pinefd
NES Member
I’ve heard reports that as many as ten to forty million pistol braces may have been sold to date. Wouldn’t that qualify as “in common use” per SCOTUS’ recent ruling?
Frank
-
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.
Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread
- Thread starter soloman02
- Start date
I’ve heard reports that as many as ten to forty million pistol braces may have been sold to date. Wouldn’t that qualify as “in common use” per SCOTUS’ recent ruling?
Frank
Courts are slower than the legislature or executive, this isn’t new. SCOTUS is an appeals court, you start with district court and things go through the process. NYSRPA vs bruen was just decided 6 months ago, no court has ruled on a 2nd amendment case on the merits yet, just relax and get some perspective.
What case has SCOTUS avoided taking? SCOTUS only takes 70-80 cases a year, they allow records to be developed and the lower court do the majority of the work before they take cases.
SFC13557
NES Member
Judge Fires at New Jersey’s Gun Law
A federal court blocks enforcing key provisions of the state statute.
From Today's WSJ!"Massive resistance used to be a phrase associated with Southern opposition to the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education ruling on racial integration. These days it describes how progressive institutions resist the Supreme Court’s rulings on guns, race and regulation.
In June the High Court ruled that the ability to carry a firearm outside the home is fundamental to the Second Amendment. New Jersey politicians responded by declaring a host of public places from state parks to theaters off-limits to guns—and last week federal Judge Renée Marie Bumb called foul on the state by blocking enforcement of specific provisions that have been challenged in lawsuits. The temporary stay will last until a hearing and ruling on the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction.
The challenge was brought by gun-rights groups and three New Jersey gun owners who had concealed-carry permits before the law was passed. The bulk of their case revolved around the law’s designation of “sensitive places” where carrying a gun is prohibited.
The plaintiffs challenged the gun bans in public libraries and museums, as well as bars and restaurants that serve alcohol and entertainment facilities. They also questioned provisions of the law barring guns from being carried on private property without first getting the permission of the property owner, as well as one prohibiting guns in cars unless they are unloaded, locked and in the trunk. As the judge noted, “state restrictions that are so extensive and burdensome” effectively nullify the ability of gun owners to exercise their constitutional right.
Which is the intent of the New Jersey law. Judge Bumb noted that while the state has had six months since New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen to identify historical analogues the Court said could justify banning guns in a given space, it has failed to provide them. All of which means confusion for the law-abiding gun owner. “The court,” the judge wrote, “knows of no constitutional right that requires this much guesswork by individuals wanting to exercise such right.”
Justice Clarence Thomas has noted that, since the Supreme Court’s 2008 landmark Heller decision upholding an individual right to bear arms, many lower courts have also resisted its commands. It’s encouraging to see Judge Bumb make sure New Jersey politicians don’t do the same to Bruen."
SFC13557
NES Member
Right so if/when NY/NJ arrest a LTC holder for carrying in a "restricted" area and he/she spends 50-100k to defend themselves, spends months in prison, loses their job and NY/NJ caves after 2-5 yrs the ruined plaintiff can sue the Police, DA, Prosecutor and Judge for damages. I believe this is the plan for the States, they send a message by ruining a life and then say sue us. Maybe 5-10 yrs later Joe Q. Public gets 1M but he /she has been put thru hell and message sent to anyone else daring to challenge the authorities.
Am I wrong Hoover?
I understand your passion and I agree with it, but with respect, do you know anything about how the role of SCOTUS has evolved over the past couple centuries?
And I'll echo milktree's question: do you support this in every SCOTUS case? Or just about guns? Do you really want judges making laws? Hell, would you have wanted the Warren or the Rehnquist courts making lasting gun laws?
There’s a a TRO in place in NJ so there is no enforcement at all there right now. In NY there were TROs issued by two district court judges, the 2nd circuit stayed those TROs without comment until a hearing.
The cases in all these states are facial challenges, they’re not as applied. These things will be settle at a fair brisk pace and thus far NY isn’t enforcing their BS.
View: https://twitter.com/gooniegoogoo111/status/1614837070081449988?s=61&t=sXtv1R30hdRB5kDsC9i1fw
Stop the nonsense about things going on for 2-5 years etc.
I love how xtry51 blames SCOTUS and seems to want cases to go right to SCOTUS. It’s called the court of last resort for a reason lol
KBCraig
NES Member
The Court that would take on hot button issues sua sponte would be a very dangerous court.
People don’t understand courts at all. Appeals courts hear the appeal of the record fro the district court 99% of the time. Appeals courts, SCOTUS are not the courts to generate a record, they’re almost always deciding legal questions from the record of the district court.
Some here vehemently object to activist courts/judges but seems to want that if it favors them.
This. Definitely a "be careful what you wish for" situation.
HARRYM
NES Member
In a perfect world ALL Courts would respect the rule of law, the Constitution and would simply rule on whether or not the entities were broken or violated.
It just isn't that way anymore.
The Courts have been radicalized and politicized to the point of being permanently broken.
99% of all courts opinions fall to the political ideology of judges within the respective benches.
The SCOTUS has been mainly voting on ideology breaks for quite sometime now. The 3 Liberals supported NY in the Bruen case. The Heller case was 5-4, R/D
Roberts statement that there are no Republican Judges or Democratic Judges is beyond ignorant, its dangerous.
Say we have 3 Sotomayer's, 3 Kagan's, and 3 Brown Jackson's who make up the SCOTUS's nine Judges.
Any of you who think we would still have gun rights in this Country please raise your hand.
It just isn't that way anymore.
The Courts have been radicalized and politicized to the point of being permanently broken.
99% of all courts opinions fall to the political ideology of judges within the respective benches.
The SCOTUS has been mainly voting on ideology breaks for quite sometime now. The 3 Liberals supported NY in the Bruen case. The Heller case was 5-4, R/D
Roberts statement that there are no Republican Judges or Democratic Judges is beyond ignorant, its dangerous.
Say we have 3 Sotomayer's, 3 Kagan's, and 3 Brown Jackson's who make up the SCOTUS's nine Judges.
Any of you who think we would still have gun rights in this Country please raise your hand.
It never was. It never could be. Lawyers argue over definitions for a living, and they always have. The moment the Constitution was ratified, people disagreed over its meaning. The modern SCOTUS is no more activist than most of its predecessors have been; in fact, given the increase in the sheer number of cases the federal bench churns through, you could make a decent argument that they're even less so.
ETA: Nope. Absolutely not. Lol.
Last edited:
HARRYM
NES Member
With those 9 as Judges? You Sir are flat out of your mind.
HARRYM
NES Member
You scared me there for a minute.
I'm curious, now, whether the Court has ever been that slanted.
The nation has been more partisan than this at times, like during the early Federalist era (when politicians were shooting each other) and the antebellum era (when they were shooting each other AND beating each other half to death), but I'm not sure SCOTUS has ever been more than 6-3 out of whack one way or the other.
Guaranteed, someone's done that research.
HARRYM
NES Member
Once the Buick Killer Borked Robert Bork its been all downhill in these court fights since then.
strangenh
NES Member
There has not been a Supreme Court that wasn't shat on by one party or another. In a checks-and-balances system, they are obliged to offend someone, every time.
There has not been a significant right some states have resisted that has not seen this process: Rampant abuse, acceptance of the abuse, trial court challenge, lower appellate court dances, top Court decision, state resistance, ridiculous lawmaking, various lower court re-challenges, back up the chain, Court decision restatement and reinforcement, eventual capitulation by the states. We're still in the middle of that process for many things. And I am sure the process will continue forever, as statists find things to poke at and the many rights organizations find ground to fight back.
There has not been a significant right some states have resisted that has not seen this process: Rampant abuse, acceptance of the abuse, trial court challenge, lower appellate court dances, top Court decision, state resistance, ridiculous lawmaking, various lower court re-challenges, back up the chain, Court decision restatement and reinforcement, eventual capitulation by the states. We're still in the middle of that process for many things. And I am sure the process will continue forever, as statists find things to poke at and the many rights organizations find ground to fight back.
SFC13557
NES Member
Yup but remember FDR tried to pack, expand the court to get his New Deal policies thru in the 30's.
SFC13557
NES Member
"Stop the nonsense about things going on for 2-5 years etc."
Nonsense?
So you think NY/NJ are just going to cave after spending many hours and taxpayer dollars crafting and passing these new State firearm laws?
Hope you're right.
Nonsense?
So you think NY/NJ are just going to cave after spending many hours and taxpayer dollars crafting and passing these new State firearm laws?
Hope you're right.
xtry51
NES Member
Yes. There is not enough teeth on the tiger to tame government. This was a failure of the Founders.
xtry51
NES Member
You misunderstood me. I want SCOTUS to have the power to strike down any law with the stroke of a pen that is not written in the constitution, but violates it. And I want the people who passed those laws, enforced those laws and laid judgment in cases supporting those laws that are struck down hung in the public square.
We should not have 99% of laws that exist.
Striking down law is not the power to MAKE law. It is a negative power who's sole purpose is to protect freedom.
Last edited:
KBCraig
NES Member
Plessy v. Ferguson was a 7-1 ruling.
KBCraig
NES Member
We actually dodged a bullet with Bork. He was extremely deferential to executive branch rulings. He would have sided with ATF and EPA and every other TLA.
Oh, no, I know. SCOTUS has had plenty of 9-0 rulings, too. I'm more curious about that court's idealogical makeup. The Plessy court, obviously, was very conservative, but based on who nominated them I don't think they predictably voted as a bloc. Maybe I'm wrong.
From what I can find out, Harrison had a bunch of appointees on that court, and Cleveland had a lot of the rest. One was a Lincoln appointment, so they were probably all over the map idealogically.
Interesting piece on the brace ban and the upcoming court fight.
open.substack.com
OSD 204: When you come at the king, you best not miss
The ATF's gamble on the brace ban.
open.substack.com
MaverickNH
NES Member
Should State Officials Receive Qualified Immunity for Creatively Resisting Bruen?
Unhappy with the Supreme Court’s decision in New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, New York and New Jersey have passed laws designed to nullify Bruen’s practical effect. California and…
standinghisground.com
“ In former may-issue states, gun owners will face substantial legal risks when exercising their rights. But the legal risk may not only be on private citizens. Despite strengthening qualified immunity in recent years, the Supreme Court has not shielded government agents who willfully seek to violate the Constitution. New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and California may find that, in bringing down the heavy hand of the state against individuals who exercise their Second Amendment rights, their own police officers will get hit by the blow.”
I’m not sure I buy the argument, but it might be good enough to convince police unions to not back enforcement of the new guns laws in NY, NJ, MD & CT once the first smackdown happens. If cops are liable for knowingly enforcing unconstitutional state laws in one state, enforcing the equivalent unconstitutional laws in another state becomes an unsupportable risk.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,515
- Likes
- 33,530
Not wrong, but you may be missing someting.
What will our hapless victim do when his attorney offers a deal: The state will drop the felony charges, you won't have to refresh the $25K retainer you paid me, but you have to plead to a very low level offense, perhaps double parking while carrying the gun, and agree not to sue the state as conditions?
SFC13557
NES Member
Good question and we won't know unless an incident happens and NY/NJ decides to double down.
I just find it hard to believe these anti-gun zealots will cave easily, they've invested too much time and money into these bills to go down quietly.
Hope I'm wrong.
