Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

[maltc]

I've been following this case but have one question about the outcome of a pro 2a decision....Obviously an LTC with "target and hunting only"r estrictions would no longer be allowed.... But would there still be an LTC application process though in order to purchase and possess firearms?

Essentially, exactly what would change for a state like massachusetts that's a shall issue state?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I've been following this case but have one question about the outcome of a pro 2a decision....Obviously an LTC with "target and hunting only"r estrictions would no longer be allowed.... But would there still be an LTC application process though in order to purchase and possess firearms?

Essentially, exactly what would change for a state like massachusetts that's a shall issue state?

Massachusetts is not shall issue.

What would hopefully change is the ability of the licensing authority to use any item that was not the result of adjudicated due process against an applicant.

What concerns me about the NY case is that all the attention is being paid to the 2A issue and very little to the "equal protection under the law" which applicants in restrictive jurisdictions like NJ, NY and MD are certainly denied. Unless having an equal chance to prove you are more equal counts as equal protection, of course.

 

[safetyfirst2125]

My take: a pro-2A ruling will have net zero effect as communists are going to do what communists do. It will be effectively ignored.

A negative ruling however will be used to great effect, allowing all blue states to immediately flip to “may issue” status and will mark the beginning of the end for freedom in those states.

Sorry, just not seeing the upside here.

 

[maltc]

What would hopefully change is the ability of the licensing authority to use any item that was not the result of adjudicated due process against an applicant.

I thought this entire case was to confirm/deny the right to keep and bear OUTSIDE the house? Am I really misinterpreting this?

The docket w/ question presented:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/164031/20201217110211298_2020-12-17%20NRA-Corlett%20Cert%20Petition%20FINAL.pdf

 

[crispnipz]

My take: a pro-2A ruling will have net zero effect as communists are going to do what communists do. It will be effectively ignored.

Not entirely in agreement. You could not get stun guns, at all, in MA before Caetano case. Now you can. It's not huge but it is an example of the commie state's hands being forced.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Sometimes it takes a while for the state to get the message. After Comm2A won the devil weed case, the state took the position that it applied only to the two specific plaintiffs and did not change policy. It took more plaintiff suing who cited the previous cort decision for MA to finally get with the program.

On the other hand, MA was fully cooperative about changing policy when Comm2A won the legal resident alien LTC case.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

I thought this entire case was to confirm/deny the right to keep and bear OUTSIDE the house? Am I really misinterpreting this?

The docket w/ question presented:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/164031/20201217110211298_2020-12-17%20NRA-Corlett%20Cert%20Petition%20FINAL.pdf

No, that was the QP in the cert petition: Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.

The court granted cert on a slightly different question:

20-843 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE, ET AL. V. CORLETT, KEITH M., ET AL.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to
the following question: Whether the State's denial of
petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for
self-defense violated the Second Amendment.

They can still do a lot with this question, but it allows them to be much narrower. I won't be surprised to see a controlling plurality decision that says something like NY violated the plaintiff's 2A rights because the state has not sufficiently defined 'proper cause' and remands the case for further proceedings to work that out.

I don't think there are five votes to throw the NY law out entirely and to rule that the Second Amendment has the same scope outside the home as within. At least not now. But I do think there are five or six votes to make carry licensing less discretionary and more objective. I just don't know how they're going to get there.

We'll get something out of this, but probably not everything we want.

 

[HorizontalHunter]

But, remember, the deck is stacked. The state courts have consistently held that charges that were dropped or for which one is found not guilty; offenses for which a full pardon has been received; heresay; a history of being abducted by aliens; and even exercising one's right to remain silent when questioned are all valid reasons for denying or revoking an LTC, and that the only issue is "did the issuing authority have a reason, any reason, that is not totally arbitrary" and the role of the court is not to re-evaluate or second guess that decision.

Gotta love this state.….

Its not illegal to be illegal if you aren’t a citizen; but your guilty if your not guilty if you want to exercise your rights as a citizen should. Makes me sick sometimes.


Bob

 

[Rob Boudrie]

No, that was the QP in the cert petition: Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.

The court granted cert on a slightly different question:

They can still do a lot with this question, but it allows them to be much narrower. I won't be surprised to see a controlling plurality decision that says something like NY violated the plaintiff's 2A rights because the state has not sufficiently defined 'proper cause' and remands the case for further proceedings to work that out.

I don't think there are five votes to throw the NY law out entirely and to rule that the Second Amendment has the same scope outside the home as within. At least not now. But I do think there are five or six votes to make carry licensing less discretionary and more objective. I just don't know how they're going to get there.

We'll get something out of this, but probably not everything we want.

My fear is they will keep the concept of "special need" and just make that a bit more objective, while doing nothing to prevent "special deals with favored people".

 

[Waher]

My fear is they will keep the concept of "special need" and just make that a bit more objective, while doing nothing to prevent "special deals with favored people".

I'm not sure they'd do that because it opens the door to expanding credential nonsense to the 1A. Suddenly to publish something commercially, hold church services outside the home, assemble outside the home, etc. will require a permit or not be protected by the 1A. Restricting fundamental rights to only mean something inside the home and not the public square is a big box I don't think they want to open since the virus emergency crap demonstrated what f***ery states will engage in.

I'm hoping Alito's statement in Caetano carries some weight in pushing for abolishing May Issue.

 

[milktree]

I'm not sure they'd do that because it opens the door to expanding credential nonsense to the 1A. Suddenly to publish something commercially, hold church services outside the home, assemble outside the home, etc. will require a permit or not be protected by the 1A. Restricting fundamental rights to only mean something inside the home and not the public square is a big box I don't think they want to open since the virus emergency crap demonstrated what f***ery states will engage in.

I'm hoping Alito's statement in Caetano carries some weight in pushing for abolishing May Issue.

I’m afraid you’re being optimistic.

The “but that’s different” doctrine will protect the 1st amendment while allowing a gutting of the 2nd.

It’s the corollary to the “because guns” doctrine.

 

[maltc]

No, that was the QP in the cert petition: Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.

The court granted cert on a slightly different question:

Damn. That is a massive letdown. Everyone seemed to hyped up about this case as well (all the youtube 2a guys I watch)

 

[Waher]

Damn. That is a massive letdown. Everyone seemed to hyped up about this case as well (all the youtube 2a guys I watch)

Roberts unfortunately rewrote the question when it was granted cert to box in the rest of justices. It's an indication he (or the cocktail party a**h***s he is simping for) didn't like the possible answers to the question, so he's changed the question to potentially steer more palatable outcomes.

 

[Coyote33]

There is no cold, only heat. Cold is the absence of heat, not the presence of cold.

I'd say "hot" and "cold" are more objective/opinion. There is temperature, with "cold" being lower than "hot".

 

[AHM]

Boston restricts but does not generally downgrade, but unrestricted can sometimes be had.

Recall that Boston (being in Suffolk County) ostensibly
has its evaluation process bound by case law.

Maybe it's a separate thread where someone in the BPD licensing department
revealed (without the use of red-hot tongs) an operating list
of instant qualifiers for unrestricted.

IIRC it included any J. Random Lawyer who applied for an LTC,
just for the asking.

Maybe that list is in one of the Phipps threads; I didn't review them this morning.

... a guy I've been messaging with just got denied (in a green town) for a decade+ old trespass charge related to legitimate protests.

Is that how the Licensing Officer characterized the expunged misdemeanor?

Spoiler: Otherwise...

Note also that MLK's model of civil disobedience (at least)
includes accepting the consequences of your actions.

But maybe the guy was operating under more contemporary rules.

Which are all fun and games until one acts-out in some jurisdiction
where justice hasn't been co-opted by one's personal patrons.

What would hopefully change is the ability of the licensing authority to use any item that was not the result of adjudicated due process against an applicant.

For Great Objectivity.

 

[Drix]

Boston restricts but does not generally downgrade, but unrestricted can sometimes be had.

Brookline downgrades, and looks for ANY excuse to reject, but will issue restricted if absolutely no dirt and unrestricted only to special people. The department is on record as having stated it takes pride in their position on gun control and licensing.

Imagine getting a stun gun to protect yourself and you have a hunting and sporting restriction

 

[rali]

I'd say "hot" and "cold" are more objective/opinion. There is temperature, with "cold" being lower than "hot".

Rob is correct. Temperature is a *measure* of heat in a system. “Hot” and “cold” as a reference to that measurement is not the same thing as “heat.” Welcome to physics 101

 

[Coyote33]

View: https://twitter.com/ScottGreenfield/status/1445483347401003011


View: https://twitter.com/ScottGreenfield/status/1445495135337205763

The odds of NY complying with SCotUS are minimal short of some scumbags flapping their dicks at the court getting thrown in prison for civil rights violation.

You might say it was ... "inevitable"?

he is correct in the notion that in the current political climate SCOTUS rulings are not enforceable, and all we will get would be same ignoring of their rulings plus a publicly expressed 'outrage' by the select politicians with an another demand to pack the court. municipalities do not anymore follow the rules. and nothing can be done about it.

the society moved on too far now to pay any respect to the way how the system of 3 branches was supposed to work, when the histeria and propaganda replaces the common sense - there is no more place for the law. you just follow hysteric karens of both genders and continue to play the tune the most of the population demands. and all they demand is to be whipped and punished more, to feel worthy.

So, laws are out?

My take: a pro-2A ruling will have net zero effect as communists are going to do what communists do. It will be effectively ignored.

A negative ruling however will be used to great effect, allowing all blue states to immediately flip to “may issue” status and will mark the beginning of the end for freedom in those states.

Sorry, just not seeing the upside here.

So, how do they "ignore" the Supreme Court again?

 

[Coyote33]

Rob is correct. Temperature is a *measure* of heat in a system. “Hot” and “cold” as a reference to that measurement is not the same thing as “heat.” Welcome to physics 101

That is what I was trying to say...

 

[safetyfirst2125]

So, how do they "ignore" the Supreme Court again?

You know about Sanctuary Cities right?

 

[paul73]

So, laws are out?

old laws are out as constitution and amendments behind it are declared obsolete and made non-enforceable.
the new laws now are the system of executive branch executive orders in combination with custom interpretation of those orders by localities where district attorneys are free to control direction of law enforcement structures.

 

[AHM]

Imagine getting a stun gun to protect yourself and you have a hunting and sporting restriction

So, how do they "ignore" the Supreme Court again?

 

[Waher]

Imagine getting a stun gun to protect yourself and you have a hunting and sporting restriction

Actually this is an issue in jurisdictions which restrict LTCs. By the letter of the MGL a FID can carry a stun gun/taser, but a LTC with a "target/sport" restriction on it is in a gray area for stun gun/taser carry.

 

[crispnipz]

Actually this is an issue in jurisdictions which restrict LTCs. By the letter of the MGL a FID can carry a stun gun/taser, but a LTC with a "target/sport" restriction on it is in a gray area for stun gun/taser carry.

Yeah tell me about it. Should I ask Medford if I can carry a stun gun on my T&H? Bet the LO would just laugh. And we've also frequently brought up the gray area of carrying on T&H in a different state that otherwise recognizes MA LTCs.

 

[Waher]

Yeah tell me about it. Should I ask Medford if I can carry a stun gun on my T&H?

Unless they give you a response in writing on letterhead it won't help you.

Carrying in reciprocity states on a restricted license is a gamble, either the local authorities will care or not and there's no way of knowing until you're already in a situation you don't want to be in.

 

[crispnipz]

Carrying in reciprocity states on a restricted license is a gamble, either the local authorities will care or not and there's no way of knowing until you're already in a situation you don't want to be in.

Yep, rule of thumb for this is generally if the Gov/Attorney General of the state is an R, you're good. I do not worry when carrying in my home state of Ohio, or in any Constitutional state (NH, AZ, etc), but I wouldn't carry in a state run by Dems but that accepts MA (like Michigan).

 

[safetyfirst2125]

View: https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status/1447920053152796680?s=21

 

[Dennis in MA]

Not entirely in agreement. You could not get stun guns, at all, in MA before Caetano case. Now you can. It's not huge but it is an example of the commie state's hands being forced.

Sure you could. Back in teh 80's there was that one-armed auctioneer guy on TV selling them. And Rambo knives. Gosh pre-QVC were funny times on TV.

 

[dcmdon]

If killing sperm ever becomes a thing I’m done for

Hah. That made me think of this:

 

[Reptile]

Hah. That made me think of this:

Where is the rest of the video???

I was getting all excited!!!