• 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

paul73 said:
so, does it mean NYC will ignore SCOTUS and will keep all regulations as is? i did not listen to the end, but got that impression somehow.
awesomesauce. it is getting juicier and juicier every day.
Click to expand...
NYC declaring that the Constitution doesn't apply within its borders? Sounds insurrectiony and secessionist to me.


View: https://twitter.com/SFGate/status/1540038488120098816?cxt=HHwWgICgjY62qN8qAAAA

OH NOEZ SAN FRANCISCO MIGHT TURN INTO A CRIME FILLED SHIT HOLE... Oh wait it already is!


View: https://twitter.com/TheWizardofLawz/status/1540080822597713920?cxt=HHwWgICgxabWu98qAAAA
Whoopsie!
 
SBrackett said:
If you think the Left isn’t dissecting this decision in it’s minutiae to figure out how it can be “interpreted” to their advantage you should stick to performing yoga poses on the beach.

ETA:
Manhattan Attorney General Alvin Bragg concurred. “At this very moment, my office is analyzing this ruling and crafting gun safety legislation that will take the strongest steps possible to mitigate the damage done today,” Bragg said in a statement.
Click to expand...
Yup, your right.....

We should just concentrate on what else could wrong and forget about this recent ruling. No sense in celebrating a victory we we can instead be miserable fearing the worst. :rolleyes:
 
Hoover said:
The opinion says restrictions must be consistent with American tradition. So this is a sign AWB, mag bans, red flag etc won’t fly because those are all new restrictions.
Click to expand...
What were traditional restrictions back in 1790? Can't carry arms into the local courthouse or legislative building? Okay.

I do wonder if the ruling paves way for overturning many parts of the NFA. While I'm not interested in seeing high explosives be a 4473 away from being owned by the likes of Adam Lanza, I bitter about having to pay a $200 tax stamp for an SBR.

At the very least, get rid of the state or local banning of NFA items.
 
AHM said:
I've seen that language before:

Ham Radio Antennas: What Does the Law Require of Localities or Municipalities?
By Fred Hopengarten​
...​
FCC Materials​
...​
DA 99-2569. An additional FCC order was issued in 1999, stating the FCC position on two items which some localities and courts had found confusing. DA 99- 2569 rejects balancing tests (“it is clear that a "balancing of interests" approach is not appropriate”). The local authority may not balance the interests of the community against those of the amateur, as the FCC has already done the balancing and issued a Federal rule.​

In other words,
don't come crying to us demanding compromise -
what you're bitching about is the result of a compromise,
and we're all done with that noise.
The "compromise" is baked in to the law you don't like.



Those words will speak volumes to constitutional scholars.


People who expected this ruling to talk about assault weapon bans
and magazine restrictions have a very tenuous grasp on reality.

That's like expecting Traffic Court to reopen Sacco and Vanzetti.


If ultimately the only bars to gun ownership recognized as valid
are the FPP rules, then applying for a license boils down to passing a NICS check.
Add in Home Firearm Safety, and it's still easier than getting a full driver's license.
If you don't see a significant difference between that and the current Mass crapfest...

(I don't know; maybe I'm wrong. You're a car fancier.
Are the Intarweb car forums choked with people asking
which Registry office has the easiest road test layout,
like the incessant din of newb NESers asking
whether their police chief slaps restrictions on new LTCs?)


The first chief to deny a whistle-clean applicant
will have selected Comm2A's defendant for the suit
to sh¡tcan the entire suitability scheme;
perhaps even the fact that the system is town-based
(including address change notifications in triplicate).

If Comm2A gets the system thrown out,
that will get as many as 347 towns pissed off at
whichever one of the four red jurisdictions that Killed The Job.


Interview? What's an "interview"?


A bright spot is that if it requires a second case to smack the dumpster fire states in to line,
SCOTUS may issue a snap per curiam opinion (like the 9-0 of Caetano)
that says "what part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?"

And if that happens to some other state with a big pile of infringed applicants
who can bankroll a big case, it'll smack the rest of the semi-uppity states in to line.

(Not to mention FPC having a running start on cases).


Because that bears no resemblance to the text and history of the Constitution.


I wonder if the clowns embedded a severability clause in the new firearms bill,
or if one flick sends the whole house of cards tumbling down.

After all, they screwed that up on Obamacare.
Click to expand...
The first chief to deny a whistle-clean applicant
will have selected Comm2A's defendant for the suit
to sh¡tcan the entire suitability scheme;
perhaps even the fact that the system is town-based
(including address change notifications in triplicate).

If Comm2A gets the system thrown out,
that will get as many as 347 towns pissed off at
whichever one of the four red jurisdictions that Killed The Job.

The Chiefs only have to look in the mirror to see where it all went wrong.
They took what on it's face could have been a good system and abused the shit out of it.
Egotistical a-holes will always abuse whatever authority they are given unfortunately.
 
Oh great, another ruling to be ignored.

“We respect the right of people to carry handguns for self defense outside the home, just not these handguns, of these calibers, of this capacity, with these types of ammunition, in this manner, with at these times, in these places, and with these stipulations.”
 
I like how the news is saying it'll be a "blood bath."

I think it'll be the opposite more people being able to defend from criminals will get criminals to ask them selves is this person armed, or they won't and they'll be the ones who run away
 
VTski4x4 said:
Buffalo Mayor, and DA just came out and said "this changes nothing." What a bunch of cocksucking pieces of shit. They have zero plan to abide by the ruling.
Click to expand...
Of course they will fight.
Did anyone really expect them to disavow their communist party memberships just like that ?
They will lose. All the sweeter.
 
Uzi2 said:
That "Wild West" cliché is so damned tiring. Anyone in government who has ever used it to predict the future of the streets in their district where gun laws have become more lenient has been proven wrong, time and time and time again for decades.
Click to expand...
Adams, what an absolute moron given he is turning NYC into another Chicago and has no idea what to do except make illegal activity illegal again and still do nothing about it unless it is a law abiding citizen, then he will do something. Same for the Commie governor. Stooges really.
 
Admin said:
1656001185629_jpeg-2428048.JPG


1656000386109_png-2428053.JPG
Click to expand...
Isn't this insurrection ?
 
It was nice of the court and Thomas, in particular, to let McConnel, Cornyn, and the rest of their gaggle of Democrat accommodating idiots know that the law they're about to help Dems pass is unconstitutional. Now they can be forever more remembered as traitors who conspired with the Dems to illeglly infringe upon one of Americans' most cherished fundamental rights.

They really do look ridiculous now.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
It also means that the RI AG's office may not be able to continue it's "may issue" policy.
Click to expand...

bfm said:
Saw this quote today. God forbid the "average" person have rights.

The Supreme Court’s decision will deepen the crisis of gun violence in NYC and beyond, wrote Rep. Ritchie Torres, D-N.Y., who represents part of the Bronx. Striking down the proper cause requirement, as SCOTUS has done, means allowing the average person a right to carry a gun in public, even in a city as densely populated as NY.
Click to expand...
What a dipshit. I doubt he even knows he equated all law abiding citizens with the ratchet hoodboogers that have ruined NYC
 
apander said:
Isn't this insurrection ?
Click to expand...
Olbermann is a certified lunatic. He says what every other Demonrat Progressive thinks secretly and bides their time and slowly corrupts. ALso see how he demeans Barret calling her a paralegal, while the leftist SCOTUS judges are mostly not that bright. Olbermann can't even hold a job spewing leftist propaganda. lol.
 
sig shooter said:
How do we think this will pan out in MA? Reads like the LTC/FID scheme will stay. However, the chief loses all power and they must issue the unrestricted license if the person is not statutorily prohibited.
Click to expand...
I think you will quietly see cities and towns issue unrestricted ltcs going forward
 
GaryO said:
Does anyone really think that NY will follow the Supreme Court ? The governor and mayor D-bag said that they don't agree with it and will follow the lead of the WH when it comes to stay in Mexico. Sure it was ruled on but it's a toothless tiger at this point.
Click to expand...
DC took the same defiant "Your not the boss of me tone. "
They bitched .
 
Last edited:
What a jerk off Toobin is.

GaryO said:
Can you imagine the douchebaggery of this masturbating monkey?

"You know, we know that in the United States you have the right under the First Amendment to say pretty much anything anywhere because we have freedom of speech in the United States. What the conservatives on the Supreme Court are saying is we want the Second Amendment to be a first class right like the First Amendment," Toobin griped.

www.foxnews.com

SCOTUS guns rights ruling prompts meltdown from CNN's Toobin: Conservatives want guns 'anywhere anytime'

CNN's Jeffrey Toobin railed against the Supreme Court striking down a strict New York State gun law, and argued the ruling could lead to more mass shootings.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com
Click to expand...
 
Bladerunner said:
Communities that restrict gun owners’ licenses for certain purposes unless applicants show a special need for self-defense will need to rewrite their policies, “otherwise there’s a strong likelihood in the very near future that these communities will find themselves in federal court,” he said.
Click to expand...
Attorney Guida seems to have mastered the art of understatement.
 

Similar threads

Nevada Supreme Court Upholds Ban on So-Called ‘Ghost Guns’
Replies
4
Views
177
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
The NRA Is About to Notch Another Legal Victory at the Supreme Court
Replies
13
Views
644
groundscrapers
G
New York's Radical Gun Restrictions Headed To Supreme Court
Replies
1
Views
291
Rob Boudrie
Rob Boudrie
Supreme Court and guns in the news (search 3/4/24)
Replies
0
Views
184
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