Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

[Reptile]

Supreme Court to take up first gun rights case in nearly a decade

The U.S. Supreme Court, in its first gun rights case in nearly a decade, will hear arguments Monday from Second Amendment advocates challenging a New York City law that restricts licensed holders to a handful of shooting ranges within the city.

Gun rights groups are hoping the high court will extend its landmark rulings from 2008 and 2010 that enshrined the right to have a gun for self-defense at home.

Supreme Court to take up first gun rights case in nearly a decade

The U.S. Supreme Court, in its first gun rights case in nearly a decade, will hear arguments Monday from Second Amendment advocates challenging a New York City law that restricts licensed holders to a handful of shooting ranges within the city.

www.foxnews.com

 

[n1bsbri]

People have such heightened expectations about what SCOTUS will do with this case. The Roberts Court has a long track record of VERY cautious decisions that are narrowly tailored to answer the specific question in the case, and no more. It's certain they will be tip-toeing through this minefield as well, and will probably declare the case moot.

As far as expansive rulings on strict scrutiny, and carry outside the home, forget it, you're dreaming.

 

[CatSnoutSoup]

Starts tomorrow. Interested to see what happens.

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

Very sophisticated shaping of language there to suppress any idea that the right to bear arms outside the home might naturally exist and be an extension of prior rulings. But that is pretty much what I would expect from Mike Bloomberg's "Independent" news source, The Trace.

 

[CatSnoutSoup]

Best case they demand strict scrutiny. Even then the lower courts ignore them and its business as usual.

If they dismiss as moot we then have to hope that they feel compelled to pick up a case with some meat on its bones.

 

[Waher]

It's certain they will be tip-toeing through this minefield as well, and will probably declare the case moot.

Roberts has had multiple chances to have this case dismissed as moot and it hasn't happened. The lower courts flagrantly wiping their asses with Heller, MacDonald, and Caetano in open rebellion, thus challenging the supremacy of SCotUS has to have pissed even candy ass Roberts off. At the very least this will be a "you pissant lower courts will use the same scrutiny as SCotUS does" ruling.

Shibboleth Authentication Request

Justice Clarence Thomas has long called for an expansion of the individual right to own a gun for self-defence in the home, announced in Heller; the Second Amendment “is apparently this court’s constitutional orphan”, he lamented in 2018. Justice Samuel Alito has groaned that the right to bear arms is regarded as a "second-class right", too. And Justice Brett Kavanaugh—whose predecessor, Anthony Kennedy, helped shape Heller into a milder vindication of gun rights than fellow conservatives wanted—appears to be something of a Second Amendment maximalist. He has said that banning semi-automatic rifles violates the constitution since these weapons “are in common use by law-abiding citizens”.

Justice Kavanaugh’s arrival could herald a willingness among the Supreme Court’s conservatives to expand the right to bear arms beyond the home and to chastise lower courts for failing to take gun rights seriously. The plaintiffs are encouraging such a reckoning, pointing to the Second Circuit’s treatment of the transport ban as a “vivid testament to just how radically divorced lower court Second Amendment doctrine has become from basic principles of constitutional analysis”.

Overreach by the lower courts, NYC, and NYS has been so flagrant I don't think even Roberts is going to put up with it.

 

[LittleCalm]

People have such heightened expectations about what SCOTUS will do with this case. The Roberts Court has a long track record of VERY cautious decisions that are narrowly tailored to answer the specific question in the case, and no more. It's certain they will be tip-toeing through this minefield as well, and will probably declare the case moot.

As far as expansive rulings on strict scrutiny, and carry outside the home, forget it, you're dreaming.

This. Will be an unhelpful, narrow ruling. Thomas will concur but write a broad opinion.

 

[TLB]

People have such heightened expectations about what SCOTUS will do with this case. The Roberts Court has a long track record of VERY cautious decisions that are narrowly tailored to answer the specific question in the case, and no more. It's certain they will be tip-toeing through this minefield as well, and will probably declare the case moot.

As far as expansive rulings on strict scrutiny, and carry outside the home, forget it, you're dreaming.

I actually think NYC is going to get their pee pee slapped. They could have mooted the case otherwise. Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanuagh, and Alito at a minimum probably voted to hear this case. What are you going to do Roberts? That I am very interested in seeing.

 

[Roadglide]

Assuming that Baker, Maura, and their minions don’t ignore or defy the ruling.

Bob

I never understand that. How is it possible to ignore a Supreme Court decision. It’s a different case but I know for a fact that Massachusetts union labor attorneys are working to ignore the Janus ruling.

 

[xtry51]

I never understand that. How is it possible to ignore a Supreme Court decision. It’s a different case but I know for a fact that Massachusetts union labor attorneys are working to ignore the Janus ruling.

Seriously? They just ignore it. Theres no magic or logic other than they want to ban all guns period.

 

[Coyote33]

So, why do we have a "Supreme Court", then, if nobody listens to what they say?

 

[MarkT]

This. Will be an unhelpful, narrow ruling. Thomas will concur but write a broad opinion.

I agree and hope to God I'm wrong. I usually am wrong so maybe this will work in our favor.

 

[xtry51]

So, why do we have a "Supreme Court", then, if nobody listens to what they say?

Because people love make believe and the idea a system exists supposedly to protect them.

Unless judges and prosecutors start getting fired and disbarred for unconstitutional rulings, nothing will change. There neede to be consequences.

 

[June4th]

I never understand that. How is it possible to ignore a Supreme Court decision. It’s a different case but I know for a fact that Massachusetts union labor attorneys are working to ignore the Janus ruling.

Thus is the consequence of not having an ‘or else’ clause in the Bill of Rights. It says ‘shall not be infringed’ but there’s no penalty for ‘infringement’ so ‘infringing’ goes on and on. Maura should have earned herself 50 lashings in front of the State House if the Constitution spelled out the penalties for violating it.

 

[Coyote33]

... and taken to the next level, if lower courts won't follow higher courts, why should anyone follow a lower court; or any law at that point? Then what do we have?

 

[Brewer]

... and taken to the next level, if lower courts won't follow higher courts, why should anyone follow a lower court; or any law at that point? Then what do we have?

“A Republic, if you can keep it.”

Benjamin Franklin (170690) - Collection at Bartleby.com

Benjamin Franklin (170690) “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”“A Republic, if you can keep it.”

www.bartleby.com

 

[rivet_42]

“A Republic, if you can keep it.”

Benjamin Franklin (170690) - Collection at Bartleby.com

Benjamin Franklin (170690) “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”“A Republic, if you can keep it.”

www.bartleby.com

Dangnabbit, beat me to it!

 

[TLB]

Because people love make believe and the idea a system exists supposedly to protect them.

Unless judges and prosecutors start getting fired and disbarred for unconstitutional rulings, nothing will change. There neede to be consequences.

"fired and disbarred"?
You're too nice.

 

[T-Unit]

I never understand that. How is it possible to ignore a Supreme Court decision.

Because all federal courts have judges who have lifetime appointments and cannot be removed from office other than impeachment, which if you haven't noticed is a time consuming process.

You really think the dipshits in Congress, specifically the piss pant Republican party is going to kill time on impeaching judges for not following the rulings of SCOTUS over dicking with the tax laws and grifting out money to special interest groups?

Normally that would lead to the people voting out members of Congress and replacing them with members who would do the duty of impeaching judges, but the disgusting, degenerate fake news media has said for decades to never politicize or otherwise attack the judiciary in the United States. Even if Republicans in Congress would go to the lengths of impeachment, Wolf Blitzer and Andy Pooper would be on air every day screaming that there is a new Nazi party rising in the United States led by Republicans trying to remove innocent judges who were appointed by Democrat presidents who have done nothing wrong.

The housewives in suburbia who drink tea and go shopping for clothes every Saturday will be horrified, the Republicans will lose numerous seats in the next election.

 

[T-Unit]

... and taken to the next level, if lower courts won't follow higher courts, why should anyone follow a lower court; or any law at that point? Then what do we have?

At that point we have a lawless nation and mob rule, which we essentially have right now because half the country and an entire political party has been decreed illegitimate by the media and the opposition party.

I just wish that the Republicans had the same willingness to go to the mattresses against the Democrats when they take power like the Dems do when they're out of power. Instead we have wimps like Boehner, McConnell, and Ryan running the show who are nothing more than go along, get along country club Republicans.

It's not politics as usual like it was in the 80s and 90s, today we have a resurgent Progressive movement coming from the Democrat party that is attacking the founders and foundation of the United States, the majority ethnic group of the United States, the majority religion of the United States, etc.

It is a full on revolution, just there are no bullets flying... yet.

 

[T-Unit]

Thus is the consequence of not having an ‘or else’ clause in the Bill of Rights. It says ‘shall not be infringed’ but there’s no penalty for ‘infringement’ so ‘infringing’ goes on and on. Maura should have earned herself 50 lashings in front of the State House if the Constitution spelled out the penalties for violating it.

The consequence is impeachment, but I just discussed that. The next step is when the representatives that are elected by the people fail to uphold their oath and do their duty, it's then up to the people to do it and the justification for it is written in the Declaration of Independence.

The only peaceful solution would be a million man march on Washington every day for weeks, Hong Kong style.

The fact is that's never going to happen because people have bills to pay and jobs to work. They're not going to protest for the Congress to impeach judges who don't listen to SCOTUS, Even if they did, I don't think Congress would have any guts to do it and I don't think it's worth a mass uprising against the federal gov't to get that done.

The less destructive, but still dark path to remove judges breaking the law is not something I'm going to say, but think something along the lines of stuff you'd see in a mafia movie or the Dark Knight.

Either way, it leads to civil war.

 

[T-Unit]

Best case they demand strict scrutiny. Even then the lower courts ignore them and its business as usual.

I sincerely hope this does not become the case even if strict scrutiny is ruled because it then becomes a constitutional crisis in that we have judges, officials who are not elected and have lifetime appointments openly defying the supreme law of the land.

And as such, I question if Roberts wants to leave the possibility of going down that rabbit hole open.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

Roberts has had multiple chances to have this case dismissed as moot and it hasn't happened. The lower courts flagrantly wiping their asses with Heller, MacDonald, and Caetano in open rebellion, thus challenging the supremacy of SCotUS has to have pissed even candy ass Roberts off. At the very least this will be a "you pissant lower courts will use the same scrutiny as SCotUS does" ruling.

Shibboleth Authentication Request

Overreach by the lower courts, NYC, and NYS has been so flagrant I don't think even Roberts is going to put up with it.

I think the NYS case is more about reining in the lower courts and probably altering the way in which 2A rights are determined by the courts than it is about making a bold statement about 2A. I wouldn't be surprised if SCOTUS said in the NY case that carrying a weapon outside the home is a constitutional activity but only applies to NYS. It would crack open the door to hopefully striking down other unconstitutional laws. It won't stop the left from passing idiotic laws, but maybe just maybe if the courts are lined up a little better they will stop ignoring SCOTUS and stop the existing bench from making up decisions fabricated from whole cloth.

 

[Boston4567]

The law at issue is small potatoes. Even a lot of antis think that the NYC law is unduly onerous, and doesn't serve a legitimate public safety interest. They think that anyone who can jump through the hoops required to get a NYC premises handgun permit isn't going to pose a public safety issue by transporting it, unloaded, in a locked container to some other location.

What the Antis are afraid of is that SCOTUS will say that "strict scrutiny" is to be applied to regulations that impact Second Amendment rights. "Strict scrutiny", as many will know, means that the law has to achieve a legitimate public-policy interest and has to use the least restrictive means possible to achieve that interest. Strict scrutiny is most commonly applied in cases where a law disparately affects a suspect class on the basis of something like race, religion, or national origin, but there's also precedent for applying it where a law affects a fundamental right. And Heller and McDonald have established the RTKBA as such.

What many courts have instead been applying to gun cases post-Heller has been some form of "intermediate scrutiny" where they perform a balancing test of "how much does this really infringe on someone's rights versus how much does this reduce gun violence." Some other lower courts have applied strict scrutiny. The level of scrutiny to be applied is one of the things that SCOTUS needs to sort out.

If it turns out that SCOTUS says that strict scrutiny is to be applied, it provides excellent grounds for throwing out a lot of the more restrictive firearms laws around the country. Feature-based assault weapons bans, magazine capacity limits, and burdensome processes to obtain a license to possess a firearm in one's own home may all fall. So may "non-issue" and "whimsical issue" policies for licenses to carry a firearm, if someone successfully brings a Peruta type case to court that says that the "and bear" part of 2A is essentially meaningless without the ability to carry outside the home. All of *that* is what has the antis' underwear in a twist.

A ruling requiring strict scrutiny would be a huge loss for 2A because strict scrutiny is a means-ends balancing test that allows too much leeway for interpretation. This would allow lower court judicial nullification and would leave the door open for future liberal courts to neuter 2A without explicitly overturning it.

The proper test for 2A would be based on text, history, and traditions and would not allow for any balancing tests. This was the position advocated for by Kavanaugh when he was on the DC Circuit.

 

[CatSnoutSoup]

The proper test for 2A would be based on text, history, and traditions and would not allow for any balancing tests. This was the position advocated for by Kavanaugh when he was on the DC Circuit.

Yes, please. “Shall not be infringed” should mean just what it says and if they do not like it then there is a process for amending the constitution.

 

[usp45ct]

Come on SCOTUS..get some. Show those nasty D’s you CANNOT be intimidated.

 

[Coyote33]

This is today, right? Is there any decent source for updates or coverage?

 

[TLB]

This is today, right? Is there any decent source for updates or coverage?

The transcripts of oral arguments are posted on this website on the same day an argument is heard by the Court. Same-day transcripts are considered official but subject to final review. The audio recordings of all oral arguments heard by the Supreme Court of the United States are available to the public at the end of each argument week. The audio recordings are posted on Fridays after Conference.

Supreme Court of the United States Home

 

[June4th]

I am hoping for a pleasant surprise. The D’s have been freaking out over this case and senators have thrown everything and the kitchen sink at the case with not-even-veiled threats. Justices themselves may just slap these people for nothing more than self-respect and the love of the institution.

 

[El_Guapo77]

hoping for some good news

 

[Coyote33]

Saw this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/12/02/supreme-court-could-undo-local-gun-laws-case-it-shouldnt-be-hearing/