Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

SBrackett

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Mar 15, 2005
Messages
118
Likes
79
Location
PRM
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:
I don’t think anybody here is concentrating on what else could go wrong. They are trying to dissect what this could actually mean and determine if it is really the WIN that some people are getting all giddy over. It’s called scrutiny. And it’s justified…in all matters concerning your rights and the government.


Ooops……I almost forgot the dismissive eye roll. 🙄
 

Garys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
92   0   0
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
20,349
Likes
5,583
Location
Stoughton
I have to wonder if public officials who refuse to abide by this decision can be sued both in their official and individual capacities. Since the standard is now strict scrutiny, refusing to abide by the decision could well be a civil right violation, as are First Amendment Rights.

IANAL, but that seems to be the biggest change that SCOTUS made today and one that will continue to reap benefits for pro 2A supporters.
 

Mesatchornug

Instructor
NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
7,272
Likes
12,811
Location
People's Republik
A Texan just told me that stats's legislator is having an emergency section over the SCOTUS decision.

But, TX is already a constitutional carry state, so I fail to comprehend what they are up to. Probably no good.
Maybe they're all doing shots? [cheers]🥃
 

Garys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
92   0   0
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
20,349
Likes
5,583
Location
Stoughton
The Texas legislature is dominated by Republicans. The Lt. Governor is the President of the Senate is in #1 on the Texas liberals hate list. They may well be looking at repealing or redefining the 30:05, 30:06 and 30:07 laws that allow private entities to prohibit open, concealed, or unlicensed carry. There is also a separate law that makes it a felony to carry a firearm into a facility that derives more than 51% of it's revenue from the sale of alcoholic beverages. That law comes under the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commissions (TABC) jurisdiction.

The law already prohibits public buildings from posting any of the 30:xx buildings. The exceptions to that are jails, police stations, courts, and any building controlled by the county sheriff.

In all of my visits to Texas over thirty or so years I've seen exactly one 51% sign. That was on the function hall located on the property that was used in the TV show "Dallas" as South Fork Ranch.

DR Grant and I disagree as to whether TX or MA actually has more restricted places. When it comes to the restrictions I list above, he's right. Other than that, Texas is far more 2A friendly. I was able to carry at the LBJ Presidential Library even though it's on the property of the University of Texas - Austin.

A Texan just told me that stats's legislator is having an emergency section over the SCOTUS decision.

But, TX is already a constitutional carry state, so I fail to comprehend what they are up to. Probably no good.
 

AHM

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Messages
20,419
Likes
24,884
Location
Some caves off Route 40 past Groton
She is a lawyer. Just not a good one.
Bah; my license to practice law in Massachusetts is the same as Elizabeth Warren's.

no rouge clerk wanted to takes things into their own hands
Word.
consultant-helps-woman-choice-make-up-shop-seller-lipstick-shade-cosmetic-choosing-beauty-store-143146185.jpg

1). First time applicant:
a) Sign up to a state run firearms school to get a certificate. There is no cost other than personal time and travel back and forth.
If you suck for a state-run firearms school,
they'll start piling on more and more requirements.

The dems are bleeding voters everywhere except for possibly cemeteries where the residents there vote democrat 100% of the time.
Well, at least 99 44/100%.

You KNOW there will be a few towns that cause some here to have to pay our fine legal folks of NES in order to defend their own rights.
If the red towns fück around,
that's the entré for civil rights suits
to kick out the jams.

Someone should stick a thumb in their eye in the Herald:

All you red town gun-grabbers:​
every time you consider you flexing on the citizenry,​
the next time could be the last time.​
Wow this new SCOTUS decision is awesome. I picked this up at Harbor Freight with no background checks, LTC or paperwork. Freaking amazing.

zip-tie-gun-jpg.629731
Appliance operator.
(Thought it was wire strippers).

I have no doubt that NYC will turn everything into a sensitive area. It will look like TexASS with "gun buster" signs on every business.
Maybe some Texas legislator with aspirations will decide that the 30.06/30.07 zones
don't pass constitutional muster and file a bill to repeal them.

Dear God, someone please put this one on a billboard facing the Rio Grande.
FV8qb1xXgAEckik.jpg



FV8wR0OXoAAeK9a.jpg

#Nullo

I wonder how the left will deal with things once NYC finally is forced to obey the decision and nothing bad happens - like in Florida where the predicted gunfights in the streets.
What amazes me is how seldom dying gun control has a dead-cat bounce
where there's an initial travesty before the populace as a whole
starts getting squared away with their newly acknowledged rights.
i-started-blasting-so-anyway-i-started-blasting.gif


Of course it is early but would this not mean non residents should be able to be licensed in these states under shall issue?
If dumpster-fire states don't want to play that game,
they might get nationwide reciprocity imposed on them.
6ko9cp.jpg



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.
An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights;​
it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office;​
it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.​

Ruling or not, you will never see a shall-issue law in Massachusetts.
And if the Massachusetts may-issue scheme got nuked,
what do you think happens next?
Can you point to Massachusetts' "you can protest in front of an abortion clinic" law?

Because Massachusetts' "you can't protest in front of an abortion clinic" law
was struck down 8 years ago. That ought to have given them time to pass it.
It just became shall issue, that was decided today.

Also, as bad as Massachusetts is on carry licenses, NY, NJ, the populated counties of CA, all Hawaii, etc are MUCH worse.

NJ has about 40k conceal carry licenses and those are all politically connected people, former cops, etc. Massachusetts has 500k and it’s a smaller state. Hawaii hasn’t issued a single one in over a decade. Etc.
Hawaii's heads must be exploding like Akuta whacking a melon with a stick.

... does this effect Herr Healy's personal opinions on what the AWB means and or mag limits in the state?
no
It says a lot about what kinds of happy horsesh¡t SCOTUS
will no longer tolerate from gun-grabbers as legal arguments.

So, how many people think Mass will proactively amend its permitting scheme to bring it into compliance with today's ruling? [rofl]
As someone with an unrestricted LTC,
there is a certain schadenfreude value
to Mass getting smacked down in court.
Specifically, are there cases opened up in Massachusetts or New England? If so, which ones?
Today? Or tomorrow?

So, how many people think Mass will proactively amend its permitting scheme to bring it into compliance with today's ruling? [rofl]
Proactively? Doubtful. Retroactively, most certainly.
(I read that as "remorsefully", and it worked just fine).

...and yet no-one (including GOAL and COM2A) seem interested in challenging MA's requirement for us all to pay a $100 application fee in order to (maybe) exercise our second amendment right. . What other constitutional right comes with a price tag from the government? I must be missing something
Not getting your money's worth from COM2A (sic)?
What's your call sign, big spender?

You can really tell that this stuff is Eugene's job.
And I don't assume that he's pro-gun -
I just find him to be a straight shooter,
and a meticulous and exhaustive examiner of legal consequences.

Hunting out of season. They are considered furr bearers and there is a season for them.......which is currently closed.
Put some Barbasol on the corpse's muzzle
and claim Foamy the Raccoon was comin' right for you.
Because while they do fight well above their weight class,
they also get rabid.
 
Last edited:

watchman

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Nov 10, 2013
Messages
2,974
Likes
3,488
They still haven't learned that "Gun Free Zones" are some of the most dangerous places on earth. [thinking]
That's not true our public schools are the safest place for little Johnny to learn Liberal bullsh!t without getting harmed. This is according to our whack job educators calling @Picton
 
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
8,282
Likes
5,854
Location
My forest stronghold
Sorry i feel the need to repeat this.

This means nothing!
A concurring opinion is an opinion that agrees with the majority opinion but does not agree with the rationale behind it. Instead of joining the majority, the concurring judge will write a separate opinion describing the basis behind their decision. Concurring opinions are not binding

I will add, especially in a 6/3 decision.
True in terms of what SCOTUS says, but not as a matter of what actually happens. Kavanaugh's concurring opinion will be taken very seriously by lower courts. Kavanaugh's is a 'pivotal' concurring opinion, one that comes from one more more justices in the majority, without whom there wouldn't be a majority. Here we have Kavanaugh and Roberts. Without these two, we wouldn't have the majority opinion we have.
 

cmcgraw2

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 25, 2012
Messages
2,427
Likes
2,795
Location
PRM
And I'm sure at 2am the GoPe will throw this victory away to gorge themselves on some Donky dick while pissing on the base. Because Mitch McConnel is such a f***in' genius at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

View: https://rumble.com/v19l6cv-biden-reacts-to-supreme-court-decision-upholding-americans-gun-rights.html


Thanks for clearing that up Joe! That vegetable can't even distinguish between may and "shell" issue..
 
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
8,282
Likes
5,854
Location
My forest stronghold
I'm amused by this Thomas footnote:
3 Rather than begin with its view of the governing legal framework, the dissent chronicles, in painstaking detail, evidence of crimes committed by individuals with firearms. See post, at 1–9 (opinion of BREYER, J.).
The dissent invokes all of these statistics presumably to justify granting States greater leeway in restricting firearm ownership and use. But, as Members of the Court have already explained, “[t]he right to keep and
bear arms . . . is not the only constitutional right that has controversial public safety implications.” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 783 (2010) (plurality opinion).
Yet, in Shinn, Thomas went into 'painstaking detail' about the 'facts' in Barry Lee Jones's case, facts that were refuted by four judges in two courts before the case got to SCOTUS. I'm not a Thomas fan, but I'm increasingly likely all of the justices less and less all the time.

At the end of the day, law is just politics, all the way down. Never forget that.
 

Rob Boudrie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
42,881
Likes
24,493
He must be sad, his customer base is about to get cut in half seeins how MA just went SHALL ISSUE.
I do not expect "Shall issue" to be the rule of the day until it has been litigated. I don't even expect Brookline to stop issuing with restrictions until either the state tells them to or they lose in court.
 
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
8,282
Likes
5,854
Location
My forest stronghold
He must be sad, his customer base is about to get cut in half seeins how MA just went SHALL ISSUE.
With 351 licensing authorities in MA, Jason will still have plenty to do. Most are effectively 'shall' issue anyway. But there's still no limit on the kinds of shit they like to pull on applicant.
 

amb

NES Member
Rating - 100%
21   0   0
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
1,139
Likes
328
Location
Massachusetts
NJ has about 40k conceal carry licenses and those are all politically connected people, former cops, etc. Massachusetts has 500k and it’s a smaller state. Hawaii hasn’t issued a single one in over a decade. Etc.
I'm really surprised by Hawaii there. For all that I bitch about corruption in NE US states what I've heard from friends doing business in Hawaii is that corruption there is way, way worse, and backroom deals and personal influence is what everything runs on. I'd have expected anyone with the right connections to be able to get one.
 

crispnipz

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 12, 2017
Messages
552
Likes
835
Location
Melrose
With 351 licensing authorities in MA, Jason will still have plenty to do. Most are effectively 'shall' issue anyway. But there's still no limit on the kinds of shit they like to pull on applicant.
I do not expect "Shall issue" to be the rule of the day until it has been litigated. I don't even expect Brookline to stop issuing with restrictions until either the state tells them to or they lose in court.

Dear Jason,

If you're reading this, please help me sue Medford. I will sue them right now. PM me. I'm serious. I can pay and would enjoy it.
 

mousegunfan

NES Member
Rating - 100%
50   0   0
Joined
Mar 20, 2010
Messages
2,851
Likes
1,612
Location
Cape
True in terms of what SCOTUS says, but not as a matter of what actually happens. Kavanaugh's concurring opinion will be taken very seriously by lower courts. Kavanaugh's is a 'pivotal' concurring opinion, one that comes from one more more justices in the majority, without whom there wouldn't be a majority. Here we have Kavanaugh and Roberts. Without these two, we wouldn't have the majority opinion we have.
I did not see Roberts siding with Kavanaugh. Are you sure?
 

appraiser

NES Member
Rating - 100%
21   0   0
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
14,167
Likes
12,277
as much as I am happy for this decision, the Supreme Court did not give anyone that has been screwed by Lautenburg any relief, nor anyone that has had their constitutional right taken away by some BS law like a MisdaFelony DWI conviction in MA

Voisine v. United States legitimized the f*cking over of a lot of guys who were never arrested, charged or convicted in a court of law, and gave them no way to clear their names from false allegations​

 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 10, 2021
Messages
6
Likes
11
I’m not a lawyer, but below is a comment I saw in another group and it has me wondering if there is actually something here we will see play out over the next couple years.

People are focusing on the wrong part of this ruling. It's actually huge.

• ⁠Syllabus:... Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny.... The Second Amendment “is the very product of an interest balancing by the people,” and it “surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms” for self-defense.

Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context

This is DC v Heller levels or big. This explicitly changes how all 2A cases are to be heard and ruled. You can no longer say "Might save lives, so therefore public interest". Which is how every feature and magazine ban has been upheld.

This is above and beyond "strict scrutiny". This is an absolute bombshell that everyone is missing because they're too focused on the Permits.

Every California law out of the 9th circuit has been upheld on that two-step process. This ruling is SCOTUS explicitly backhanding that down into the trash and saying "No. That's not the standard we told you to use. Cut that shit out." in no uncertain terms.

Practically three things just happened.

Three things:

1. ⁠Basically all your magazine bans, your assault weapon bans, your registries, are going to get reheard under the new directive and most likely struck down because they cannot survive without means-end scrutiny.

• ⁠They are not explicitly struck down by this, but they are going to be extremely hard pressed to withstand the new standard.

1. ⁠All "May Issue" permitting is done, it now must be "Shall issue".
2. ⁠States cannot declare large swathes of areas to be "sensitive areas" and prohibit carrying. They have to shot a historical and traditional pattern of restriction, at the national level.

• ⁠So saying no guns in the legislature, courthouse, polling places, banks is fine. But explicitly called out what that NY cannot declare Manhattan Island a "Sensitive area".
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
13,326
Likes
6,628
I'm really surprised by Hawaii there. For all that I bitch about corruption in NE US states what I've heard from friends doing business in Hawaii is that corruption there is way, way worse, and backroom deals and personal influence is what everything runs on. I'd have expected anyone with the right connections to be able to get one.

Hawaii has issued 4 carry licenses in the past 22 years. 4!
 
Top Bottom