Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

[Coyote33]

View attachment 665984

View attachment 665987

View attachment 665990

View attachment 665991


View: https://youtu.be/cIrPazXSfoA?t=58

Silly question, who ARE all these guys doing these videos? What kind of credentials do they have? How correct, or serious, are they? Are these just one person's opinion? There's probably at least 5 different ones in this thread alone. Sure, they provide some info, but a lot of it is hype or their own slant on things. It all sounds promising, the way they present it, but what are the realities of some of their suggestions?

Watch from 4 minutes mark, Supreme Court as defined the 4 sensitive places you can not carry guns.

Did you mean HAS here?

 

[Mesatchornug]

Silly question, who ARE all these guys doing these videos? What kind of credentials do they have? How correct, or serious, are they? Are these just one person's opinion? There's probably at least 5 different ones in this thread alone. Sure, they provide some info, but a lot of it is hype or their own slant on things. It all sounds promising, the way they present it, but what are the realities of some of their suggestions?



Did you mean HAS here?

Appeal to authority is dangerous
All media is propaganda
Responsible citizens inform themselves by doing their own research, perhaps springing off "news" pieces
Anyone who tells you what the future holds is reading tea leaves

 

[vicorjh]

who ARE all these guys doing these videos?

What kind of credentials do they have?

How correct, or serious, are they?

You have the links. Jared, from Guns and Gadgets, has been around for a long time, ex-LE. and is local, for instance. The armed scholar guy is an attorney, specializes in 2A; and, I think, use to do work for the Firearm Policy Coalition (FPC). Feel free to research their backgrounds.

Are these just one person's opinion?

Most of the video blogs related to the OP are based on recent court rulings, current matters, and how Bruen has informed jurisdictional court opinion. In most instances, references are provided and point out what some of the courts are saying.

Sure, they provide some info, but a lot of it is hype or their own slant on things.

They are editorials. Not too different from the hype and slant statement. You are being informed on current matters related to subjects that they, the blogger, have an interest in, are keeping track of, and adding their personal analysis. They read the rulings and/or receive analysis, provide some context and reference, and comment from there. This provides you with an opportunity to research and develop your own opinion on such events. It's no different than commentary that occurs here, on NES, in that you get what you pay for.

 

[HarryPottar]

Did you mean HAS here?

Nope, absolutely intentionally use “as”, typed that one on a mobile, the h is a waste of time, you and everyone else clearly knew what the the context was, had I been writing a blog, thesis, letter to my grandmother I would cared, but to the stud farm operators that is NES, deal with it.

 

[TLB]

I can't wait to see NY dem lawyers using slavery based laws to defend their new laws.

It would be enjoyable to watch gun control getting back to its racist roots for all to see.

 

[Coyote33]

I find most of them hard to watch beyond five to ten seconds. They are very annoying, and their breathless "style" is usually less informative and more annoying and weird than anything else. Maybe somewhere in their video, there is a bit of useful information, but I'm not going to wade through the mountains of crap to find it.

Aside from that, we have "conventional news", Twitter, newspapers, NRA/GOAL/GOA type press releases, and that is about it.

 

[Coyote33]

Nope, absolutely intentionally use “as”, typed that one on a mobile, the h is a waste of time, you and everyone else clearly knew what the the context was, had I been writing a blog, thesis, letter to my grandmother I would cared, but to the stud farm operators that is NES, deal with it.

Ha. I reread that post about 5 times, trying to understand what you meant. I guess all the coffee still hadn't kicked in. A simple "yes" would have sufficed.

 

[vicorjh]

I find most of them hard to watch beyond five to ten seconds. They are very annoying, and their breathless "style" is usually less informative and more annoying and weird than anything else.

You've made that comment before. The only advice I can provide, skip over them.

Better yet, if there is an easily annoyed 2A demographic that is being missed because of weirdness, you may have hit upon an opportunity to monetize a channel targeting a different style.

 

[Coyote33]

Just a plain text statement with some facts would suffice. Don't need all the window dressing which just muddies the message, or makes people tune it out completely.

Think of it as a "2A Ticker".

 

[KBCraig]

I’m not a lawyer, nor have I ever played one on TV

Watch from 4 minutes mark, Supreme Court as defined the 4 sensitive places you can not carry guns.


View: https://youtu.be/_MODu98jMlQ


Court House
Legislative Buildings
Polling Places
Schools, but as a student

Not sure how this impacts life in the real world.

Just looking at how it impacts life in the real world of New Hampshire: it doesn't.

The only place off limits by state law in NH is court houses.
Legislative buildings? Nope.
Polling places? Nope.
Schools? Nope. K-12 public schools are required to have a disciplinary process for students who bring any deadly weapon into a school or onto a school bus, but that is administrative and only applies to K-12 students.

 

[pastera]

Just a plain text statement with some facts would suffice. Don't need all the window dressing which just muddies the message, or makes people tune it out completely.

Think of it as a "2A Ticker".

These guys give commentary that enough people watch so they make money.
I usually watch their videos after reviewing the cases they are presenting to see if they see the material differently.

As far as a plain text statement you won't get far since the highest court only produces opinions...

Bruen struck down subjective standards in issuing carry permits while it acknowledged the right to bear arms in public for self defense. Also set a new standard for legal review of text, tradition and history.
While no one currently knows the exact bounds of this change, the pro-gun community believes it can be used to eliminate much of the current local, state and federal gun control legislation.

Is that enough concise and factual enough?

 

[DarthRevan]

Just looking at how it impacts life in the real world of New Hampshire: it doesn't.

The only place off limits by state law in NH is court houses.
Legislative buildings? Nope.
Polling places? Nope.
Schools? Nope. K-12 public schools are required to have a disciplinary process for students who bring any deadly weapon into a school or onto a school bus, but that is administrative and only applies to K-12 students.

I’m still learning NH, but dont you need a P&R to carry on school grounds?

 

[Dennis in MA]

Any money tossed to Maj is literally going to Maj, not to a movement or organization.

Dude established himself as a grifter when he bailed on his own campaign to go to paid speaking gigs out of state.

Yeah, but he got me soaking my hands in dishwashing detergent to soften them.




(I forgot that Madge was also Mrs. B from Bradlees.)

 

[vicorjh]

CA Magazine ban movement per Bruen:







View: https://youtu.be/Cd-RYtSadQc?t=46

 

[Dennis in MA]

YEah. Benitez basically said, "I'm suspending this. . . AGAIN. . . and do your best but you're gonna fail in a shade over 66 days."

 

[pastera]

CA Magazine ban movement per Bruen:


View attachment 667010

View attachment 667012


View: https://youtu.be/Cd-RYtSadQc?t=46

I disagree with Guns&Gadgets assertion that Cali will appeal the inevitable decision by Benitez.

The 9th only remanded to the district in order to reduce the scope of the win.
If it goes back to the 9th then both California and Hawaii bans fall and citable precedent is set.
If the 9th plays games then it goes back to SCOTUS and every state restriction gets struck - and it's likely that a much broader and heavier hammer drops on the antis plans.

So Cali will not appeal or the 9th will refuse to take the case so that nothing binding is generated for use in other states.


Edit: I would love for SCOTUS to get it back and put some dicta in about the scam of the Hughes amendment as payback for contempt of SCOTUS.

 

[Dennis in MA]

Oh I'm not sure. They aren't thinking logically here. Besides, the Benitez ruling will end up being law of the land sooner than later as other courts use it as their example. How many districts have to rule on this to make it nation-wide and for AG's to stop pursuing illegal acts. . . .

Wait. I don't want the answer to that. LOL

But I would hope that it is so painfully obvious that states like MA/NY/NJ/CT have no choice but to just turn tail and STFU.

 

[firestorm]

Oh I'm not sure. They aren't thinking logically here. Besides, the Benitez ruling will end up being law of the land sooner than later as other courts use it as their example. How many districts have to rule on this to make it nation-wide and for AG's to stop pursuing illegal acts. . . .

Wait. I don't want the answer to that. LOL

But I would hope that it is so painfully obvious that states like MA/NY/NJ/CT have no choice but to just turn tail and STFU.

Unfortunately if those states are smart about it, could be decades. If CA takes the loss and doesn't appeal, now you need a separate case for HI, so call it 3-5 years maybe until that court decides. If the federal courts are stuck and know they will have to rule the way we want, but they want nothing to do with it, they can procedurally slow things down quite a bit. Benitez is specifically ignoring the wishes of CA who wanted to push out any actual decisions on that case for nearly a year even though everything is very clear and has basically already been decided.

Just think of how long a MA district court judge will slow walk things knowing that each state is taking their losses and not allowing for a nationwide decision. And that clock doesn't even start until a good case comes along in this state, which could be a while since it seems all the organizations who do this sort of thing are not doing anything here until they get the rest of the country fixed, maybe in a few years someone will give enough of a shit to do something here.

 

[vicorjh]

via Guns & Gadgets.

View: https://youtu.be/XlrEXCcv8dY

 

[general disorder]

Unfortunately if those states are smart about it, could be decades. If CA takes the loss and doesn't appeal, now you need a separate case for HI, so call it 3-5 years maybe until that court decides. If the federal courts are stuck and know they will have to rule the way we want, but they want nothing to do with it, they can procedurally slow things down quite a bit. Benitez is specifically ignoring the wishes of CA who wanted to push out any actual decisions on that case for nearly a year even though everything is very clear and has basically already been decided.

Just think of how long a MA district court judge will slow walk things knowing that each state is taking their losses and not allowing for a nationwide decision. And that clock doesn't even start until a good case comes along in this state, which could be a while since it seems all the organizations who do this sort of thing are not doing anything here until they get the rest of the country fixed, maybe in a few years someone will give enough of a shit to do something here.

Children having a tantrum rarely make rational decisions.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

It would be enjoyable to watch gun control getting back to its racist roots for all to see.

They already did that...In open court....For the entire world to see...Actually saying black people were prevented from keeping and bearing arms therefore gun control is okay.

 

[Dennis in MA]

Unfortunately if those states are smart about it, could be decades. If CA takes the loss and doesn't appeal, now you need a separate case for HI, so call it 3-5 years maybe until that court decides. If the federal courts are stuck and know they will have to rule the way we want, but they want nothing to do with it, they can procedurally slow things down quite a bit. Benitez is specifically ignoring the wishes of CA who wanted to push out any actual decisions on that case for nearly a year even though everything is very clear and has basically already been decided.

Just think of how long a MA district court judge will slow walk things knowing that each state is taking their losses and not allowing for a nationwide decision. And that clock doesn't even start until a good case comes along in this state, which could be a while since it seems all the organizations who do this sort of thing are not doing anything here until they get the rest of the country fixed, maybe in a few years someone will give enough of a shit to do something here.

I don't think so. Again, they are petty and ignert. They will go to appeals and it'll make it's way back to USSC and they'll b-slap them.

OR. . . .they are smart and just capitulate and STFU to not lose even more ways to control people. (See: Constitutional Carry.)

 

[firestorm]

I don't think so. Again, they are petty and ignert. They will go to appeals and it'll make it's way back to USSC and they'll b-slap them.

OR. . . .they are smart and just capitulate and STFU to not lose even more ways to control people. (See: Constitutional Carry.)

Children having a tantrum rarely make rational decisions.

I sure hope you are right, because without them having their tantrum this will take a real long time to get to anyone, and an even longer time to get around to us in MA. I just look at what happened when DC lost their "Good cause" and didn't appeal it seemingly under pressure from places like CA and NYC who didn't want this decision to happen 5ish years ago. Now that it has hit them I can see them trying the same thing again just to drag it out another 5-10 years and maybe find a new SCOTUS at that time that is unwilling to enforce Bruen.

 

[pinefd]

View attachment 667503

View attachment 667504

via Guns & Gadgets.

View: https://youtu.be/XlrEXCcv8dY

To whom it may concern:

In lieu of the Urine Drug Testing Results, I respectfully submit the enclosed.

Sincerely yours,


Frank

 

[Picton]

I sure hope you are right, because without them having their tantrum this will take a real long time to get to anyone, and an even longer time to get around to us in MA. I just look at what happened when DC lost their "Good cause" and didn't appeal it seemingly under pressure from places like CA and NYC who didn't want this decision to happen 5ish years ago. Now that it has hit them I can see them trying the same thing again just to drag it out another 5-10 years and maybe find a new SCOTUS at that time that is unwilling to enforce Bruen.

Maybe. But we'll overcome eventually. And the silver lining of your pessimism is that at the end of all those years, there won't just be one SCOTUS case underpinning RKBA. There will be several. And each decision will enshrine RKBA more and more fully.

 

[MainelyFree]

Unfortunately if those states are smart about it, could be decades. If CA takes the loss and doesn't appeal, now you need a separate case for HI, so call it 3-5 years maybe until that court decides. If the federal courts are stuck and know they will have to rule the way we want, but they want nothing to do with it, they can procedurally slow things down quite a bit. Benitez is specifically ignoring the wishes of CA who wanted to push out any actual decisions on that case for nearly a year even though everything is very clear and has basically already been decided.

Just think of how long a MA district court judge will slow walk things knowing that each state is taking their losses and not allowing for a nationwide decision. And that clock doesn't even start until a good case comes along in this state, which could be a while since it seems all the organizations who do this sort of thing are not doing anything here until they get the rest of the country fixed, maybe in a few years someone will give enough of a shit to do something here.

I’m counting on the Libs lack of impulse control. They should see what the smart move is, but typically they’re blinded by their sense of moral superiority. a’la Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

 

[rommel]

The urine test is quite the addition. How about we look at it from the perspective of 4A. Either you prove to the state that you pass a drug test or they can/will search you for drugs at any time for any reason.
Thank you New York for being that special kind of stupid.

 

[doxdsgn]

The newest Justice, Brown-Jackson, will get the emergency appeals from 1st Circuit (most of New England.)

 

[Dennis in MA]

I have the utmost confidence in her. I mean, Joe picked her because. . . . she's the first black woman SC justice. Just like he picked hte first black female VP and first black female press secretary. Because nothing says "competence" like someone's wedding-tackle and skin tone.

 

[Picton]

I have the utmost confidence in her. I mean, Joe picked her because. . . . she's the first black woman SC justice. Just like he picked hte first black female VP and first black female press secretary. Because nothing says "competence" like someone's wedding-tackle and skin tone.

I'm not optimistic, but the need for an injunction is laughably obvious under Bruen... which her own colleagues just decided. Perhaps she'll realize she needs to, you know, work with these people for the next thirty years? And that her first independent act on the Court ought not to be shitting all over their opinion?

Especially since this is bound to fall, anyway.