Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

Dench

NES Member
Rating - 100%
122   0   0
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
25,037
Likes
23,254
Location
FL
I purposely stayed off all media until I could read the ruling in its entirety - My copy has 27 comments to myself and easily could have double that. Many places set the foundation for challenges to other restrictions, specifically the emphasis on military weapons being called out as historically part of the protected class of arms covered by the 2A. Does this clear a path to killing the NFA?

It is clear that Kavanaugh (and Roberts) killed a much broader opinion that would have been just short of constitutional carry and a gutting of many restrictions.
However, there is so much in this opinion to be grateful for we should be doubling down on our donations to 2A legal groups for the foreseeable future
Can you post the military part
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Sep 3, 2021
Messages
1,261
Likes
2,185
What does this mean for MA and the current process where even if you pass a criminal background check squeaky clean, you have to submit character references and interview with a police chief or captain as he eyes you up and down and asks "so... why do you want a gun?"
 

ddraper

NES Member
Rating - 100%
24   0   0
Joined
Jun 8, 2015
Messages
1,775
Likes
2,689
Does anyone besides me think the timing of the Rowe V Wade decision came at the perfect time to distract the Libs from protesting the 2A decision. They will be to wrapped up rioting and burning down cities over Rowe V Wade.
 

PappyM3

NES Member
Rating - 100%
25   0   0
Joined
Mar 31, 2012
Messages
4,371
Likes
6,637
What does this mean for MA and the current process where even if you pass a criminal background check squeaky clean, you have to submit character references and interview with a police chief or captain as he eyes you up and down and asks "so... why do you want a gun?"
The opinion seems to indicate that MA has to become shall issue, as long as the background check clears for prohibited person status. The safety class requirement is probably still okay. But “suitability” is probably out the window. And restrictions should be no more.

What the state and Chiefs will do is another story. Maybe they’ll ignore SCOTUS and be tyrannical insurrectionists until they’re sued. Or maybe they’ll follow the NJ AG and do the right thing and follow the SCOTUS ruling.
 

PappyM3

NES Member
Rating - 100%
25   0   0
Joined
Mar 31, 2012
Messages
4,371
Likes
6,637
Does anyone besides me think the timing of the Rowe V Wade decision came at the perfect time to distract the Libs from protesting the 2A decision. They will be to wrapped up rioting and burning down cities over Rowe V Wade.
I don’t think that’s what happened, but it crossed my mind.

Unfortunately, there is still attention on Bruen too. Now I have to hear a bunch of people irrationally say “guns have more rights in this country than women now”.
 

Waher

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 2, 2014
Messages
24,917
Likes
49,616
Location
☦️ Boston Gun & Rifle and Braintree Rifle & Pistol
Unfortunately, there is still attention on Bruen too. Now I have to hear a bunch of people irrationally say “guns have more rights in this country than women now”.
By the same Karens that were demanding medical apartheid for forcible non-long term tested vaccines five minutes ago after being anti-vax for a decade. I swear to G-d Oprah is responsible for turning media addicted suburban white women into neurotic monsters.
 

Admin

Staff Member
Administrator
Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
18   0   0
Joined
Feb 25, 2005
Messages
40,917
Likes
26,147
Location
Monadnock area, NH
A lot of politicians in both parties don't really care much about guns, idealogically. They'll say whatever they think will get them elected, knowing that they'll never be expected to actually do anything if they ever get to Washington.

Gabbard is a Hawaiian MP officer, meaning there's a strong possibility she's a statist. She also ran as a Democrat, meaning she had to be pro-gun control.

But what does she really believe? Does she actually care all that much about guns?

I think this SCOTUS ruling will provide cover for a lot of those centrists on both sides, who can now throw up their hands and say, "Hey, it's the Supreme Court! It's not my call! I think 'gun violence' is terrible, but the Court has spoken!"

Who knows?
I agree
 

Andy in NH

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Aug 14, 2007
Messages
4,609
Likes
9,070
Location
SW NH
Thinking, or perhaps over thinking, this decision a bit more, I have to wonder if both the Approved Firearms Roster and the AG's BS non list list are also on the block. Again "firearms in common use" seems to cover a lot of territory.

Then there are the knife laws...

Gilbert, Arizona - June 23, 2022: Knife Rights is celebrating Thursday's opinion by the Supreme Court of the United States affirming that the right to bear arms, which includes knives, exists outside the home. Moreover, that the states cannot unreasonably restrict this right to the point of effectively denying it to the majority of law-abiding persons.

Knife Rights Chairman Doug Ritter said, "This is a huge win for the Second Amendment community and knife owners. The two pillars upon which Knife Rights stands are “Essential Tools – Essential Rights.” We cannot fully retain the former without the latter. This decision by the Supreme Court significantly bolsters the latter and knife owner rights."
 

Rob Boudrie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
42,881
Likes
24,494
Haven't seen this discussed yet, but what does this ruling mean in the future for reciprocity? Since now all states are on the same playing field in terms of shall issue (minus stuff like range qualifications or vision/mental health checks) what's the reason that someone who has a CCW license in Montana can't carry in NYC?
NYC can be expected to do only what it is directly ordered to do by the courts, nothing more.
 

Garys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
92   0   0
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
20,349
Likes
5,583
Location
Stoughton
It means nothing. All states will continue to decide on their own whether to accept other states permits. I don't expect MA to change it's no reciprocity position.

Haven't seen this discussed yet, but what does this ruling mean in the future for reciprocity? Since now all states are on the same playing field in terms of shall issue (minus stuff like range qualifications or vision/mental health checks) what's the reason that someone who has a CCW license in Montana can't carry in NYC?
 

ddraper

NES Member
Rating - 100%
24   0   0
Joined
Jun 8, 2015
Messages
1,775
Likes
2,689
It means nothing. All state.s will continue to decide on their own whether to accept other states permits. I don't expect MA to change it's no reciprocity position.

Unfortunately I agree with you. It's a shame that I'm still going to have to carry around a half a dozen different permits when I travel.

Think of all the money States like Utah are going to lose if they allow National reciprocity or constitutional carry.
 

Garys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
92   0   0
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
20,349
Likes
5,583
Location
Stoughton
Other than MA, the only permit I currently have is PA. Where I travel recognizes one of the two or is Constitutional Carry. The only exception is SC which recognizes only a few other states permits and only if they are resident permits.

They also only issue non resident permits if the person owns property in SC. I've taken the class, but don't own any property there.

Unfortunately I agree with you. It's a shame that I'm still going to have to carry around a half a dozen different permits when I travel.

Think of all the money States like Utah are going to lose if they allow National reciprocity or constitutional carry.
 

chuckules

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jun 13, 2009
Messages
824
Likes
1,330
Location
One of the Bridgewaters
I've read every line on this thread and while just a battle, it's a big victory in the war.

Some of the comments around the legal stuff like no more intermediate scrutiny (did I get that right?), I don't understand...but if I read that correctly, that means legislators can't just say "because gunz..." and the implications are big...

I'm going to have to set some time aside to try to start reading the opinions, including delighting in the Thrashings of the Three Dissenters...

I'm an optimist...this is glorious...


1656117445098.png
 
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
8,282
Likes
5,854
Location
My forest stronghold
I purposely stayed off all media until I could read the ruling in its entirety - My copy has 27 comments to myself and easily could have double that. Many places set the foundation for challenges to other restrictions, specifically the emphasis on military weapons being called out as historically part of the protected class of arms covered by the 2A. Does this clear a path to killing the NFA?

It is clear that Kavanaugh (and Roberts) killed a much broader opinion that would have been just short of constitutional carry and a gutting of many restrictions.
However, there is so much in this opinion to be grateful for we should be doubling down on our donations to 2A legal groups for the foreseeable future
Yet 'Constitutional carry' could be on the table once its adopted by a majority of state legislatures. That's not likely to happen, but that would be the path. And the court would probably count by population, not by state. So, doubly unlikely. But that's how you'd get there.
 

beaker

NES Member
Rating - 100%
25   0   0
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
11,601
Likes
8,550
Location
LV-426

She gets hotter every time I hear her speak. She was one of the first Demonrat presidential candidates that was forced out of the race, now you can see why...

I did just look up her voting record on gun control and it is spotty, perhaps her eyes have been opened after getting trashed by the Demonrat party. She has voted on mostly related issues like to protect gun rights of veterans, hardening schools, and gun-show background checks. Apparently was never a sponsor to assault weapons ban bills and did sign on to a buyback bill after a lot of party pressure but it was clearly going to fail. Sponsored a bill to ban bump stocks.

Her other voting record definitely leans progressive left but always in support of veterans. Let's hope she has a new perspective.
 
Last edited:

Garys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
92   0   0
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
20,349
Likes
5,583
Location
Stoughton
Make no mistake about it, she's a gun grabbing Leftist from Hawaii. A good looking one, but one nonetheless. She speaks like a moderate, but isn't one.

She gets hotter every time I hear her speak. She was one of the first Demonrat presidential candidates that was forced out of the race, now you can see why...
 

beaker

NES Member
Rating - 100%
25   0   0
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
11,601
Likes
8,550
Location
LV-426
Make no mistake about it, she's a gun grabbing Leftist from Hawaii. A good looking one, but one nonetheless. She speaks like a moderate, but isn't one.
Well, many of her Demonrat colleagues assumed that she was but she was always frustrating them on numerous issues. She definitely did support certain gun control efforts though. Hard to say but she has no love for Democrats at all, and likely tolerated many of them while she was in Congress.
 
Top Bottom