That is like killing the messenger. He didn't make a statement of whether he wanted this or not. Just a statement of fact of what could happen, basically how it works. Hiding from this possibility only insures we will be unprepared. We SHOULD be taking about this and how we can prevent it, or fight it if necessary. The sunshine will not last forever, the pendulum will swing.
-
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
Interesting decision. Not a lawyer but seeing if this tracks: This ruling is written around a non-resident who comes from a state where possession and carry of a firearm is legal without a permit. That seems to be a key argument in that it’s not the defendant’s problem MA requires a license when he does not need one. I don’t know how this would apply to say CT or NY residents who also need a license to carry. The burden is the same for them in their home state. And I don’t think this does anything for MA residents.
It’s still positive, but I think narrow?
It’s still positive, but I think narrow?
I’m pretty sure this was a dismissal at the trial level and confers no binding precedent for anyone besides this one defendant.
nstassel
NES Member
It has a value. I'll cite this to other district court judges that their pal, the presiding judge in lowell, dismissed a case on similar grounds.
I think there may be real flaws in the decision but it heralds good things.
Pretty much what I though. It's a good ruling but by itself not too helpful. A test case at a higher level, citing this one, would be needed to make it something a person could be reasonably confident will protect him.
But it could be something that leads to reciprocity. Changing the MA law to recognize out of stat licensing (if it's offered by the state) and requiring such a person to adhear to the other conditions set in MA law, would be a good move for MA. A NH resident would need to get a P&R, because it is offered, but that's easy and if NH eliminates the P&R altogether, that requirement would go away.
Little steps
pastera
NES Member
Very narrow - it's an 'an applied' so it only applies to this defendant.
pastera
NES Member
Yeah - it's a loosely written decision but one of the few where discretion was in our favor in this state
It looks good because I think it opens the door to the elimination of resident v. nonresident LTC. The decision correctly distinguishes there is a difference and Constitutional rights shouldn't be subject to such differences.
There could be a day then that States that aren't already Constitutional Carry have to issue a permit to a resident of any State who requests it. California, NY etc. if they have a legal licensing scheme could not limit that scheme to residents only per Bruen.
I know. I blame it on exhaustion. I had to fly to an office to plug one cable in because someone couldn't follow directions, then my return flight was delayed 14 hours.
pastera
NES Member
Flew from the north east to Pearl Harbor to do similar once - then got stuck at the airport on the return leg for an extra few hours of airport misery.
One day trips suck even if the flights are only a couple of hours.
Palladin
NES Member
it's the same with Lowe's in Salem NH 3/4 of the parking lot is in MA
eboos
NES Member
Oh snap! I want my money back.
I noticed a footnote says he's also being charged in another case with possession of a firearm and ammunition separately. What's that about?
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 56,584
- Likes
- 19,921
As a follow-on that could make it even more interesting to a judge like this one.
Let's say that the person has a MA NR LTC but it expired waiting for his renewal. What do you think @nstassel ?
In order for me to hand out MSP certs to students, I have to maintain an active MA LTC even though I live in NH (no grace period in MGL for NRs). My renewal is mid-september and I mailed the application and bank check the first week of April. No word since and no returned phone call. I'm not taking bets on getting it by the end of september, so I can't advertise classes without knowing that I'll have it in time.
Would this help people who had similar issues in the past? Can they get their record cleared? Even if only in this one district?
Did the fact that MA treats non resident applicants and LTC holders differently than residents have a bearing on the decision?
To what extent, I'm not sure, the judge certainly pointed that out MA's argument that they don't treat non-residents different from residents wasn't true. It seemed like it was mainly just addressed to call out MA's argument as being untruthful and less because it weighed substantially to the ruling. That's my read on it.
I think so. I think the point was, why aren’t non resident LTCs good for the same period of time? The vetting is the same. The risk profile and mitigation is the same from a public safety perspective. It’s an undue burden to apply annually.
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 56,584
- Likes
- 19,921
And residents get unlimited grace period when they apply for renewal. We NRs have no such coverage. No valid LTC in-hand, means that you are unlicensed.
strangenh
NES Member
This is a waiting-to-happen Comity Clause (aka Privileges and Immunities Clause - Article IV, Section 2, not to be confused with the 14th A's P or I clause), based on Bruen. Same with NY State's licensing only residents with no reciprocity at all. The cases from Heller on have set the jurisprudence for the basic right, and the Comity Clause should ensure it's not applied in a manner that is specifically detrimental to non-residents.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,677
- Likes
- 33,832
One item not mentioned in the decision, but possibly relevant, is that it is not possible for a non-resident to obtain a MA LTC in a timely manner. Although the state mandates a 40 day limit, the non-resident licensing agency imposes a 6+ month wait to get an appointment to be allowed to apply. A right delayed in a right denied - MLK.
MaverickNH
NES Member
That. My NR LYC renewal was always 1-3mo late, with the interviewer always asking if I carried during the lapse. After a dozen years of NR LTCs, they told me Boston was no longer considered a risky place, so unless I worked elsewhere, no NR LTC for me. They let me withdraw my application instead of denying it, but kept the $100.
MaverickNH
NES Member
America’s Original Gun Control
Early in our history, firearms laws were everywhere.
www.theatlantic.com
For a year since Bruen, anti-gun lawyers have been getting it all wrong! The Atlantic straightens it all out. So don’t you worry, fellow Democrats, this should be tidied up shortly.
"In the summer of 1619, the leaders of the fledgling Jamestown colony came together as the first general assembly to enact “just Laws for the happy guiding and governing of the people there inhabiting.” Consisting of the governor, Sir George Yeardley; his four councillors; and 22 elected “burgesses,” or representatives, the group approved more than 30 measures. Among them was the nation’s first gun law:
After that early example of gun control came many more laws placing restrictions on the ownership and use of firearms. If guns have always been part of American society, so have gun laws. This fact might come as a surprise to some gun-rights advocates, who seem to believe that America’s past was one of unregulated gun ownership…
So if we accept the originalist premise of Bruen, the actual result should be to render a broad array of gun regulations constitutional."
I can't wait to see them use a law designed to make the slaughter of native americans easier as justification for gun control. I have a feeling the Native American tribes will have something to say about this.America’s Original Gun Control
Early in our history, firearms laws were everywhere.
For a year since Bruen, anti-gun lawyers have been getting it all wrong! The Atlantic straightens it all out. So don’t you worry, fellow Democrats, this should be tidied up shortly.
"In the summer of 1619, the leaders of the fledgling Jamestown colony came together as the first general assembly to enact “just Laws for the happy guiding and governing of the people there inhabiting.” Consisting of the governor, Sir George Yeardley; his four councillors; and 22 elected “burgesses,” or representatives, the group approved more than 30 measures. Among them was the nation’s first gun law:
After that early example of gun control came many more laws placing restrictions on the ownership and use of firearms. If guns have always been part of American society, so have gun laws. This fact might come as a surprise to some gun-rights advocates, who seem to believe that America’s past was one of unregulated gun ownership…
So if we accept the originalist premise of Bruen, the actual result should be to render a broad array of gun regulations constitutional."
There used to be laws that made blacks property, can we now use that as justification for owning another person (regardless of race)?
America’s Original Gun Control
Early in our history, firearms laws were everywhere.
For a year since Bruen, anti-gun lawyers have been getting it all wrong! The Atlantic straightens it all out. So don’t you worry, fellow Democrats, this should be tidied up shortly.
"In the summer of 1619, the leaders of the fledgling Jamestown colony came together as the first general assembly to enact “just Laws for the happy guiding and governing of the people there inhabiting.” Consisting of the governor, Sir George Yeardley; his four councillors; and 22 elected “burgesses,” or representatives, the group approved more than 30 measures. Among them was the nation’s first gun law:
After that early example of gun control came many more laws placing restrictions on the ownership and use of firearms. If guns have always been part of American society, so have gun laws. This fact might come as a surprise to some gun-rights advocates, who seem to believe that America’s past was one of unregulated gun ownership…
So if we accept the originalist premise of Bruen, the actual result should be to render a broad array of gun regulations constitutional."
Ah yes, citing British laws that predate the United States.
pastera
NES Member
What they don't say is that the 'Indians' were not colonists so the analog would be foreign arms sales which are already regulated under ITAR.America’s Original Gun Control
Early in our history, firearms laws were everywhere.
For a year since Bruen, anti-gun lawyers have been getting it all wrong! The Atlantic straightens it all out. So don’t you worry, fellow Democrats, this should be tidied up shortly.
"In the summer of 1619, the leaders of the fledgling Jamestown colony came together as the first general assembly to enact “just Laws for the happy guiding and governing of the people there inhabiting.” Consisting of the governor, Sir George Yeardley; his four councillors; and 22 elected “burgesses,” or representatives, the group approved more than 30 measures. Among them was the nation’s first gun law:
After that early example of gun control came many more laws placing restrictions on the ownership and use of firearms. If guns have always been part of American society, so have gun laws. This fact might come as a surprise to some gun-rights advocates, who seem to believe that America’s past was one of unregulated gun ownership…
So if we accept the originalist premise of Bruen, the actual result should be to render a broad array of gun regulations constitutional."
So their pre-constitutional era law would only serve to regulate something that isn't considered part of the 2nd even though neither Heller nor Bruen speaks to that era as being relevant
America’s Original Gun Control
Early in our history, firearms laws were everywhere.
For a year since Bruen, anti-gun lawyers have been getting it all wrong! The Atlantic straightens it all out. So don’t you worry, fellow Democrats, this should be tidied up shortly.
"In the summer of 1619, the leaders of the fledgling Jamestown colony came together as the first general assembly to enact “just Laws for the happy guiding and governing of the people there inhabiting.” Consisting of the governor, Sir George Yeardley; his four councillors; and 22 elected “burgesses,” or representatives, the group approved more than 30 measures. Among them was the nation’s first gun law:
After that early example of gun control came many more laws placing restrictions on the ownership and use of firearms. If guns have always been part of American society, so have gun laws. This fact might come as a surprise to some gun-rights advocates, who seem to believe that America’s past was one of unregulated gun ownership…
So if we accept the originalist premise of Bruen, the actual result should be to render a broad array of gun regulations constitutional."
Lol.
First off, sure, it "banned guns..." for an outgroup. So by all means, let's go ahead and pass gun laws that ban specific ethnic groups from having 'em. Lol.
Second off, the very way this law is worded makes it abundantly clear that the people subject to it were expected to have guns already. Like, all of 'em. Meaning, it's not really a "gun control law;" it's more of a "gun show loophole."
strangenh
NES Member
Bizarre. The argument of a 12-year-old hearing a word ("originalism") and deciding it means whatever comes to mind first.America’s Original Gun Control
Early in our history, firearms laws were everywhere.
For a year since Bruen, anti-gun lawyers have been getting it all wrong! The Atlantic straightens it all out. So don’t you worry, fellow Democrats, this should be tidied up shortly.
"In the summer of 1619, the leaders of the fledgling Jamestown colony came together as the first general assembly to enact “just Laws for the happy guiding and governing of the people there inhabiting.” Consisting of the governor, Sir George Yeardley; his four councillors; and 22 elected “burgesses,” or representatives, the group approved more than 30 measures. Among them was the nation’s first gun law:
After that early example of gun control came many more laws placing restrictions on the ownership and use of firearms. If guns have always been part of American society, so have gun laws. This fact might come as a surprise to some gun-rights advocates, who seem to believe that America’s past was one of unregulated gun ownership…
So if we accept the originalist premise of Bruen, the actual result should be to render a broad array of gun regulations constitutional."
Was looking for something else, but found this from 2018:
"The approvals are the first since the department earlier this year updated its gun policy, adding two controversial requirements: Applicants must take a safety course and submit a “written supplement” — or essay — explaining the reason(s) for seeking the license."
www.lowellsun.com
I am guessing/hoping this has changed since Bruen. Can anyone confirm these are no longer required?
"The approvals are the first since the department earlier this year updated its gun policy, adding two controversial requirements: Applicants must take a safety course and submit a “written supplement” — or essay — explaining the reason(s) for seeking the license."
4 new licenses in Lowell to carry guns — anywhere
LOWELL — A security guard wants to protect himself and improve his job prospects by being able to apply for positions as an armed security guard. A store owner wants to feel safe from the thr…
www.lowellsun.com
I am guessing/hoping this has changed since Bruen. Can anyone confirm these are no longer required?
Would this new ruling maybe address or rescind something like this?
Motorist with firearm arrested
A Vermont man accused of brandishing a firearm at a motorist while driving in New Hampshire passed through Wilmington before he was pulled over by police and found with a pair of firearms and a cac…
www.lowellsun.com
