There isn’t a requirement courts decide in a set amount of time, they could hold cases for years if they want.
The young vs Hawaii originally started in 2010 I believe and he’s still fighting.
-
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
- Thread starter soloman02
- Start date
There isn’t a requirement courts decide in a set amount of time, they could hold cases for years if they want.
The young vs Hawaii originally started in 2010 I believe and he’s still fighting.
The live stream of the orders is on Scotusblog
www.scotusblog.com
SCOTUSblog - Independent News & Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court
Devoted to covering the US Supreme Court comprehensively, without bias according to the highest journalistic standards as a public service
www.scotusblog.com
I think they’ll vacate and remand the mag limit cases, AWB and young v Hawaii (open carry). Bumpstocks are a toy and a far smaller issue. Also I think the 5th circuit taking it en banc I will probably find the ban unlawful. SCOTUS can duck the bumpstock case and allow the 5th to hear it en banc and develop more of a record.
I think that’s how the 5th will strike the ban down. Obama’s ATF said they could not be banned under current law then trump ordered it and suddenly they found a legal way to ban them. And the wording suggesting it’s a machine gun if I remember correctly, that can be legal.
They could, but it seems more likely that a case GVR'd back to the appeals court would be heard and decided before the same case being granted cert now, heard in the fall, and decided next year. I could be wrong though, is it usual that cases sent back to the appeals court languish there for years before they make a decision?
I would think the appeals court would decide the case fairly quickly if any are remanded. They already heard the cases, they would be redefining with a different standard now. They could basically use the appeals courts dissents in those mag and AWB cases and issue an opinion in weeks if they wanted.
Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (football coach praying after game on the field) decided, 6-3 conservative majority with Gorsuch writing the opinion. No surprise on the ruling.
FrugalFannie
NES Member
Not really. The licensing authority would just deny the permit application and then make it incumbent upon the applicant to prove they do have good moral character. How many people would be able to hire an attorney and do that? Very few. So they suppress the "masses" and capitulate when an attorney gets into the equation. What's that, maybe 1% of all denied applicants?
June4th
NES Member
It’s right in the bullseye of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ principle.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2021
- Messages
- 142
- Likes
- 256
Got a call from my licensing officer and he told me since they remove redo after a year and mines is up in December he told me to just wait give him a call and they will get it taken cared of them
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2021
- Messages
- 142
- Likes
- 256
Was told since they remove restrictions after a year I should wait till December
Was told since they remove restrictions after a year I should wait till December
Call Comm2A and FPC. SCOTUS said it’s a right to carry, a right delayed is an abuse no one should be subjected to
Roadglide
NES Member
Tough call. You shouldn’t have to wait. What do they think will happen if you become a victim between now and then because your carry is restricted. Not smart on their part if you ask me.Was told since they remove restrictions after a year I should wait till December
Call Comm2A.
And that is what makes the entire process so egregiously wrong. I don't have to prove anything to any government entity to exercise my constitutional rights other than the fact that I'm still alive.
PeterC
NES Member
Once, many years ago, Haverhill MA tried to restrict my renewal to 'target and hunting'. So, I got a free 15 minute consult with a good attorney and got some good advice. I then went back to the Chief with "I talked to my attorney and he suggested this ...", no surprise, the police agreed, I met those conditions and I got my full, unrestricted permit. They didn't seem to be very pissed off at all.
It doesn't necesssarily have to result in a long, drawn out, expensive court confrontation.
LittleCalm
NES Member
This is your only recourse. OTOH, they know you won't fight it in court b/c they will just remove the restriction, December at latest.
No action today on the pending gun cases 2 mag limit cases (CA & NJ), an AWB (MD) and a carry case [HI)
Should be soon though. I believe there are still 4 opinions remaining too. So one more day of opinions
Should be soon though. I believe there are still 4 opinions remaining too. So one more day of opinions
1903Collector
NES Member
Are these to be heard next term (hopefully) or did I really miss something current term?
Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread
Monday at 9:30 SCOTUS will issue orders on the remaining 4 2A cases. 2 mag limit cases, an AWB case and the open carry case from Hawaii (George young’s story and the many years he has fought for his rights to be respected is very interesting. Similar to Otis McDonald in his fight against...
www.northeastshooters.com
SteelShooter
NES Member
I think we lose the mag case, I don't think the SCOTUS can think in terms of why it's needed.
Damn SCotUS is slaughtering more sacred cows of the left this morning. Prayer is schools is now back voluntarily and its looking like the EPA & Administrative Rule Making [major blow to the Wilsonian Administrative State] is about to get shredded. So much red meat to grill up for MAGA month (aka July).
pdm
NES Member
Wouldn't be so sure. If the standard held in Bruen is used against AWB/mag restrictions, I think they fall.
pastera
NES Member
Bruen eclipses the premise that a firearm need be or need not be a military weapon.
Miller should fall given the dicta in Bruen, McDonald and Heller
Edit to add my useless opinion of why Miller must fall:
Bruen calls out a standard above strict scrutiny - the state must show that a limitation is closely related to a historic limitation and is closely related to the state interest.
Items covered by Miller are available and the supply was not limited until 1986 however there is no significant history of the items contributing to illegal actions except for a simple prohibition of possession without the tax stamp. The state simply cannot justify the limitation. What could get us is the proliferation of Chinese giggle switches but that could be overcome by the fact that Miller is simply ineffective at its intended cause therefore doesn't overcome the burden to be narrowly tailored
Last edited:
Mesatchornug
NES Member
Agreed. I was just replying to the specifics (as I understood them) of her post. Hell, if the NFA necessarily falls, how can the Hughes Amendment continue to exist?
![[mg]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/036.gif "Machine Gun [mg]")
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2021
- Messages
- 142
- Likes
- 256
What should I say I’m sorry new to this of course
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2021
- Messages
- 142
- Likes
- 256
Any recommendations ?
Next opinion day is Wednesday but there isn’t another order day scheduled yet. Also if the order was ready, you’d think they would have issued it f today. Since they didn’t, there must be some discussion still which means they’ll talk about it at the next conference which also isn’t on the calendar yet
If the NFA fails the ATF's existence would be in question and the Treasury should have to refund every penny they collected on NFA tax stamps, fees, and the like.Agreed. I was just replying to the specifics (as I understood them) of her post. Hell, if the NFA necessarily falls, how can the Hughes Amendment continue to exist?
