pastera
NES Member
Only in that Thomas added a footnote addressing exorbitant fees and excessive wait times.
But he didn't define either termso we're back to lower courts abusing what exorbitant and excessive mean
-
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
But he didn't define either termso we're back to lower courts abusing what exorbitant and excessive mean
Boghog1
NES Member
I don't want one either, I also don't want the government saying I can't own one if I wanted one
I hate it when they do that. It's a lose-lose. SCOTUS would probably have a hard time actually defining what excessive/exorbitant means and it will for sure end up wasting peoples times in lower courts.
If a state choses to require a CCW it should be in my opinion free. Just like if a state wants ID for voting (which it should), a state ID (not a divers license) should be available for free. These seem simple to me and would solve a shit ton of problems, especially on the voter fraud side but it's like kryptonite to both parties.
pastera
NES Member
It's up to us to show fees are exorbitant.
Words have meaning
Exorbitant is in excess of what is reasonable.
If a license for a right is permissible then any fee higher than required to issue would be unreasonable as a right shouldn't be a profit center.
Since the licensing scheme in Mass by their own admission made Mass very safe and paid for itself then doubling the cost in response to Bruen is on its face excessive.
pastera
NES Member
Concur on both accounts
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,528
- Likes
- 33,551
Which means Thomas endorsed the concept of a fee to exercise a constitutional right.
I wonder how he would come down on a modest voter registration fee to cover the cost of running the election.
Its not good, thats for sure. And the threshold as pastera points out is de facto not existing till some court weighs in on it. Very frustrating
pastera
NES Member
True
The question becomes does he endorse it or was he keeping the holding narrow enough to maintain a strong majority
SteelShooter
NES Member
All bets are off once the new Justices are sworn in later this year, AOC, Stacey Abrams, Hillary, and the 3 other people that fixed the GA election.
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
How much does it cost for a 5A permit? How long does it last?
amm5061
NES Member
The answer to both questions is that it's a lifetime permit.
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
Where do I get one? Also, need a 1A permit. How much does that one cost?
It was messier than that.Short story - Gov knew they had overstepped with the NFA.
A district court found the NFA unconstitutional knowing that miller would never show up nor pay a lawyer to argue the case for him. So the case went to the SC without opposition to the government's side. The SCOTUS should have tossed the case but took it in order to forward a political position.
Every court since knows that the opinion is bullshit but until the current court not a single one had the guts to even come close to the case.
The only part of the NFA that can be upheld under current case law is the revenue generation but given Thomas's footnotes the cost of a tax stamp would likely be limited if they tried to raise it to inflation adjusted amounts instead of the current $200.
And then that would likely create a division on taxing a right since voter ID is shut down as a poll tax. This part will take decades to filter up and is not a slam dunk
The Peculiar Story of United States v. Miller
On April 18, 1938, the Arkansas and Oklahoma state police stopped Jack Miller and Frank Layton, two washed-up Oklahoma bank robbers. Miller and Layton had an unregistered sawed-off shotgun, so the police arrested them for violating the National Firearms Act (“NFA”). Surprisingly, the district...uknowledge.uky.edu
1) "short-barreled shotguns (with 20-inch barrels) have been commonly used in warfare and that the statement made by the judges indicates that they were not made aware of this fact"
2) Some argue that fundamental issues related to the case were never truly decided because the Supreme Court remanded the case to the federal district court for "further proceedings", which never took place. By the time of the Supreme Court decision, Miller had been killed, and since Layton made a plea bargain after the decision was handed down, there were no claimants left to continue legal proceedings
amm5061
NES Member
Same answer. Your life.
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
Never answered where do I get the permit for my other rights? or the cost in money.
I think he's talking about the SCOTUS majority. The 6-3.
Thomas couldn't just write anything he pleased. He had to write his opinion in such a way that the majority of the Court could agree with it.
Dennis in MA
NES Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 38,252
- Likes
- 33,162
I am in no way trying to embarass you.
I'm saying SCOTUS is a joke. You know way more about SCOTUS than I do. And after you explained that very well above (and I mean it) I think even less of SCOTUS. What a f***ing complete waste of time these people are.
All 4 of those cases are obvious under the 2A and all 4 should be able to be covered under a single ruling. But since SCOTUS is full of hack frauds they can't seem to flush out what "shall not be infringed" means. My argument is simple: SCOTUS is the (a?) enemy. If you want to defend SCOTUS.... you're a brave man.
I also said I was going to buy a M240, not a M249.Why did you leave out Miller, btw? I want my 240.
While I agree with your view of 2A, you're assuming that everyone else should, by definition of being an American, believe this way as well. Despite 250 years of exclusions, bans and regulations on firearms. When taken in that historical context, it's hard to get a court to blow stuff up - even if it seems clear.
If everyone walked into the SC and said, "Well, I don't care what the precedents are before me. I'm going to hit hte reset button and interpret what I believe and F anyone that disagrees.", it would be chaos. It isn't that simple. Even our "enemies" on the SC temper themselves with historical precedent. And respect the prior decisions. And this isn't anything new.
I would turn to the SC cases regarding slavery and civil rights in the 1800's as an example. It wasn't always so cut and dried even though the Constitution was clear on the issue.
I'll conclude by saying, I agree in your interpretation of 2A. Without question. It's 100% crystal clear. It could not be more clear.
More on the Colorado District Court AWB temporary restraining order:
View: https://youtu.be/IWMzUOaGt_g?t=37
View: https://youtu.be/IWMzUOaGt_g?t=37
It's one of the very few things that is so clear in our laws.
We're our own worst enemy when we fail to point out what the 2A is for. It's for one reason. So the local population can quickly muster and kill bad people who need to die. That's really the only reason why it's a thing. Yet we don't dare say that due to optics and politics. Which is why things are the way they are.
pastera
NES Member
General answer to the permit Issues and how I see things eventually settling
SCOTUS has affirmed prohibited status on multiple occasions and will very likely never change that position. Therefore the need to distinguish the law abiding from PP exists in law enforcement.
Constitutional carry is likely achievable across the US with the caveat of duty to inform. In an interaction with police one can choose to carry a license as proof of legal carry status instead of being held until a determination can be made.
This will take decades of careful litigation to accomplish but with the proliferation of CC states the momentum is on our side
Quoted for emphasis.
This is not a time for knee-jerk, indignant cases. This is a time for a long-term strategy from some organization with enough stature to take on the role, and hopefully with enough buy-in from the rest of us.
I compare this to the civil rights movement a lot. Most of that was managed, and carefully, by the NAACP and its allied organizations. And there were plenty of people who felt that approach was wrong, that it took too long and resulted in delayed justice.
We'll have our Malcolm Xs in this movement, too.
Last edited:
SteelShooter
NES Member
So was I. NEW SCOTUS' - AOC, Hillary, Stacey and 2 others
careful for sure. We need the correct people in those seats and we need to make sure they write things well also. All of that is really, really hard to do as it turns out.
Hopefully all the optimists here are right in that this latest case really opens up the door for us. Because the post Heller world up until now has been a big yawn.
I mean, again, there are probably thousands of CCW carriers already in CA, MD, and right here in MA that couldn't carry a couple months ago, with more to come by the day. There's Hochul's dumbassery in NYS, which tipped the antis' hand and will inevitably result in even bigger wins down the line; she'd not have tried anything that tyrannical without Bruen, and it's a massive overreach.
That's not even counting the lower-court reviews of mag limits and/or AWB in the western circuits that are already being relitigated. Nobody in a position to "do something!" post-Bruen is sitting on their ass, watching the planes fly by.
These things really do take time.
Lets get down to questions that must be asked. You have to bang either Hochul or the art teacher. There is no 3rd option.
Wbich?
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2020
- Messages
- 1,610
- Likes
- 1,886
Best post of the day! Made my day!
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,528
- Likes
- 33,551
The cost of a 5A permit in MA is your 2A permit. Seriously.
The taxes and fees you pay on communication services (phone, internet, cellular, etc) subsidize .gov surveillance on you in your own home 3rd,4th,5th amendments VOIDED where prohibited comrade.
bfm
NES Member
