Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

[Picton]

Yes, I think this is correct. New York (and I think CA) are still going with the 'good moral character' qualification. Based upon the MA AG's statement, I expect MA to fight to keep a narrowly scoped suitability standard. I think suitably will be very hard to overcome because most suitability denials that go the distance will be grounded in bad facts.

Ah. So, call it "suitability" but attach something quantifiable to that, to remove the human factor from the determination.

Hmm.

And that quantifiable something has to have some demonstrable historical link to contemporary firearms regulation. Interesting. I'm sure they'll come up with something entirely fair and just.

 

[crispnipz]

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

Yes, I also talked to the Medford LO this morning. Had a different experience. I mentioned the SCOTUS case in the phone call and he said they were aware of it but he did not say that that was why they would remove the restriction (I've had my LTC since 2017). He immediately removed my T&H restriction (like literally while we were on the phone) and said "you could have called me to remove it after you had the license for a year" This is like the 3rd time I've called...

While Sacco was the chief of Medford, they absolutely did not remove after 1 year. Maybe the current Jenny Craig candidate chief does it after 1 year, but they certainly didn't reach out to me after 1 year and their mood seems to change on a daily basis so it's a crapshoot when you call them what they'll do.

He said that the removal of the restriction was effective immediately and that they would print a new license and I'd have to come pick it up at the station. He was kind enough to inform me the FRB did not get my recent address update (I'm sure they fat-fingered it or something as I have the certified mail receipt).

If you want to take them to court I can testify or whatever. I don't have standing to sue anymore since I got the restriction remove and the AIDSly town of Medford will never control my license again, but I sure was violated for years and I'd like them to stop harming other people now.

 

[Picton]

Yes, I also talked to the Medford LO this morning. Had a different experience. I mentioned the SCOTUS case in the phone call and he said they were aware of it but he did not say that that was why they would remove the restriction (I've had my LTC since 2017). He immediately removed my T&H restriction (like literally while we were on the phone) and said "you could have called me to remove it after you had the license for a year" This is like the 3rd time I've called...

While Sacco was the chief of Medford, they absolutely did not remove after 1 year. Maybe the current Jenny Craig candidate chief does it after 1 year, but they certainly didn't reach out to me after 1 year and their mood seems to change on a daily basis so it's a crapshoot when you call them what they'll do.

He said that the removal of the restriction was effective immediately and that they would print a new license and I'd have to come pick it up at the station. He was kind enough to inform me the FRB did not get my recent address update (I'm sure they fat-fingered it or something as I have the certified mail receipt).

If you want to take them to court I can testify or whatever. I don't have standing to sue anymore since I got the restriction remove and the AIDSly town of Medford will never control my license again, but I sure was violated for years and I'd like them to stop harming other people now.

Good info. Congratulations and welcome to the wonderful world of holsters.

 

[TLB]

LA Times is a cesspool of racism

Column: Is California ready for more Black people to legally carry guns in public?

The Supreme Court says the 2nd Amendment covers the right to carry guns in public. But for Black people, the calculation has always been more complicated.

www.latimes.com

This truly is a gem.

 

[pastera]

Ah. So, call it "suitability" but attach something quantifiable to that, to remove the human factor from the determination.

Hmm.

And that quantifiable something has to have some demonstrable historical link to contemporary firearms regulation. Interesting. I'm sure they'll come up with something entirely fair and just.

And if they do find something objective that passes muster then the historical remedy is to post a surety.
Then if they set the surety too high that gets smacked down

 

[Reptile]

LA Times is a cesspool of racism

Column: Is California ready for more Black people to legally carry guns in public?

The Supreme Court says the 2nd Amendment covers the right to carry guns in public. But for Black people, the calculation has always been more complicated.

www.latimes.com

Hitting a paywall.
Have another link?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Yes, I think this is correct. New York (and I think CA) are still going with the 'good moral character' qualification. Based upon the MA AG's statement, I expect MA to fight to keep a narrowly scoped suitability standard. I think suitably will be very hard to overcome because most suitability denials that go the distance will be grounded in bad facts.

The only hope is getting a court to agree that (a) deprivation of a constitutional right is punishment, and (b) punishment for things like not-guilty verdicts violates the constitution on that basis.

The suitability standard already changed once (it's now dangerousness), however, the courts continued using the Moyer standard because they liked it better.

 

[MGnoob]

Have another link?

I also saw that but couldn’t read it. Talk about racism. The real question is California ready for more guns it’s got nothing to do with Black people.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I also saw that but couldn’t read it. Talk about racism. The real question is California ready for more guns it’s got nothing to do with Black people.

The anti-racist anti-gun people certainly won't hesitate to incite racial fear to further their no gun agenda. To those who think there is not racism regarding blacks with guns - just think about who is going to get "I need to see your LTC sir" and who gets "on the ground mofo" if they are spotted carrying in public.

And it is ironic that this sort of reaction is referred to as "triggering".

 

[Mesatchornug]

Hitting a paywall.
Have another link?

https://archive.ph/aJJaU

 

[TLB]

Ah. So, call it "suitability" but attach something quantifiable to that, to remove the human factor from the determination.

Hmm.

And that quantifiable something has to have some demonstrable historical link to contemporary firearms regulation. Interesting. I'm sure they'll come up with something entirely fair and just.

Sounds ripe for racism. But, that's not surprising.

 

[Garys]

Interesting read on the limits of Bruen.

The Limits of Bruen

The Constitutionality of "Shall Issue" Regimes After <i>Bruen</i>.

reason.com

Of course, some of these states go far, far beyond requiring "background check" or "firearms safety course." Presumably, these burdens on the right to bear arms would be permissible under the majority's understanding, because there is no "subjective" standard about a person's need for the firearm.

Still, the Court flagged some limits on shall-issue regimes:

That said, because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.

How long is a "lengthy wait time"? Weeks? Months? Years? And how high is "exorbitant"? The District of Columbia, for example, imposes onerous requirements, high fees, excessively-long training classes, and many bureaucratic hoops. Litigation will no doubt test these issues. Randy Barnett wrote about his experiences in D.C. on SCOTUSBlog. (A petition is pending before the Court about D.C.'s carry law.)

Second, Justice Alito wrote a concurrence. He stressed that the Court only decided the narrow issue about carry permits. Other issues were not decided:

Our holding decides nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun. Nor does it decide anything about the kinds of weapons that people may possess. Nor have we disturbed anything that we said in Heller or McDonald v. Chicago (2010), about restrictions that may be imposed on the possession or carrying of guns.

Alito wrote this section in response to Breyer's litany of gun statistics. But in the process, he made clear that his opinion in McDonald stands, including the analysis about "longstanding prohibitions" and "dangerous and unusual weapons." Do not expect Alito to be a lock on 922(g) cases, or challenges to assault weapon bans.

 

[MGnoob]

My thoughts are an arrest in the last five years regardless of conviction as a Disqualifier Definitely disproportionately effects minorities.

It’s kind of like the red flag laws. Pre-crime without a conviction can’t be used against you in any legitimate system

 

[MaverickNH]

The Limits of Bruen

The Constitutionality of "Shall Issue" Regimes After <i>Bruen</i>.

reason.com

The main points:

1. “To be clear, nothing in our analysis should be interpreted to suggest the unconstitutionality of the 43 States' "shall-issue" licensing regimes, under which "a general desire for self-defense is sufficient to obtain a [permit]."
2. “…background check or pass a firearms safety course…” [are OK]
3. [But] “…lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees..” [are not, even if not definced]
4. “Our holding decides nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun. Nor does it decide anything about the kinds of weapons that people may possess.”
5. “…fingerprinting, a background check, a mental health records check, and training in firearms handling and in laws regarding the use of force.” [are OK]
6. “…as those States employ objective licensing requirements..” [now expected of May-Issue states]

With the new Federal gun laws passed, States will be looking to get some of those $Billions and Democrats will not waste any opportunity to introduce new bills increasing gun control to celebrate the occassion. I’d expect few States to “tighten” current licensing practices, but sh*t happens when $Billions are waiting to be had.

All in all, the Bruen decision is a step forward for the populations in the May-Issue States - just how large the stride of that step is remains TBD over time.

 

[MaverickNH]

Yes, Duncan v bonta mag limit case from CA/9th circuit, another similar case from NJ/3rd circuit, an AWB from MD/4th circuit and a carry case from Hawaii/9th called young v Hawaii

Those are the 4 pending cert and on hold at SCOTUS. They will grant cert and hear a case, deny cert allowing the lower court decision t9 stand or grant, vacate and remand to the lower court to reconsider based on the NYSRPA ruling

Remember, we’re still “gun nuts” to SCOTUS Justices, six of whom think some of use should be able to carry a revolver or some pistols with us some places at some times.

Directly asked to rule whether we can carry an AR15 slung with a 30rd mag locked & loaded is a place SCOTS will avoid going, which means they won’t have to say no now. When 2/3rds to 4/5ths of States say yes, they might weigh in if the Circuit Courts are in conflict.

It’s a bitch ‘cause we all live under the same Flag. Sometimes you just gotta vote with your feet and live where freedom reigns.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Idiot doesn't even know basic high school level history or badly flunked fractions and can't tell 1/4 from 3/5.

WATCH: Whoopi warns Clarence Thomas of being deemed ‘quarter of a person’ again - Washington Examiner

In the first episode of The View since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, relegating the issue of abortion to the states, a livid Whoopi Goldberg warned Justice Clarence Thomas that he may be deemed a "quarter of a person" again, likely referencing when slaves were counted as three-fifths...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

 

[Hoover]

Remember, we’re still “gun nuts” to SCOTUS Justices, six of whom think some of use should be able to carry a revolver or some pistols with us some places at some times.

Directly asked to rule whether we can carry an AR15 slung with a 30rd mag locked & loaded is a place SCOTS will avoid going, which means they won’t have to say no now. When 2/3rds to 4/5ths of States say yes, they might weigh in if the Circuit Courts are in conflict.

It’s a bitch ‘cause we all live under the same Flag. Sometimes you just gotta vote with your feet and live where freedom reigns.

View attachment 631495

Kavanaugh heard an AWB case when he was on the DC circuit court of appeals and fund it unconstitutional but was in the dissent. Alito and Thomas are very pro 2A and would strike down an AWB. Gorsuch and Barrett have limited cases on 2A but both show to be very pro 2A. Despite the disappointments from Roberts on Obamacare, bostock Dobbs and a few others, he’s a solid conservative and has been in the majority in heller, McDonald and NYSRPA.

 

[DungeBerry63]

Yes, I also talked to the Medford LO this morning. Had a different experience. I mentioned the SCOTUS case in the phone call and he said they were aware of it but he did not say that that was why they would remove the restriction (I've had my LTC since 2017). He immediately removed my T&H restriction (like literally while we were on the phone) and said "you could have called me to remove it after you had the license for a year" This is like the 3rd time I've called...

While Sacco was the chief of Medford, they absolutely did not remove after 1 year. Maybe the current Jenny Craig candidate chief does it after 1 year, but they certainly didn't reach out to me after 1 year and their mood seems to change on a daily basis so it's a crapshoot when you call them what they'll do.

He said that the removal of the restriction was effective immediately and that they would print a new license and I'd have to come pick it up at the station. He was kind enough to inform me the FRB did not get my recent address update (I'm sure they fat-fingered it or something as I have the certified mail receipt).

If you want to take them to court I can testify or whatever. I don't have standing to sue anymore since I got the restriction remove and the AIDSly town of Medford will never control my license again, but I sure was violated for years and I'd like them to stop harming other people now.

We’ll exactly why you got ur license removed I told them about the recent ruling and he told me just ton wait the 5 months since they will remove my restrictions in December since that’s when they remove them after a year

 

[Hoover]

Idiot doesn't even know basic high school level history or badly flunked fractions and can't tell 1/4 from 3/5.

WATCH: Whoopi warns Clarence Thomas of being deemed ‘quarter of a person’ again - Washington Examiner

In the first episode of The View since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, relegating the issue of abortion to the states, a livid Whoopi Goldberg warned Justice Clarence Thomas that he may be deemed a "quarter of a person" again, likely referencing when slaves were counted as three-fifths...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

And she’s the smartest on the show. The idiocy from that show is amazing. The former federal prosecutor sunny hostin is unbelievably ignorant of the law and she went to law and was a practicing attorney

 

[Garys]

That's called "Damning with faint praise."

And she’s the smartest on the show. The idiocy from that show is amazing. The former federal prosecutor sunny hostin is unbelievably ignorant of the law and she went to law and was a practicing attorney

 

[Devils Paintbrush]

The anti-racist anti-gun people certainly won't hesitate to incite racial fear to further their no gun agenda. To those who think there is not racism regarding blacks with guns - just think about who is going to get "I need to see your LTC sir" and who gets "on the ground mofo" if they are spotted carrying in public.

And it is ironic that this sort of reaction is referred to as "triggering".

This is another reason why firearm owners should not be trying to negotiate with second amendment rights.

They (anti-gun types) always have some sort of gimmick or angle, but at the end of the day it always ends with "no one needs a firearm".

There is no such thing as common sense gun laws.

 

[crispnipz]

We’ll exactly why you got ur license removed I told them about the recent ruling and he told me just ton wait the 5 months since they will remove my restrictions in December since that’s when they remove them after a year

I'm sorry they're doing that to you. I think they know they're not going to be able to do that to people for much longer, but it sounds like it's going to require a suit. In particular a suit from someone who was given a restriction from a red town and who has a while to go on their license (Brookline, Boston, Woburn, Lowell, etc)

 

[Picton]

We’ll exactly why you got ur license removed I told them about the recent ruling and he told me just ton wait the 5 months since they will remove my restrictions in December since that’s when they remove them after a year

Post up when/if you hear back from Comm2A or anyone else you've contacted. Your town's LO is trying to use the path of least resistance, and is assuming you'll go along because before last Thursday, applicants did have to go along.

It's a new world now, and your town's LO might need a phone call from a lawyer to let him know that. Then again, so might our state AG, so he's in good company.

 

[drgrant]

A couple of people have already done a screen capture of that in case someone at the LAT reads it and realizes what that says.

They know what it says

American MSM is literally the most openly racist entity left in the US. They always seem to get a pass because they're not going to publish someones opinions that shit on them for things like profiting from being racist, or putting mass murderers or child molesters out on a pedastal almost like they're worthy of reverence...

 

[DungeBerry63]

I'm sorry they're doing that to you. I think they know they're not going to be able to do that to people for much longer, but it sounds like it's going to require a suit. In particular a suit from someone who was given a restriction from a red town and who has a while to go on their license (Brookline, Boston, Woburn, Lowell, etc)

Man if it didn’t cost 4-5k to get a attorney I 100% will it’s stupid I have to wait 5 months then again it could be worst but still a criminal isn’t going to wait 5-6 months for me to wait to get my ltc unrestricted I’ve had way to many close calls

 

[Mark from MA]

We’ll exactly why you got ur license removed I told them about the recent ruling and he told me just ton wait the 5 months since they will remove my restrictions in December since that’s when they remove them after a year

Wrong answer.

His answer should have been carry anyway starting today, restrictions or not I have your back until they are removed from the document.

Honestly, if you carry now, and they try to do anything to you........now you have a big civil rights lawsuit. Those restrictions are null and void.

Not legal advice mind you.....but CLEO in every restricted town should be telling anyone that calls they are now unrestricted.

 

[Garys]

When they get called on it, which they already have, they'll claim it was an error made by an intern or junior level editor. The writer and editor who that that was a good idea will not be punished at all.

They know what it says

American MSM is literally the most openly racist entity left in the US. They always seem to get a pass because they're not going to publish someones opinions that shit on them for things like profiting from being racist, or putting mass murderers or child molesters out on a pedastal almost like they're worthy of reverence...

 

[Mesatchornug]

Man if it didn’t cost 4-5k to get a attorney I 100% will it’s stupid I have to wait 5 months then again it could be worst but still a criminal isn’t going to wait 5-6 months for me to wait to get my ltc unrestricted I’ve had way to many close calls

It may not need to cost that much. I'm sure you're keeping an eye on this thread:

MA License Restrictions

The proper solution to the restriction issue is NOT necessarily to pressure places like Brookline to rollover, since that's a game of whackamole. The FRB has already made changes in response to the legal environment: 1. It updated their system to include nationality and naturalization # to...

www.northeastshooters.com

 

[DispositionMatrix]

New York is calling an "extraordinary session" of the legislature to be convened to add a live-fire training requirement and a list of "sensitive areas" where carry can be banned. They also will discuss adding an in-person interview requirement and a default ban on carry at private businesses unless those businesses opt in to allow carry.
NY lawmakers nearing agreement to amend concealed-carry law

NYC hasn't even begun, but the city will inherit whatever the state imposes and then add additional barriers to its Byzantine licensing scheme.

California is not going to comply, though they say they are by eliminating "good cause." They are bolstering their "good moral character" requirement to replace "good cause." They are also keeping subjective requirements and asking the applicant why he or she wants to carry. https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/legal-alert-oag-2022-02.pdf

My guess is Massachusetts will change nothing.

 

[MaverickNH]

Bruen, Analogies, and the Quest for Goldilocks History

firearmslaw.duke.edu

Shorts-in-knots academics, with anti-2ndA predilections, suffering from the many wrongs done by the Bruen majority, Almost as good as Liberal Tears!

"...the Court did in fact impose a whole different set of rules in requiring states to come up with historical analogues to justify regulation and eschewing the type of means-end scrutiny the justices routinely applies in First Amendment cases and other areas of constitutional law...

On Bruen’s account, Heller can falsify history—making traditions, laws, and cases irrelevant to the analysis—but cannot itself be falsified. That’s an odd way to employ history."