Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

[LittleCalm]

I understood that the proposed NY law would also ban carry in any private business unless that business specifically states that carry is permitted.

 

[MGnoob]

No.

There’s another solution, and historically it’s the one that’s always happened: a long, slow march through the courts, letting them sort things out organically.

Roe vs wade took 50 years.. I wouldn’t hold my breath on the courts getting off their ass anytime soon

 

[MGnoob]

and allow sheriffs and police chiefs to consider applicants’ public statements as they weigh if the individual is dangerous..

That’s pretty lame. I don’t care if you’re the head of the KKK if you weren’t convicted of something you still have Rights….

 

[T-Unit]

Roe vs wade took 50 years.. I wouldn’t hold my breath on the courts getting off their ass anytime soon

This Supreme Court is radically different than those in the recent past and one where two of its members were abused during their confirmation hearings and just this month targeted for assassination on top of the illegal protests outside their homes.

The Donks have awakened a sleeping giant and it is the Left that will reap the whirlwind.

 

[smokey-seven]

New York’s legislation would also prohibit the possession of guns in government buildings, court houses, hospitals, schools and other “places where children gather,” the people briefed on the bill said. Possession of a handgun in a private business would be banned unless the business expressly allowed people to carry.

Grrrrr... you are illegal unless the businesses post a sign that says you can carry. That's like saying you have your first amendment right as long as you don't open your mouth to speak.

Ms. Hochul proclaimed a special session of the state Legislature for Thursday to consider new firearms regulations. She said Monday that the measure would also increase requirements for storage to receive a pistol permit and ban handguns from public transportation.

Sure New Yorkers, you can carry, just don't go anywhere.

 

[Bladerunner]

And NJ fags aregoing full retard:

Murphy urged lawmakers to pass the package — dubbed gun safety 3.0 by the second-term Democratic governor when he proposed them in April 2021 — after gunmen killed 10 people in a Buffalo supermarket and 19 children and two teachers at a Texas elementary school.

Murphy said on Twitter Wednesday night he will sign the bills that cleared the Legislature.

The measures seek to:

• Regulate ammunition sales.
• Require firearm dealers to sell microstamping-enabled firearms.
• Prohibit certain .50 caliber rifles.
• Require gun owners who move from out of state to register their firearms and obtain a new firearm purchaser identification card.
• Mandate training to obtain that card, which must be renewed every 10 years.
• And give the attorney general power to bring legal action against gun manufacturers and retailers.

 

[Hoover]

This is a long war. These cases set the stage to ensure the next generation doesn't have to endure these American In Name Only tyrants. Directionally, things are good. The pacing is hard to deal with, but in the long run we will prevail.

The war in court may be shorter than people think. SCOTUS eliminated the BS intermediate scrutiny approach courts used to always uphold the gun control law. SCOTUS and Thomas said they must use text and tradition at the time of the ratification of the 2nd and 14th. If (that’s the question) courts follow the dictates of the ruling , very few gun control,laws can survive.

 

[Mark from MA]

Grrrrr... you are illegal unless the businesses post a sign that says you can carry. That's like saying you have your first amendment right as long as you don't open your mouth to speak.

Sure New Yorkers, you can carry, just don't go anywhere.

Cities are gonna city. No freedom can ever be expected in a city. Public "anything" gives them the feeling they have the right to control it. They will make anything public off limits to guns.
Which makes it double insulting because the taxpayers pay for it and are burdened by this bullshit.

That said.....if they do....it may then be tested in court......for they don't understand that every time they overreach, a suit will be brought up as a civil rights violation, and will be to
their detriment as long as the Supreme Court is fashioned as it is now.

Any people accosted on public transportation should sue because their right to protect themselves was taken by the city by barring handguns from public transportation. Or just sue for the fact that their 2A rights are violated because they need to take public transportation.

 

[bfm]

No.

There’s another solution, and historically it’s the one that’s always happened: a long, slow march through the courts, letting them sort things out organically.

[Said in Cliff Clavin's lecturing voice]

It's a little known fact that these fruits and nuts are not actually certified organic.

 

[Dennis in MA]

NY suing several FFLs as a public nuisance (80 percent parts, et al):


View: https://youtu.be/77YN0dIBwJ4

New York sues 10 gun distributors for allegedly flooding streets with ghost guns

The New York state attorney general is suing 10 gun distributors for allegedly violating a new public nuisance law.

abcnews.go.com

It's a suit, not an arrest. Can you counter-sue the state on things like this? Frivolity and all that??

Who is saying this will happen? Where are they saying it?

Ummm. . . . .

Because at some point the Supremes are going to understand that allowing any sort of license scheme (that criminals and crazies don't obey) gives the states that had a may issue scheme to continue to abuse people and attempt to skirt equal protection. To stop the courts from having their time wasted and further protect the right to carry without infringement outside the home Scotus will do away with all licensing for carrying.

We already have 26 states with the permitless carry law and it has demonstrated that it doesn't turn into the wild west.

Yeah. What T-dog said 10 min after I went to bed, you night owls.

The Supremes have made 3 or 4 MAJOR 2A decisions in the last 20 years. Tell me how many have been listened to. None. Ergo, every one of them goes a bit farther. At some point, they're gonna go into the "fine, you lose it all - you can't be trusted to protect your citizens' rights."

 

[SFC13557]

So NY, CA, DE, etc. are giving the finger to SCOTUS and daring us to sue their asses off. So be it, I don't think Thomas will be happy and hopefully he'll stay around to see these State's "Laws" shot down. Remember he stated he was sick of the 2nd Amendment being treated as a after thought and being ignored by lower courts.

 

[Garys]

From today's order list,

�

ASSN. OF NJ RIFLE, ET AL. V. BRUCK, ATT'Y GEN. OF NJ, ET AL.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The
judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for further
consideration in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn.,
Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. ___ (2022).

21-1194	DUNCAN, VIRGINIA, ET AL. V. BONTA, ATT'Y GEN. OF CA
The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted. The
judgments are vacated, and the cases are remanded to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for further
consideration in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn.,
Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. ___ (2022).

21-902	BIANCHI, DOMINIC, ET AL. V. FROSH, ATT'Y GEN. OF MD, ET AL.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The
judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for further
consideration in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn.,
Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. ___ (2022).

21-902	BIANCHI, DOMINIC, ET AL. V. FROSH, ATT'Y GEN. OF MD, ET AL.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The
judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for further
consideration in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn.,
Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. ___ (2022).

 

[Friday]

Hmmm, ban carry on public, federally- funded transportation systems? Easy, pull all federal funding. An R in the white house might see fit to play that game.

 

[jhblaze1]

Facebook posts. Instagram. Text messages. Only fans logs. Web browser history. ISP DNS queries. Of course.

f***. I better close my Only Fans. I have a channel where I eat on cameral with no shirt while rubbing the barrels of various guns on my nips. I don't make a lot of money.

 

[PappyM3]

From today's order list,

21-902	BIANCHI, DOMINIC, ET AL. V. FROSH, ATT'Y GEN. OF MD, ET AL.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The
judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for further
consideration in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn.,
Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. ___ (2022).

Expected, but now us in the first circuit are screwed for another couple years.

 

[jhblaze1]

From today's order list,

21-902	BIANCHI, DOMINIC, ET AL. V. FROSH, ATT'Y GEN. OF MD, ET AL.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The
judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for further
consideration in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn.,
Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. ___ (2022).

dammit why the F couldn't they have slapped CA down on Duncan v Bonta?

Send it back to the 9th?

 

[MAJoe]

From today's order list,

21-902	BIANCHI, DOMINIC, ET AL. V. FROSH, ATT'Y GEN. OF MD, ET AL.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The
judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for further
consideration in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn.,
Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. ___ (2022).

So two magazine capacity limit cases and an assault weapons ban case.

What are the likely outcomes now that these go back to the lower courts?

 

[Garys]

They are remanding the cases back for the lower courts to fix their own erroneous decisions.

dammit why the F couldn't they have slapped CA down on Duncan v Bonta?

Send it back to the 9th?

 

[Garys]

The Circuits must reinterpret the laws being contested in compliance with the text of the Bruen decision. While note specifically overturning them, Justice Thomas rejected intermediate scrutiny and imposed a much higher standard.

So two magazine capacity limit cases and an assault weapons ban case.

What are the likely outcomes now that these go back to the lower courts?

 

[MAJoe]

The Circuits must reinterpret the laws being contested in compliance with the text of the Bruen decision. While note specifically overturning them, Justice Thomas rejected intermediate scrutiny and imposed a much higher standard.

Thank you - makes sense.

 

[jhblaze1]

dammit why the F couldn't they have slapped CA down on Duncan v Bonta?

Send it back to the 9th?

though, if they follow the ruling in Bruen, they'd have to overturn:

Justices Send Assault Weapon, Magazine Bans Back to Lower Courts

Several challenges to state gun laws were sent back to lower courts in light of the US Supreme Court’s landmark Second Amendment ruling limiting restrictions on firearm possession outside the home.

news.bloomberglaw.com

Courts should look only to the constitutional text and that nation’s history of gun restrictions in determining whether a state has run afoul of the Second Amendment, Thomas wrote, adding that they should not defer to legislative determinations about whether gun restrictions are necessary for public health and safety.

They'd have to overturn their eb banc ruling because it hinges entirely on the "public safety" aspect while only being a "minor" inconvenience the our 2A rights.

 

[Garys]

That's how I read it and hop that's how they read it. Then again, IANAL.

though, if they follow the ruling in Bruen, they'd have to overturn:

Justices Send Assault Weapon, Magazine Bans Back to Lower Courts

Several challenges to state gun laws were sent back to lower courts in light of the US Supreme Court’s landmark Second Amendment ruling limiting restrictions on firearm possession outside the home.

news.bloomberglaw.com

They'd have to overturn their eb banc ruling because it hinges entirely on the "public safety" aspect while only being a "minor" inconvenience the our 2A rights.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

All those "special people" with hens teeth permits are going to find THEIR rights aren't as safe as they thought they were.

 

[Hoover]

From today's order list,

21-902	BIANCHI, DOMINIC, ET AL. V. FROSH, ATT'Y GEN. OF MD, ET AL.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The
judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for further
consideration in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn.,
Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. ___ (2022).

Other than accepting one of those, this is very good result. No way those survive if the lower courts follow the text and history review process SCOTUS said must be used.

 

[Hoover]

Expected, but now us in the first circuit are screwed for another couple years.

All previous cases which used the intermediate scrutiny test are subject to be tried again. Refile the AWB/mag case from a few years ago.

 

[SFC13557]

On a side note Brown was just sworn in, she and the wise Latino can hang out together I guess.

 

[jhblaze1]

Other than accepting one of those, this is very good result. No way those survive if the lower courts follow the text and history review process SCOTUS said must be used.

The 9th overturned the mag ban once in Duncan v Bonta and only reversed it when appealed en banc. I think there's a decent chance they'll overturn it.

Someone needs to challenge CA's microstamping BS next.

 

[PappyM3]

My question for legal experts: With states doing emergency sessions to circumvent the SCOTUS decision, what level of probability is there that people can seek an injunction from the SCOTUS against those new laws? Many of the new laws seem to still be contrary to the ruling.

Other than accepting one of those, this is very good result. No way those survive if the lower courts follow the text and history review process SCOTUS said must be used.

I am nearly certain they they will keep their original rulings and say “there is no original text or history showing use or protection of high capacity magazines or assault weapons”. These lower courts are that insolent.

Despite Thomas clearly stating that the 2A applies to modern guns just the same as historic guns from the 18th century.

 

[PappyM3]

All previous cases which used the intermediate scrutiny test are subject to be tried again. Refile the AWB/mag case from a few years ago.

Hence, “… screwed for another couple years”

 

[Hoover]

They are remanding the cases back for the lower courts to fix their own erroneous decisions.

I’m note sure if they go back to the circuit courts of appeals or the district courts. The district court for Duncan v bonta was roger benetiz in San Diego, a bush appointee. He ruled the mag limit didn’t meet intermediate or strict scrutiny and this was unconstitutional. If it returns to him, he already heard from the parties in their briefs and already wrote a comprehensive opinion. He can reissue that decision fairly quickly with minimal changes.

If it goes to the 9th 3 judge panel rather than the district court, is it a new panel or the previous who is already familiar with all the facts. That 3 judge panel was a 2-1 decision upholding the district court ruling

Still in the 9th are ripped v bonta, Miller v bonta, and others. Everything from handgun rosters to microstamping to AWB and mags. Pretty much every area has a pending case in the 9th. And the 9th is a 16-13 GOP judge to dem judge court, it’s not the 21-8 court pre 2017