Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

Picton

NES Member
Rating - 100%
36   0   0
Joined
Sep 17, 2012
Messages
26,481
Likes
47,858
Location
MA
She’s a sheriff in CA, I bet her pension for the rest of her life will be substantially more than $100,000/ yr
Probably, though the conviction might have some bearing on that. But I think they were trying to make sure she wouldn’t be able to go be a sheriff someplace else.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
15,470
Likes
9,438
Probably, though the conviction might have some bearing on that. But I think they were trying to make sure she wouldn’t be able to go be a sheriff someplace else.

I know in Massachusetts if you’re convicted of a crime dealing with your political position, you usually lose your pension. The feds don’t have that. You taking bribes, etc and you keep your fed pension. No idea how California handles it.
 

Waher

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 2, 2014
Messages
29,212
Likes
59,298
Location
☦️
She’s a sheriff in CA, I bet her pension for the rest of her life will be substantially more than $100,000/ yr
Being convicted of corruption such that your termination was for cause seems like something that would have bearing on that.
 

Len-2A Training

Instructor
Instructor
NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 98.6%
73   1   0
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
55,490
Likes
17,077
Location
NH
Probably, though the conviction might have some bearing on that. But I think they were trying to make sure she wouldn’t be able to go be a sheriff someplace else.
From what I had read, it was a CIVIL trial, just like one of us suing someone. Therefore, there is NO conviction! It would take a criminal trial and a guilty finding to get that and it is a higher burden of proof in a criminal case than in a civil case.
 

MaverickNH

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
6,424
Likes
5,339
Location
SoNH

Kopel breaks the 184-page preliminary injunction against NY up into bite-sized bits nicely, concluding “the anti-gun lobbies that contributed to the drafting of the New York statute and filed amicus briefs in support portray themselves as champions of "common sense" gun control laws. Their behavior in New York indicates the opposite.”

Good point - although I wouldn’t exactly say they tipped their hand on their intentions. They threw their cards down face up in a hurry and are still trying to buff with a pair of deuces…
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
15,470
Likes
9,438

Kopel breaks the 184-page preliminary injunction against NY up into bite-sized bits nicely, concluding “the anti-gun lobbies that contributed to the drafting of the New York statute and filed amicus briefs in support portray themselves as champions of "common sense" gun control laws. Their behavior in New York indicates the opposite.”

Good point - although I wouldn’t exactly say they tipped their hand on their intentions. They threw their cards down face up in a hurry and are still trying to buff with a pair of deuces…

Kopel is an excellent source.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
15,470
Likes
9,438

paul73

NES Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Oct 30, 2020
Messages
10,255
Likes
11,975
Location
MA

SFC13557

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Aug 2, 2019
Messages
3,438
Likes
4,253
Location
Central Ma.
"as of 'take effect' - so now when ny gestapo enforcing hochul`s orders will put you in jail, you can sit in jail with a sense of a deep satisfaction of what was done to you was indeed a violation of law.
will make your jail time so much more enjoyable. "

Correct, which was my point from the beginning. They don't even have to arrest anyone, they just state that they're Appealing and refuse to recognize their defeat. Intimidation works against Joe and Jane who don't have the money for a high-priced lawyer nor can afford to be a test case.
 

MaverickNH

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
6,424
Likes
5,339
Location
SoNH
Referenced in a Bearing Arms piece RAND releases road map for gun control activists


Harvard’s David Hemenway, Saul Cornell of Fordham, and UCLA law professor Adam Winkler were all a part of the confab that laid out a road map for gun control groups to follow in the wake of Bruen. The group concedes that the decision is going to make it tougher to enact and uphold restrictions on the right to bear arms, but they also point to “ambiguities” in the decision that they say opens the door to keeping (and putting) gun control laws on the books.”

Both sides have their darlings and “intellectuals“, although the pro-2ndA side can be more readily understood by the man-on-the-street than the anti-gun academics - they need a press office to turn their research into word-bites for the liberal MSM. That media just ignore the RKBA perspective, for the most part.

It really is all about how much anti-gun spaghetti can be thrown at the district court walls, hoping some stick as cases that rise to en banc circuit court wins that take a tedious path to SCOTUS. I expect Shall-Issue looks only marginally better than May-Issue for those former May-Issue states for a good while. Only the brave and/or clueless honest, law-abiding citizens will carry in those states, providing fodder for the legal cannons.
 

Picton

NES Member
Rating - 100%
36   0   0
Joined
Sep 17, 2012
Messages
26,481
Likes
47,858
Location
MA
as of 'take effect' - so now when ny gestapo enforcing hochul`s orders will put you in jail, you can sit in jail with a sense of a deep satisfaction of what was done to you was indeed a violation of law.
will make your jail time so much more enjoyable. this is what any 'law' is:

View attachment 683718
If you’re sitting in jail longer than it takes to process your paperwork, you need a new lawyer. One who understands “habeas corpus.”

You’d be sprung almost immediately. You’d have been arrested in violation of a federal restraining order, and pending a broader overturn under Bruen. You’d be home the same night and filing a federal civil rights suit the following morning.
 

MaverickNH

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
6,424
Likes
5,339
Location
SoNH

In a six-page order issued on October 27, Judge Carlton Reeves of the Southern District of Mississippi directed the parties in a case challenging the constitutionality of the federal felon-in-possession ban to submit briefs on the issue of whether the court “should appoint a historian to serve as a consulting expert.

A lot said on that, but what caught my attention was:

Judge Reeves’ order also raises a recurring critique of originalism: that it limits judges to white male views because only white men (and, in some instances, only those who owned a certain amount of property) could participate in the political process in the Founding Era. Jake previously summarized an Ohio state court judge’s dissent that touched on this issue. As the late Duke professor Jerome Culp, Jr. observed:

Blacks were not consulted by the “Founders” nor were their concerns considered relevant by the drafters. Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence and Madison wrote the preliminary draft of the Constitution-Frederick Douglass did not. Black people cannot enter the dispute about how to define essential terms because they were not present. “Defer to the past” is the implicit message. Listen to the wiser and greater (and whiter) founders.


This smacks of something akin to the 1619 Project’s rejection of The Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States as illegitimate due to lack of contributions by non-white and non-male colonists - that is, no Blacks, Indians, women, etc. Should the founders have asked chattel slaves (aka enslaved Africans) and Indigenous Americans, the latter whom they were to drive from their lands and/or kill en masse, to weigh in on the content of a system of government that was beyond their comprehension? Abagail Adams harangued John Adams incessantly on women's’ suffrage to some effect, as did wives of other leading figures, but women as a whole had no formal input. But really, the argument Originalism is all about African slaves.

There would have been no US when the slave states refused to attend the Second Continental Congress or a Constitutional Convention under such terms. The southern colonies would have allied with France, Spain, Britain with history anyone’s guess. So, what’s the end-game? The 1619 Project just offers a rewrite on history and K-12 education. Those that reject Originalism offer no guidance on how to interpret COTUS in a manner accommodating some rectification of racial/gender suffrage.

In 2020, about 1/2 of US population growth was attributed to immigrants. No ancestors of immigrants had a say in the founding, yet 26% of the US population today are immigrants - some 86 million people. There were ~0.7 million slaves in the US when the US Constitution was drafted. Do we erase what 85 million immigrants came to for what <1 million had no say in?
 
Last edited:

Dennis in MA

NES Member
Rating - 100%
25   0   0
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
33,790
Likes
27,482
If you’re sitting in jail longer than it takes to process your paperwork, you need a new lawyer. One who understands “habeas corpus.”

You’d be sprung almost immediately. You’d have been arrested in violation of a federal restraining order, and pending a broader overturn under Bruen. You’d be home the same night and filing a federal civil rights suit the following morning.

Look at these writs - straight from Sacramento! ;)

(I always think of that line when I hear "writ." Which you didn't say, but it's a WRIT of HC, not HC. I digress. Time to get Stockbridge and his deputies anyhow.)

But THIS! The civil rights violation on the federal level would be epic. Sure Hoe-Chill will try and threaten folks. But where rubber meets road - they have zero to stand on. And the ones that will be doing the arresting - they know it.
 

MaverickNH

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
6,424
Likes
5,339
Location
SoNH

A trip inside the heads of two legal academic favoring gun control. Their points:

1. 1897 to 2022, politics had driven CCW laws from restrictive to permissive, with only a few May-Issue states holding out. Why change from politics to constitutional means to address guns in society?
2. The historical analogy requirement of Bruen is dubious as “many questions of gun regulation turn on context and community standards, which counsels that any constitutional test must leave some room for elected politicians to tailor gun laws to local conditions based on popular opinion.” Oddly, the support for this declaration is the SCOTUS Dobbs abortion case decision. Somehow, the authors are conflating Originalism decisions on abortion and RKBA. When the butthurt is Critical, the source is hard to attribute.
3. They find an imbalance between the historical rigor between new gun laws and permissible weapons, wondering why muskets justify AR15s but a few gun laws in territories don’t justify broad gun bans in “sensitive places”.
4. “…the authors explore how the legal framework that Bruen creates may constitutionalize the gun debate in ways that are unequally responsive to different modes of public political expression.” They are unhappy that liberal politicians can’t make new gun laws willy nilly, without constitutional restraints.

C3007E66-39D0-40E6-8E65-4DBA704F99E0.jpeg
 

Garys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
94   0   0
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
21,026
Likes
6,623
Location
Stoughton

View: https://youtu.be/gCGNYJOrebA



A trip inside the heads of two legal academic favoring gun control. Their points:

1. 1897 to 2022, politics had driven CCW laws from restrictive to permissive, with only a few May-Issue states holding out. Why change from politics to constitutional means to address guns in society?
2. The historical analogy requirement of Bruen is dubious as “many questions of gun regulation turn on context and community standards, which counsels that any constitutional test must leave some room for elected politicians to tailor gun laws to local conditions based on popular opinion.” Oddly, the support for this declaration is the SCOTUS Dobbs abortion case decision. Somehow, the authors are conflating Originalism decisions on abortion and RKBA. When the butthurt is Critical, the source is hard to attribute.
3. They find an imbalance between the historical rigor between new gun laws and permissible weapons, wondering why muskets justify AR15s but a few gun laws in territories don’t justify broad gun bans in “sensitive places”.
4. “…the authors explore how the legal framework that Bruen creates may constitutionalize the gun debate in ways that are unequally responsive to different modes of public political expression.” They are unhappy that liberal politicians can’t make new gun laws willy nilly, without constitutional restraints.

View attachment 684471
 

MaverickNH

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
6,424
Likes
5,339
Location
SoNH

I believe a second historical inquiry is required in this case. Even if certain restrictions were historically permitted on college campuses, another important question arises: are large modern campuses like the University of Michigan's so dispersed and multifaceted that a total campus ban would now cover areas that historically would not have had any restrictions? In other words, are historical campuses the best analogy for the modern campus?

…The University of Michigan itself occupies nearly one-tenth of Ann Arbor. Many areas on campus, such as roadways, open areas, shopping districts, or restaurants, might not fit the "sensitive place" model suggested by Heller—they may instead be more historically analogous to other locations that did not have gun restrictions. And because the campus is so entwined with the surrounding community, the ban might also burden carrying rights on locations outside campus, as many individuals will regularly go from campus to off-campus environments, even in a single trip; because they cannot bring a gun on campus, they will not feasibly be able to bring the gun to the off-campus locations either
.”

All good points we’ve dealt with wrt properties owned by colleges/universities that are not classroom/dorms. When one “sensitive place”, a school, occupies 1/10th of Ann Arbor, MI, that’s getting silly. As NY’s Gov Hochul said when asked where a CCW license holder could carry legally, she said “Some streets.” That’s beyond stupid.
 
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
44,531
Likes
27,439
I know in Massachusetts if you’re convicted of a crime dealing with your political position, you usually lose your pension. The feds don’t have that. You taking bribes, etc and you keep your fed pension. No idea how California handles it.
I think you only lose state contribution but get to keep the contributions you made.
 

MaverickNH

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
6,424
Likes
5,339
Location
SoNH

"This November, voters in Iowa will weigh in on a proposed state constitutional amendment that would make all gun regulations subject to strict scrutiny. The full text of the proposed amendment, which was approved by the state legislature in early 2021, is as follows (emphasis added):

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The sovereign state of Iowa affirms and recognizes this right to be a fundamental individual right. Any and all restrictions of this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny....

If Bruen’s test is indeed on par with, or tougher than, strict scrutiny, we can expect this fact to halt the recent spurt of strict-scrutiny constitutional amendments at the state level. Instead, we’re likely to see a broader shift where state courts increasingly use the Bruen test to evaluate challenges under state constitutional analogues to the Second Amendment, even in states without a strict rule that such analogous provisions are construed in tandem."

Legal academics ruminating on the passage of the Iowa Constitution amendment, at 65.1% in favor. They say Bruen and the Amendment double-down on affirming RKBA like it's a bad thing...

"...because the amendment combines the “right to keep and bear arms” language with a strict-scrutiny provision, it is impossible to determine voter levels of support for each provision independently. It could be, for example, that many voters support adding the protection itself to the state constitution, but are unaware that federal Second Amendment challenges are not—and have rarely been—evaluated under strict scrutiny."
 

Garys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
94   0   0
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
21,026
Likes
6,623
Location
Stoughton
If the voters are so motivated, they can lobby to amend or repeal the Second Amendment. Then we'll see who is in favor and who is opposed.




Legal academics ruminating on the passage of the Iowa Constitution amendment, at 65.1% in favor. They say Bruen and the Amendment double-down on affirming RKBA like it's a bad thing...

"...because the amendment combines the “right to keep and bear arms” language with a strict-scrutiny provision, it is impossible to determine voter levels of support for each provision independently. It could be, for example, that many voters support adding the protection itself to the state constitution, but are unaware that federal Second Amendment challenges are not—and have rarely been—evaluated under strict scrutiny."
 
Top Bottom