Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

This is far different than denying cert. The case has to wend it's way through the 7CA system and then a petition for cert can be filed with SCOTUS.

Joeldiaz said:
The IL AWB remains in effect.

It wasn’t just Justice Coney-Barrett who refused to act. It was referred to the full court by ACB and the full court denied the request.
Click to expand...
 
Garys said:
This is far different than denying cert. The case has to wend it's way through the 7CA system and then a petition for cert can be filed with SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

This is exactly the deficiency in our judicial system. SCOTUS should be stepping it, bitch slapping all the lower courts ans telling them follow our earlier rulings properly or we will strip you of immunity and every prosecutor and judge who make incorrect rulings will be PERSONALLY liable for damages for violating citizens rights.
 
xtry51 said:
This is exactly the deficiency in our judicial system. SCOTUS should be stepping it, bitch slapping all the lower courts ans telling them follow our earlier rulings properly or we will strip you of immunity and every prosecutor and judge who make incorrect rulings will be PERSONALLY liable for damages for violating citizens rights.
Click to expand...
I wish they would but they won't. They ruled that affirmative action wasn't legal....great, the the other day they waffled and said West Point could still use it.
 
They only have to strip immunity one time. That's it. One public humiliation of a crazy leftist. Pic the most egregious case and hammer them to oblivion. Explicit "you didn't follow our clear ruling, thus you are personally responsible to be civilly and criminally charged"

You do it once and 99% of bullshit stops because no judge, cop or prosecutor wants their money on the line when pushing their politics. The only reason they do it is because they are not being held personally responsible for abuse.
 
NY's general ban on issuing non resident pistol permits is being challenged.
Link to filing: https://www.gunowners.org/wp-content/uploads/NY-Permit-Complaint-2-5-FINAL.pdf

GOA, GOF FILE LAWSUIT ON BEHALF OF NEWSMAX’S CARL HIGBIE AND OTHER PLAINTIFF’S SEEKING NY CONCEALED CARRY PERMITS
Today, Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) filed a federal lawsuit in the Northern District of New York, challenging the state’s blanket ban on out-of-state residents being able to obtain a concealed carry permit or to have New York honor out-of-state permits.

GOA and GOF are representing several individual plaintiffs who reside in neighboring states and hold their own state’s license to carry concealed weapons. TV Host and Second Amendment Advocate Carl Higbie is one of the individual plaintiffs.

Under current New York law, only New York residents may apply for and obtain permits to carry concealed weapons, and the state does not grant any form of reciprocity for individuals who hold a similar permit from another state.

As a result, those who hold out of state driver’s licenses may drive in New York, but the exercising of one’s constitutional right to bear arms in New York State is wholly inaccessibly to the 94% of Americans who are not state residents. New York is the only known state where nonresidents are not allowed to exercise their Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms.

Erich Pratt, GOA’s Senior Vice President, issued the following statement:
“The State of New York and its cadre of anti-gun politicians have done everything in their power to weaken and outright ban the Second Amendment within their borders. The Supreme Court has made clear that the right to bear arms extends to the public square, and this right is for all Americans, not just those who are residents of individual states.”

Sam Paredes, on behalf of the board for GOF, added:
“This is the only example nationwide that we can find where an out-of-state resident is completely barred from exercising their right to keep and bear arms, and there’s no doubt the anti-gun legislature in Albany purposely designed it this way. We’ve warned these politicians before and we’ll do it again, fall in line on the Second Amendment, or we will make you.”

GOA spokesmen are available for interviews. Gun Owners of America is a nonprofit, grassroots lobbying organization dedicated to protecting the right to keep and bear arms without compromise. GOA represents over two million members and activists. For more information, visit GOA’s Press Center.
Click to expand...
 
Being so close to election for POTUS, it may energize the left If SCOTUS steps in before all other courts have ruled, there is already outrage from their other decisions.
This will all play out and we will have our day in front of SCOTUS, we all knew it would take time,
 
VTski4x4 said:
Just wait until SCOTUS reads his rulings and sides with him. Just have to get off their assess *fingers crossed*
Click to expand...
I thought the Duncan and Miller cases were already GVR'd by SCOTUS.
SCOTUS knows the 9th is dicking around!
I know, I know, interlocutory interlocutory interlocutory...........
BS! A right delayed is a right DENIED!
F*cking SCOTUS get off ur ass and settle this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
That's what I mean. Those cases were already accepted by SCOTUS. And bases on Bruen, sent back to the 9th and told to get it right this time. The 9th is waving both middle fingers to SCOTUS. SCOTUS should be pissed. Don't see it.
 
VTski4x4 said:
Just wait until SCOTUS reads his rulings and sides with him. Just have to get off their assess *fingers crossed*
Click to expand...
This assumes the current makeup of the court doesn't change. Right now the inferior/lower courts are playing a delay game hoping that Thomas and one or more of the other non progressive left leaning justices retires or dies and Biden or the next Democrat President can replace them (or go crazy and stack the court with far left progressive justices).

One would hope Thomas and other 5 justices are aware and even care about what is being intentionally being done by the inferior courts who are working together to intentionally delay these cases and will decide to intervene before it's too late to do so. Because right now most of the lower courts are giving the big middle finger to SCOTUS's 6-3 ruling on Bruen, and SCOTUS looks weak by not responding to the inferior court shenanigans and correcting things. Meanwhile case after case opinion continues to pile up in direct defiance of Bruen, Heller, Chicago, and Caetano.
 
SAF files for Petition for Writ of Certiorari with SCOTUS over the Bianchi v. Brown case (Maryland's AWB).
The Petition: https://saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Bianchi-Petition.pdf


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7-9wbNDIJQ


From the petition:
The actions of the Fourth Circuit below in this case are the most brazen yet. The Fourth Circuit initially affirmed the dismissal of Petitioners’ claims by applying that court’s precedent in Kolbe. Petitioners sought review in this Court, and this Court granted review, vacated the decision below, and remanded for further consideration in light of Bruen. Bianchi v. Frosh, 142 S. Ct. 2898, 2899 (Mem.) (2022). Consistent with the remand order, a panel of the Fourth Circuit heard argument in December 2022. In January 2024,however, the court issued not an opinion but rather an order granting rehearing en banc despite no party requesting the court to do so. See Order, Bianchi v. Brown, No. 21-1255 (4th Cir. Jan. 12, 2024), ECF No.76. The only plausible explanation is that a majority of the en banc court was not pleased with the outcome that the panel was prepared to reach. Cf. Wise v. Circosta, 978 F.3d 93, 117–118 (4th Cir. 2020) (Niemeyer,J., dissenting). And given the court’s grant of en banc rehearing in another case in which the panel ruled in favor of the Second Amendment, see Md. Shall Issue, Inc. v. Moore, No. 21-2017(L), 2024 WL 124290 (4thCir. 2024), it appears that the en banc court was seeking to avoid a similar opinion even seeing the light of day.

Nearly sixteen years after Heller, the time is ripe for this Court to establish what should have been clear the day that decision was released: bans on firearms commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens are simply “off the table.” 554 U.S. at 636. The application of that principle to this case is plain. Modern semiautomatic rifles such as the AR-15 “traditionally have been widely accepted as lawful possessions,” Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600, 614 (1994), and today are owned in the tens of millions by law-abiding Americans for self-defense and other lawful purposes. Such arms simply cannot be banned.

While granting certiorari before judgment is not standard operating procedure, the situation facing the Court is atypical. A fundamental right is at stake, the proper outcome is clear, and the behavior of the lower courts indicates that this Court’s intervention likely is necessary for that fundamental right to be vindicated. This Court should grant review and hold that Maryland’s semiautomatic rifle ban is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
 
Washington Gun Law President, William Kirk, discusses the rather bold and brash move by the Second Amendment Foundation in the matter of Bianchi v. Brown (originally Bianchi v. Frosh) a challenge to Maryland's assault weapon ban. After all the gamesmanship being played by the 4th Circuit, and the clear indications that these shenanigans will lead to the full panel affirming this unconstitutional ban, SAF has decided just to cut to the chase and ask the United States Supreme court to accept review now. This is a huge move so learn more and arm yourself with education today.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylvlRLwjQeo
 
sbhaven said:
Washington Gun Law President, William Kirk, discusses the rather bold and brash move by the Second Amendment Foundation in the matter of Bianchi v. Brown (originally Bianchi v. Frosh) a challenge to Maryland's assault weapon ban. After all the gamesmanship being played by the 4th Circuit, and the clear indications that these shenanigans will lead to the full panel affirming this unconstitutional ban, SAF has decided just to cut to the chase and ask the United States Supreme court to accept review now. This is a huge move so learn more and arm yourself with education today.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylvlRLwjQeo
Click to expand...

It’s a huge move, but it will most likely be unsuccessful. If SCOTUS were going to do something about inferior courts playing games with the 2A post-Bruen, they would have done it already. No shot they take this up before the en banc has a chance to hear the case.
 
Joeldiaz said:
It’s a huge move, but it will most likely be unsuccessful. If SCOTUS were going to do something about inferior courts playing games with the 2A post-Bruen, they would have done it already. No shot they take this up before the en banc has a chance to hear the case.
Click to expand...
I think the rahimi case also skipped en banc review in the 5th circuit, so maybe theres a tiny bit of hope. The government went straight to the Supreme court, albeit the circumstances were slightly different because bruen happened while the case was on interlocutory appeal. The govt was also foaming at the mouth to get it in front of them because they perceived a win or loss as a political win-win, so maybe it's not a great comparison. But it skipped en banc nonetheless.
Ill Be Back Jim Carrey GIF
 
aphextwin11 said:
I think the rahimi case also skipped en banc review in the 5th circuit, so maybe theres a tiny bit of hope. The government went straight to the Supreme court, albeit the circumstances were slightly different because bruen happened while the case was on interlocutory appeal. The govt was also foaming at the mouth to get it in front of them because they perceived a win or loss as a political win-win, so maybe it's not a great comparison. But it skipped en banc nonetheless.
Ill Be Back Jim Carrey GIF
Click to expand...
That’s completely different. The 5th Circuit had already issued their decision in Rahimi. No decision has been issued in Bianchi. Furthermore, the government chose to skip en banc in Rahimi and went straight to SCOTUS. When you lose at the 3 judge panel, you have the option between requesting en banc or going to SCOTUS. You don’t always have to go en banc before SCOTUS, especially if you know that you’re likely to lose en banc anyway.
 
FPC files a brief in support of the the CT AWB challenge case (Grant v. Lamont).

Brief of Amici Curiae Firearms Policy Coalition and FPC Action Foundation in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants

FPC and FPCAF File Brief in Support of Challenge to Connecticut “Assault Weapon” Ban
NEW YORK (February 9, 2024) – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and FPC Action Foundation (FPCAF) announced the filing of an important brief with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in support of the appellants in Grant v. Lamont, which challenges Connecticut’s ban on so-called “assault weapons.” The brief can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“In fact, repeating arms predate the Second Amendment by about three centuries and semiautomatic firearms existed in the 19th century,” argues the brief. “Despite continuous technological advancements over hundreds of years and widespread popularity once they became affordable in the 19th century, traditionally, repeating arms were never banned in America.”

“Connecticut does not have the power to prohibit its residents from owning and possessing some of the most common self-defense tools in the Nation,” said Cody J. Wisniewski, FPC Action Foundation’s Vice President and General Counsel, and co-author of the brief in this case. “Connecticut’s ban on common, semiautomatic firearms is not just unconstitutional, it is deeply immoral – it prevents peaceable individuals from possessing effective tools to defend their lives and the lives of their loved ones.”

The underlying case was brought by three individuals, the Connecticut Citizens Defense League, and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Individuals who would like to join the FPC Grassroots Army and support important pro-rights lawsuits and programs like these can sign up at JoinFPC.org. Individuals and organizations wanting to support charitable efforts in support of the restoration of Second Amendment and other natural rights can also make a tax-deductible donation to the FPC Action Foundation. For more on FPC’s lawsuits and other pro-Second Amendment initiatives, visit FPCLegal.org and follow FPC on Instagram, X (Twitter), Facebook, YouTube.

Firearms Policy Coalition (firearmspolicy.org), a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization, exists to create a world of maximal human liberty, defend constitutional rights, advance individual liberty, and restore freedom. FPC’s efforts are focused on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and adjacent issues including freedom of speech, due process, unlawful searches and seizures, separation of powers, asset forfeitures, privacy, encryption, and limited government. The FPC team are next-generation advocates working to achieve the Organization’s strategic objectives through litigation, research, scholarly publications, amicus briefing, legislative and regulatory action, grassroots activism, education, outreach, and other programs.

FPC Law (FPCLaw.org) is the nation’s first and largest public interest legal team focused on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and the leader in the Second Amendment litigation and research space.

FPC Action Foundation (FPCActionFoundation.org), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, exists to create a world of maximal human liberty through charitable legal action, public policy, education, and research programs.
Click to expand...
 
VetteGirlMA said:
The point is this......No matter what you or I say it's irrelevant. The left thinks the constitution has a 1st amendment and a 3rd amendment and there's nothing in between or if there is, 'the people' means the army or the police. They are never going to change. I don't know where this all leads but it's an endless fight unless scotus puts their foot down on the lower courts throats.
Click to expand...
Yup.
 
sbhaven said:
More filings with SCOTUS today. This time petitioning for review of IL's AWB and magazine ban.
Harrel v. Raoul. https://saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Harrel-Petition.pdf
Barnett v. Raoul. https://www.nssf.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Barnett-FFLpetition.pdf
Bevis V. Naperville. https://gunrightsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/SCOTUS-cert-petition.pdf

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BduZtUbikI


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZeIvEtdpQw
Click to expand...

Still a very slim chance SCOTUS takes up any of these cases, unfortunately. All of them are on interlocutory appeals, which SCOTUS hates to get involved with.
 
Joeldiaz said:
Still a very slim chance SCOTUS takes up any of these cases, unfortunately. All of them are on interlocutory appeals, which SCOTUS hates to get involved with.
Click to expand...

Still, there's an awful lot of them involving the same overall issues to fall back on precedent as some of them have been messed with by way of precedent in the inferior courts. Hopefully something will give.
 

Similar threads

Nevada Supreme Court Upholds Ban on So-Called ‘Ghost Guns’
Replies
4
Views
210
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
The NRA Is About to Notch Another Legal Victory at the Supreme Court
Replies
13
Views
691
groundscrapers
G
New York's Radical Gun Restrictions Headed To Supreme Court
Replies
1
Views
308
Rob Boudrie
Rob Boudrie
Supreme Court and guns in the news (search 3/4/24)
Replies
0
Views
201
Coyote33
Coyote33
Supreme Court Hears Texas Gun Store Owner’s Lawsuit Against Bump Stock Ban
2 3
Replies
87
Views
2K
HorizontalHunter
HorizontalHunter
Back
Top Bottom