Our court systems are a confusing mess to a lot of people, I can understand why @Coyote33 and others might get confused. I know sometimes I lose track of what is happening where and who it affects.
And with all the idiot YouTubers screaming about the super victory, major desition, etc when all they are talking about is a TRO, or some low level court decision that is obviously going to be appealed, wel ya it will get confusing if you don't filter out the BS.

One thing is for sure , when the final decisions start coming out, you will hear about it here. And not just some YouTube link. What it won't say is TRO or Temporary anything.

 

[vicorjh]

Lawsuit filed over Good Moral Character requirements (CA) re: Bruen:


View: https://youtu.be/bz5EKBLWdWw?t=24

 

[pastera]

Our court systems are a confusing mess to a lot of people, I can understand why @Coyote33 and others might get confused. I know sometimes I lose track of what is happening where and who it affects.
And with all the idiot YouTubers screaming about the super victory, major desition, etc when all they are talking about is a TRO, or some low level court decision that is obviously going to be appealed, wel ya it will get confusing if you don't filter out the BS.

One thing is for sure , when the final decisions start coming out, you will hear about it here. And not just some YouTube link. What it won't say is TRO or Temporary anything.

Completely agree
While a number of these cases are "super victories" they are only in the sense that they show clear progression to a removal of many long lived infringements.
To those that haven't studied the minutiae, hailing these events as significant seems pretty damn stupid.

Think about all of the legal wrangling that led up to the overturning of Roe and Casey - to those not into the small details it seemed the pro-life crowd was tilting at windmills and wasting time, effort and money.
But it was all carefully curated to form the legal foundation to topple an issue I'd say is even more decisive then firearms.