-
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.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread
- Thread starter soloman02
- Start date
pastera
NES Member
Probably a little Bruen mixed with upstate reps understanding that even FUDS will be angry if they can't take their N+1 gun home immediately.
MaverickNH
NES Member
A Response to Noah Shusterman | Duke Center for Firearms Law
"We both believe the Second Amendment was about the militia, for example. For both of us that appears obvious, as the Amendment expressly says it is about the militia. (“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”) Nevertheless, our agreement on this core point bears mentioning because the Supreme Court now says that “individual self-defense is the ‘central component’ of the Second Amendment right.”
Apparently, some can still make careers out of insisting the Second Amendment is about militias.
71montess
NES Member
Carl Bogus, the Author of this crap thinking, shows his ignorance of history. His papers aren't worth wiping you butt with.A Response to Noah Shusterman | Duke Center for Firearms Law
firearmslaw.duke.edu
"We both believe the Second Amendment was about the militia, for example. For both of us that appears obvious, as the Amendment expressly says it is about the militia. (“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”) Nevertheless, our agreement on this core point bears mentioning because the Supreme Court now says that “individual self-defense is the ‘central component’ of the Second Amendment right.”
Apparently, some can still make careers out of insisting the Second Amendment is about militias.
Friday
NES Member
There was regular army, and there was militia. Guess who comprised the militia? Ordinary citizens, AKA "the People" Sure, it applies to militia.
KBCraig
NES Member
This judge has publicly expressed his disdain for Bruen. I wonder if he's hoping that by applying it to a bad case, he'll get SCOTUS to overturn and limit the scope.
Personally, I want to see it broadened, and not just about guns. If we apply history and tradition, the entire war on drugs will be gone, too.
thereload.com
Personally, I want to see it broadened, and not just about guns. If we apply history and tradition, the entire war on drugs will be gone, too.
Federal Judge Tosses Gun Possession Case Against Convicted Felon
Being convicted of a felony–even a violent one–is not enough to deprive someone of their Second Amendment rights for life, a federal judge has ruled.
thereload.com
Cap'n Mike
NES Member
He may have made the following statement with sarcasm, but it is 110% correct.This judge has publicly expressed his disdain for Bruen. I wonder if he's hoping that by applying it to a bad case, he'll get SCOTUS to overturn and limit the scope.
Personally, I want to see it broadened, and not just about guns. If we apply history and tradition, the entire war on drugs will be gone, too.
Federal Judge Tosses Gun Possession Case Against Convicted Felon
Being convicted of a felony–even a violent one–is not enough to deprive someone of their Second Amendment rights for life, a federal judge has ruled.
“In breathing new life into the Second Amendment, though, the Court has unintentionally revealed how it has suffocated other fundamental Constitutional rights,” Reeves wrote. “Americans are waiting for Heller and Bruen’s reasoning to reach the rest of the Constitution.”
Dennis in MA
NES Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 38,350
- Likes
- 33,297
This judge has publicly expressed his disdain for Bruen. I wonder if he's hoping that by applying it to a bad case, he'll get SCOTUS to overturn and limit the scope.
Personally, I want to see it broadened, and not just about guns. If we apply history and tradition, the entire war on drugs will be gone, too.
Federal Judge Tosses Gun Possession Case Against Convicted Felon
Being convicted of a felony–even a violent one–is not enough to deprive someone of their Second Amendment rights for life, a federal judge has ruled.
The Dems have a real FAFO moment. The good news is that very few people have the brains to figure out if they should push their luck. Emotions get the best of us and we jump where we should stand pat.
If/when Bruen, et al, hits the SCOTUS again, it's going to go FURTHER. I am not expecting but sure as s-word hopeful that Thomas comes back with, "You know, we wrote this law to give you respect on the state level and 5 of you decided to pass laws in the interim diametrically opposed to us - as if somehow you had that right over hte people. Therefore, you can't be trusted to license individuals. If you DO have a license, it MUST be issued. No more restrictions. No more tests. No more classes. You've shown you can't be trusted." (I don't think they'd go as far as Con-Carry, although I'd like it.)
But truly, this is a FAFO situation. Look at mASS. 4 other states have passed dumbass gun laws that will get reversed on Bruen. What does the MA legislature do? They wait A WHOLE F'ING YEAR and then decide, "we should push one of these, but we should make it even worse. Because we've decided we're above the USSC."
I won't capitulate on this one. I will not. They WILL lose in court. I will not suspend my rights while this works it's way through everything.
(Honestly - their best bet - the Dems, that is - is to delay long enough to get a more liberal slant to the SC. Big gamble.)
xtry51
NES Member
The court only has to do one thing to stop this. One sentence in a gun ruling.
"Any agent of the state involved in passing or enforcing unconstitutional gun laws shall forfeit their immunity and may be held personally liable for damages in both criminal and civil court."
"Any agent of the state involved in passing or enforcing unconstitutional gun laws shall forfeit their immunity and may be held personally liable for damages in both criminal and civil court."
Dennis in MA
NES Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 38,350
- Likes
- 33,297
OR. . . .
Get a Republican in the White House and have him ship some troops to NY or MA or CA. Let's play "hey, it's 1960 again!"
Get a Republican in the White House and have him ship some troops to NY or MA or CA. Let's play "hey, it's 1960 again!"
Mesatchornug
NES Member
I love you, man. Which Republican would actually do that?
I'm not even talking about "they're not real Republicans," either. I'm just saying I don't believe anyone (with half a chance) at the national level would do it.
MaverickNH
NES Member
SCOTUS Gun Watch - End of Term Summary 6/30/23 | Duke Center for Firearms Law
”One year and one week after Bruen was decided, the Supreme Court granted certiorari today in its first post-Bruen Second Amendment case: United States v. Rahimi...In Rahimi, the Court will consider whether 922(g)(8)‘s bar on those subject to certain domestic violence restraining orders possessing firearms is constitutional under Bruen‘s history and tradition-focused test for Second Amendment challenges.”
Parker Schreiber
NES Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2020
- Messages
- 1,744
- Likes
- 2,528
Note that Rahimi won in the 5th Circuit, so this case will either expand the ruling to all jurisdictions or reduce the scope of NYSRPA.SCOTUS Gun Watch - End of Term Summary 6/30/23 | Duke Center for Firearms Law
”One year and one week after Bruen was decided, the Supreme Court granted certiorari today in its first post-Bruen Second Amendment case: United States v. Rahimi...In Rahimi, the Court will consider whether 922(g)(8)‘s bar on those subject to certain domestic violence restraining orders possessing firearms is constitutional under Bruen‘s history and tradition-focused test for Second Amendment challenges.”
I’m pretty sure that’s what the DOJ is banking on. They’re hoping that there’s at least a couple of conservative justices who don’t like criminals that will side with the liberals to find a way to still “uphold” Bruen while at the same time punishing Rahimi and maybe allowing more leniency when it comes to the THT methodology for future 2A cases. I doubt this is about the actual constitutionality of the federal statute in question.
MaverickNH
NES Member
One Year of Bruen’s Reign: An Updated Empirical Analysis
firearmslaw.duke.edu
About 55% of cases are Felon in Possession, with a ~3% success rate - any lawyer who doesn’t try to Bruen their client’s way out of jail must be a Public Defender.
The most success (53% of 33 cases) was in Sensitive Places cases Plus another 6 of 6 Private Property Default cases (require signage permitting guns).
Missing is a Blue/Red analysis of deciding judges. A lot of 2ndA wins came from Blue judges that hated to follow Bruen.
pastera
NES Member
I expect the ruling to go as the author detailed - Rahimi will be found to not be among the class of 'the people' because of his numerous violent felonies and it will be constitutional because historically we infringed on one's superior right of life through capitol punishment of felons
Dennis in MA
NES Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 38,350
- Likes
- 33,297
Did he film that in her bathroom??? LOL
MaverickNH
NES Member
If so, I hope it’s narrow ruling or one that distinguishes violent from non-violent criminals in denial of RKBA.
xtry51
NES Member
If you're not in prison you should be allowed to own a firearm.
I wasn't around then. Which "Republican in the White House" shipped troops to MA in 1960?
He’s referring to Brown v Board, when democrats refused to comply with the ruling. It happened to be southern states then, but still Democrats.
pastera
NES Member
I think this is the way it will go
CatSnoutSoup
NES Member
But who was the "Republican in the White House", and which states exactly? How can that be applied in this case?
Eisenhower.
School desegregation happened under active-duty army troops and federalized National Guardsmen in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957.
That was the precedent for JFK to forcibly desegregate schools in Mississippi in 1962, again using federalized Guardsmen.
Biden could theoretically do the same to enforce Bruen, if he wanted to, though desegregating a school is not the same thing as shutting down a licensing scheme or an EOPSS list. I suppose ordering the closure of those offices and then enforcing it with federalized Mass Guardsmen would be an option, but yes, it's not clear how.
If Ike and JFK had also charged Governor Faubus and the Mississippi school officials in federal court, that would have been even better as a precedent. But they didn't.
xtry51
NES Member
What about on probation?
Did I stutter?
If you don't trust them with a gun, don't let them out of prison on probation.
I think it would depend on the crime, and therefore the judge: judges impose travel, gun, and all sorts of other restrictions on probationers all the time. People take those deals because they're better than being incarcerated.
Probation is not the same as freedom. It's like partial prison that follows you around. I think what you're saying is that there shouldn't be probation, either? In a perfect world?
xtry51
NES Member
I think probation is retarded personally. But I also think when you go to prison it should be to sit in a cell 100% of the time with minimal food rations until your sentence is over. You should come out of prison never wanting to go back.
Got it.
I think any system in which a court can deprive any rights with due process and a jury conviction (which is the system we have, in theory) has room for probation. I'm a believer that the only people who should be incarcerated are those who are literally too dangerous to be in society, and there are a LOT of criminals who aren't in that category.
You see jail as a punishment. I see deprivation of rights, more broadly, as the punishment. Jail's the extreme end of that, but I think there's room for a spectrum to put it on.
It's outside what this thread's about, but it's an interesting thing to discuss.
