Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

[Picton]

Disarming Americans is a core belief of the Left BUT it seems it could be taking a back seat to Climate Change and Queer Nation/woke culture.
They seem to think they'll have more success banning fossil fuels, gas stoves, certain pronouns, etc. than guns because of the current Supreme Court.

They want wins.

Gun control requires the government, and they know now that federal firearms restrictions face a very rough road ahead. But they can get at climate change and wokeness through businesses and advertising, so it's a better thing for them to spend their money on.

Remember, leftists have vowed NOT to obey laws they don't believe in...

Well, but be fair. We say the exact same thing.

And when the rubber meets the road, we usually comply anyway. But gun control isn't going to be a case of them disobeying laws; those laws won't exist for them to disobey, and they won't be able to impose them.

 

[SFC13557]

They want wins.

Gun control requires the government, and they know now that federal firearms restrictions face a very rough road ahead. But they can get at climate change and wokeness through businesses and advertising, so it's a better thing for them to spend their money on.



Well, but be fair. We say the exact same thing.

And when the rubber meets the road, we usually comply anyway. But gun control isn't going to be a case of them disobeying laws; those laws won't exist for them to disobey, and they won't be able to impose them.

You are correct they have big business behind them, but I read the ESG scam is collapsing and the War in the Ukraine has woken up the Euroweenies to their NO fossil fuels vow and it's consequences.
Difference between us and them is WE believe in the Constitution and B of R's and they don't.
We protest illegal laws which go against the Constitution or the B of R's while they celebrate them.

 

[42!]

I’m neither of those things.

With the Bruen ruling added to Heller, Mcdonald and Caetano, there is basically nowhere for the gun controllers to go at this point.

Even Bruen made it clear that licensing is OK, non arbitrary restrictions are ok, restricted places is ok as long as you don't go too far. These are all gun control and perfectly ok under Bruen. Stop reading click bait and start looking at the ruling, and reality. Gun control will change, and change again in the future, but don't delude yourself, it's here to stay.
This does not mean we shouldn't keep working on it, it just means we need to live in the real world or be dismissed as crazies.

 

[Hoover]

View: https://www.instagram.com/p/CnZspEBy4vg/

Weird hogan is pictured there, he’s not governor any longer. MDs AWB and mag limits are in the 4th circuit right now before an Obama judge, trump and bush, and at the oral arguments last month it did not seem very promising for MD.

 

[Hoover]

I just posted about this in some other thread.

Competent politicians (and Healy and Mariano are very good politicians) won't let a controversial bill get to the executive branch at all. They will ensure it dies in the legislature. That way, nobody is embarrassed and everyone looks good.

That idiot linsky has introduced gun many gun control laws every session and they’ve never made it out of committee.

 

[Hoover]

I’m neither of those things.

With the Bruen ruling added to Heller, Mcdonald and Caetano, there is basically nowhere for the gun controllers to go at this point.

A lot of the AWB, mag limits, etc will probably go down over the next 18-24 months but gun control isn’t dead. There are things they can pass, I’m not listing them because I’m not giving them ideas for Massachusetts. They have limited options though

 

[xtry51]

The ATF pistol brace debacle is yet another example of how even without new laws liberals will restrict guns and SCOTUS is doing jack shit to stop it in a timely manner.

 

[pastera]

FIFY again.

You keep stating your opinion as if it were fact.

Some of us make a statement of our opinion backed by reasoning supported with case law.

You toss shit over the fence.

Yeah, I don't start every sentence with "in my opinion" as you seem to think we should simply because that is dumb faggotry. Nor should I have to put together a timeline of milestones I'm developing case law. I don't believe I ever gave timeliness so I don't know why you have an issue with them.
If there is a flaw in my analysis of the probable outcomes in 2a caselaw then point them out. Pointing out that thr timeline is long when that was never in dispute is useless.

 

[T-Unit]

Yeah, I have friends who passed away waiting for the dominos to fall...

Elections have consequences. As much as some hated the Trumper, he delivered with the courts.

The sharing of ideas on the internet has certainly helped spread things quicker and while we're a lot worse off than we were in the 90s regarding civil rights and surveillance, we have the Red Pill from the Matrix that can reach every person in the world with the concept of liberty. This was not available for many decades under the NFA.

 

[pastera]

The ATF pistol brace debacle is yet another example of how even without new laws liberals will restrict guns and SCOTUS is doing jack shit to stop it in a timely manner.

As I stated in another thread, it is highly likely that Chevron Deference will prevail leaving pistol braces as NFA items with the caveat of free stamps to shooters with proof of disability in order to comply with ADA regulations.

 

[T-Unit]

I believe these States are on a Kamikaze mission to take out SCOTUS as presently constituted.
I believe they're hoping to motivate some Leftist fanatic to take out one of the Conservative Justices so Joe gets a nominee and reverses the balance of the Court.

There's also a component to keep up their present antagonism of SCOTUS because in doing so they expose the reality that SCOTUS has no actual power to enforce any of the rulings they make. SCOTUS can make rulings all they want, it doesn't mean that they have to be adhered to because what is the punishment if they don't? Oh, the President is going to use the DOJ to go after NY? No he's not, so what's Congress going to do, impeach the President? No, they won't because they don't have the votes.

The rule of law is dead in the US, which means the Constitution is as well because what the Constitution requires is people who are willing to fight for it and nobody is. That natural instinct has been bred out of the American race.

 

[T-Unit]

Not really. The only reason I am freer now than 40 uears ago is because I left CT for NH and NH state laws were repealed and CC put in place. None of that was federal.

If I had stayed in CT the laws did nothing but get worse. And look at all the lib states passing insane laws after Bruen.

The problem isn't the rulings. The problem is the complete lack of penalties for anyone who passes and unconstitutional law. People who pass these laws, enforce these laws with arrests, prosecuted the people arrested and judges who didn't immediately dismiss the cases and order the cops and prosecutors arrested for kidnapping all need to be in prison. 10 years minimum. Maximum possible is 10 years plus the total maximum possible for every false arrest. If the total is over 20 years you get death penalty automatic.

Either people start dying in prison or hanging from the gallows or nothing will change because tyrants will simply continue to pass laws faster than they are struck down.

Force is the only thing tyrants understand and few are willing to use force because "mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

Basically living a half life with the illusion of freedom is better than risking potentially living no life at all in the gain of a full life with true freedom.

 

[T-Unit]

You must be young, or irrationally idealistic, gun control is political, it swings like a pendulum. Over time the best you'll get is limited gun control. There are no absolutes in the world, gun control is no different.

Times change. So long as SCOTUS is a majority the 2A pendulum will swing to our side. When that changes it won't, which is why it's important to strike while the iron is hot.

 

[JFR2]

As I stated in another thread, it is highly likely that Chevron Deference will prevail leaving pistol braces as NFA items with the caveat of free stamps to shooters with proof of disability in order to comply with ADA regulations.

The 5th Circuit's en banc decision with bump stocks clearly laid out why Chevron Deference does not apply to these situations where the ATF is creating criminal penalties. Only Congress can do that. Additionally, the ATF was unexplainably reversing their position after many years (and written position papers).
ETA: Also- I dont think the ATF can add things to the NFA...it has to be congress that changes the law, right?

-JR

 

[Coyote33]

Some of us make a statement of our opinion backed by reasoning supported with case law.

Well, I was responding to Picton, but if the shoe fits. Anyhow, sure, but an opinion is still an opinion. The specific place I wrote that, he was saying it as if it were fact, which is not true. I just wanted to point that out. Just because you keep repeating your (his) opinion, does not turn it into a fact.

You toss shit over the fence.

I am trying to give a realistic view from the actual world. Sorry if it is not fully in agreement with you.

Yeah, I don't start every sentence with "in my opinion" as you seem to think we should simply because that is dumb faggotry. Nor should I have to put together a timeline of milestones I'm developing case law. I don't believe I ever gave timeliness so I don't know why you have an issue with them.

Fair enough. But it had reached a point where you (I mean HE) was posting so much as if it were fact, when it was not. Was just pointing this out. Sorry if your (his) feelings got hurt.

If there is a flaw in my analysis of the probable outcomes in 2a caselaw then point them out. Pointing out that thr timeline is long when that was never in dispute is useless.

True. No dispute there.


Let's get this discussion back to NYSRPA vs. Bruen.

 

[Dadstoys]

EXCLUSIVE: Documents Show FBI and ATF Warrantless Surveillance Through Gun Background Checks

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has been tracking gun owners without a warrant in ...

www.theepochtimes.com

For the doubters.

 

[Picton]

Well, I was responding to Picton, but if the shoe fits. Anyhow, sure, but an opinion is still an opinion. The specific place I wrote that, he was saying it as if it were fact, which is not true. I just wanted to point that out. Just because you keep repeating your (his) opinion, does not turn it into a fact.



I am trying to give a realistic view from the actual world. Sorry if it is not fully in agreement with you.



Fair enough. But it had reached a point where you (I mean HE) was posting so much as if it were fact, when it was not. Was just pointing this out. Sorry if your (his) feelings got hurt.



True. No dispute there.


Let's get this discussion back to NYSRPA vs. Bruen.

…you assuming my gender, bro?

 

[pastera]

The ATF pistol brace debacle is yet another example of how even without new laws liberals will restrict guns and SCOTUS is doing jack shit to stop it in a timely manner.

The ATF is pretty much acting within it's bounds, for once, with pistol braces given the actual use of the majority of braces.
In truth, I believe it will be easier to remove SBRs from NFA through the courts than it will be to show braces, as implemented, are not SBRs by intent.

 

[Hoover]

The ATF pistol brace debacle is yet another example of how even without new laws liberals will restrict guns and SCOTUS is doing jack shit to stop it in a timely manner.

Courts take some time and cSes don’t jump to SCOTUS because you’d like them to go faster. Cases are filed in district courts, usually for a TRO or parliamentary injunction at first, etc. there are well over 50 cases across the country, the furthest along is bianch vs Frosh in the 4th. Probably 80% of these issues will be pretty settled over the next 18-24 months. Be patient.

The pistol brace will have a lawsuit, probably in Texas federal court like the bumpstocks. The 5th circuit is a very conservative court and the most conservative appeals court. They are very unlikely to allow the pistol brace regulation to stand and unless SCOTUS wants to reverse them, the brace rule will fall.

 

[dingbat]

Courts take some time and cSes don’t jump to SCOTUS because you’d like them to go faster. Cases are filed in district courts, usually for a TRO or parliamentary injunction at first, etc. there are well over 50 cases across the country, the furthest along is bianch vs Frosh in the 4th. Probably 80% of these issues will be pretty settled over the next 18-24 months. Be patient.

The pistol brace will have a lawsuit, probably in Texas federal court like the bumpstocks. The 5th circuit is a very conservative court and the most conservative appeals court. They are very unlikely to allow the pistol brace regulation to stand and unless SCOTUS wants to reverse them, the brace rule will fall.

I’m curious if their decision violates ADA in some way. If so, that would make an interesting case.

Eta: Someone like myself would probably have standing. I’ve got all sorts of stuff in my house specifically to accommodate a couple family members and some friends with varying disabilities including paraplegia and quadriplegia.
I can’t imagine they can tell me I can’t keep ramps on hand or put a 36” door with lever knobs on my bathroom. How is a brace for an AR pistol any different if it makes it so my relative with impaired limbs can participate in the same activities the rest of us do?

 

[Hoover]

I’m curious if their decision violates ADA in some way. If so, that would make an interesting case.

One of the gun groups mentioned disabilities in their criticism of the new rule, so I’m sure that will be one avenue of the legal challenges. It’s important it is challenged from all fronts though as they could easily amended the rule to exempt the disabled .

Like bumpstocks the ATF will have a very difficult time in court explaining how they found bumpstocks legal and not covered by NFA for years until it suddenly changed its opinion. Here with braces they gave the ok over and over and then changed their minds. Part of laws and regulations deals with people relying on knowing what the situation is. A government cannot change the rules in the middle of the game without a very good reason. People bought braces, companies were created and spent a lot of money building their businesses based on the ATFs guidelines. They can’t change that because the pudding admin doesn’t like guns.

 

[Picton]

One of the gun groups mentioned disabilities in their criticism of the new rule, so I’m sure that will be one avenue of the legal challenges. It’s important it is challenged from all fronts though as they could easily amended the rule to exempt the disabled .

Like bumpstocks the ATF will have a very difficult time in court explaining how they found bumpstocks legal and not covered by NFA for years until it suddenly changed its opinion. Here with braces they gave the ok over and over and then changed their minds. Part of laws and regulations deals with people relying on knowing what the situation is. A government cannot change the rules in the middle of the game without a very good reason. People bought braces, companies were created and spent a lot of money building their businesses based on the ATFs guidelines. They can’t change that because the pudding admin doesn’t like guns.

TPTB were very smart when they started substituting "regulations" or "rules" in place of "laws," because the Constitution explicitly bans ex-post-facto laws. It's silent on ex-post-facto regulations.

Smart. Devilishly so.

 

[SFC13557]

There's also a component to keep up their present antagonism of SCOTUS because in doing so they expose the reality that SCOTUS has no actual power to enforce any of the rulings they make. SCOTUS can make rulings all they want, it doesn't mean that they have to be adhered to because what is the punishment if they don't? Oh, the President is going to use the DOJ to go after NY? No he's not, so what's Congress going to do, impeach the President? No, they won't because they don't have the votes.

The rule of law is dead in the US, which means the Constitution is as well because what the Constitution requires is people who are willing to fight for it and nobody is. That natural instinct has been bred out of the American race.

I agree, fellow NES posters keep using the Kim Davis case as an example of States being forced to comply with Federal Law/decisions, but I don't think it applies.
I can't see the DOJ sending US Marshalls to NY/NJ/CA to arrest Pols who write/pass new firearms bills restricting citizens' rights even if/when they are shot down by Federal Courts.
The Leftists have stated SCOTUS is illegitimate because of the Conservative makeup and now their rulings on Abortion and Bruen.
Wait until June when they strike down Affirmative Action, never mind them striking down AWB and hi-cap mag bans.
they will be in full on War mode.

 

[Hoover]

I agree, fellow NES posters keep using the Kim Davis case as an example of States being forced to comply with Federal Law/decisions, but I don't think it applies.
I can't see the DOJ sending US Marshalls to NY/NJ/CA to arrest Pols who write/pass new firearms bills restricting citizens' rights even if/when they are shot down by Federal Courts.
The Leftists have stated SCOTUS is illegitimate because of the Conservative makeup and now their rulings on Abortion and Bruen.
Wait until June when they strike down Affirmative Action, never mind them striking down AWB and hi-cap mag bans.
they will be in full on War mode.

Davis is a civil case. If federal courts strike down these laws and state and local officials try to enforce them, the arrested can go after the officials personally, no qualified immunity. Davis is being sued personally and will financially ruined.

 

[KBCraig]

The ATF pistol brace debacle is yet another example of how even without new laws liberals will restrict guns and SCOTUS is doing jack shit to stop it in a timely manner.

It's been three days since the final rule was released, and two of those were weekend days.

How "timely" do you expect SCOTUS to be on this timeline?

 

[T-Unit]

It's been three days since the final rule was released, and two of those were weekend days.

How "timely" do you expect SCOTUS to be on this timeline?

There are some who believe SCOTUS failed in the 1930s during the Miller case and it has been a hollow institution ever since.

Dred Scott would beg to differ.

 

[HARRYM]

Bruen’s Preliminary Preservation of the Second Amendment | The Federalist Society

fedsoc.org

 

[MaverickNH]

There's also a component to keep up their present antagonism of SCOTUS because in doing so they expose the reality that SCOTUS has no actual power to enforce any of the rulings they make. SCOTUS can make rulings all they want, it doesn't mean that they have to be adhered to because what is the punishment if they don't? Oh, the President is going to use the DOJ to go after NY? No he's not, so what's Congress going to do, impeach the President? No, they won't because they don't have the votes.

The rule of law is dead in the US, which means the Constitution is as well because what the Constitution requires is people who are willing to fight for it and nobody is. That natural instinct has been bred out of the American race.

SCOTUS doesn’t, and was never intended, to have such enforcement power. What better example on MLK Day - when force was misused at the state and local police levels, the Executive called up federal troops. But only when rule of law AND public sentiment compelled Eisenhower to do so. And it took decades to actually reverse segregation. We’re only a decade past Heller and making progress.

Braces & Bumpstocks is a technical point that the vast majority do not understand - not a hill to fight and die on but not one to walk away from either…it’s a siege. More of the public is getting onboard with broader 2ndA issues but picture a protest march with well-dressed citizens (that is, everyday clothing) carrying rifles bearing braces and bumpstocks - nobody would understand it. If these citizens wore body armor and tactical gear (as many would), most would fear and reject it. Sure, that’s “fighting”, but really bad tactics.

 

[xtry51]

It's been three days since the final rule was released, and two of those were weekend days.

How "timely" do you expect SCOTUS to be on this timeline?

The problem with SCOTUS is they are too weak to act as they should. At this point EVERY federal gun law should have been voided. Period.

They take this bullshit piece meal approach allowing the rest if government to continue infringing upon rights even though they clearly know their rulings create insane contradictions.

And then they avoid taking cases on clearly related to recent decisions, again allowing constant infringement.

 

[milktree]

The problem with SCOTUS is they are too weak to act as they should. At this point EVERY federal gun law should have been voided. Period.

They take this bullshit piece meal approach allowing the rest if government to continue infringing upon rights even though they clearly know their rulings create insane contradictions.

And then they avoid taking cases on clearly related to recent decisions, again allowing constant infringement.

Do you feel the same way about all issues SCOTUS takes?