Jump to content

NYSRPA v Bruen (Corlett): 6-3 U.S. Supreme Court Ruling Strikes down May-issue


Euler

Recommended Posts

On 6/24/2022 at 3:35 PM, C0untZer0 said:

It is also scary to see the utter disregard that the dissenters have for the United States Constitution.  Whatever these arrogant political hacks think is best is how they're going to rule - Constitution be damned.

 

That should be the most eye opening part, they literally didn't give two hoots about what the Constitution says, said or what the founding fathers almost certainly ment, instead they argued their personal beliefs void of legal context to what they were rulling upon.  They proved beyond a doubt they are activist pushing their personal opinions, not judges ruling on the text of the law!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Earlier I mentioned that their are well over 100 cases pending the outcome of NSPSPRA case.

 

Many of those cases, a letter has been submitted to request a hearing schedule and/or for the case to proceed.

 

Many of those cases the Judge has entered an order for the case to proceed, in some cases a hearing schedule and/or a briefing schedule.

 

In at least two cases… the briefing schedule goes well into October of this year.

That case is even the one that is challenging Marylands licensing requirements that were the same as New York’s.

 

Some of these 100 cases won’t be cleared and finalized for at least 6 months. That does not count any of them that file an appeal to a higher court.

 

Now we still have those 4 cases “on hold” with SCOTUS that hopefully we be resolved on Monday. Those 4 cases will help/hurt many of those other cases that were pending the NYSPRA case.

 

Hopefully in the next year, we will see man gun control laws falling as they are ruled unconstitutional and are invalidated and enjoined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/24/2022 at 8:53 AM, Molly B. said:

I believe this ruling opens the door to challenge these IL prohibited places. In BOLD should be the focus.

3) Buildings under the control of an officer of the executive or legislative branch of government

5)  Local government buildings

7) Public or private hospitals or hospital affiliates, mental health facilities, or nursing homes.

8] Mass transportation (bus, train) and any building or real property.

9) Restaurants that serve alcohol if more than 50% of revenue is from alcohol sales. Restaurants must post.

10) Public gatherings or special events open to the public that requires a permit from the unit of local government, shall not apply to a licensee who must walk through a public gathering in order to access his or her residence, place of business, or vehicle.

11) Special Events while a Retailer's license to sell alcohol is in effect.

12) Public playgrounds.

13) Municipal public parks, athletic areas, or athletic facilities. Does not include a trail or bikeway where only a portion of the trail or bikeway includes a public park.

14) Cook County Forest Preserve District. (Solomon v Cook Co. FPD, federal court ruled overbroad March 15, 2022 deadline to amend statute)

15) Public or private community college, college, or university

16) Casinos and inter-track wagering locations.

17) Stadiums, arenas, or any collegiate or professional sporting event.

18) Public libraries. 

19) Airports.  

20) Amusement parks.  

21) Zoos or museums.

 

 See my previous post above….

 

Many of these places will not only be challenged in Illinois, but in most other states as well.

 

Several of those places are Even banned in Texas, and there is talk locally of challenging them.

 

Of course there are GOP candidates for our house and senate running for our November 2022 elections that have announced that they will initiate new bills to repeal many of the laws that maybe unconstitutional AND places listed above and make those places a place where we can carry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/24/2022 at 9:49 AM, 2smartby1/2 said:

I think another big question is, what does this mean for the AWB's in Chicago, Crook County, Aurora, ect?  

 

What about 80% lowers/frames?  Is that new law on its way to being moot?

 

 

 One of the 4 cases “on hold” with SCOTUS (Bianchi v Frosh) that is about to have a resolution deals with a AWB and Magazine ban.

 

Those 4 cases were pending NYSPRA opinion. Those 4 cases should get resolution. Monday.

 

Hopefully and I personally believe all 4 cases will get a PC. Grant, vacate, remand. Along with an opinion and probably dissents.

 

There are I’ve a hundred other cases in various district, state and circuit courts that will start overturning many unconstitutional laws around the country.

 

For 80%/Ghost Gun/3D printed guns. Those cases will have to make it SCOTUS to have any effect Nation Wide. All that is needed is for SCOTUS is to issue that case with a PC Grant, Vacate/affirm, remand. Vacate/affirm depends entirely of who is filing the Petition for cert.

 

Keep in mind….

 

Supreme Court effects all laws nation wide.

District court and Circuit court effects only those laws in the states in that circuit.

State Court only effects that states laws.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least California is showing some level of intelligence, but I kind of expected this as beyond the big cities California from what I hear was pretty liberal in handing out carry permits in the rural areas.  NY seems to be in total defiance, and I expect Hawaii to also be in total defiance and the few other states still under may isssue to fall in between.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NJ ATTORNEY GENERAL
ISSUES DIRECTIVE REQUIRING
CARRY PERMIT APPLICATIONS
TO BE PROCESSED WITHOUT 
"JUSTIFIABLE NEED"

 
June 24, 2022. At the close of business today, and in light of the Bruen decision, the New Jersey Attorney General issued a directive to law enforcement agencies and prosecutors mandating that NJ carry permit applications now be processed WITHOUT an applicant having to prove "justifiable need."
 
CLICK HERE to see a copy of the directive.
 
The effect of this directive is to remove any doubt that the Bruen decision applies in New Jersey, and that someone applying for a concealed carry permit in the Garden State need only satisfy typical requirements, such as:
 
1.        Passing state-mandated background checks.
2.        Submitting three references.
3.        Satisfying the state-mandated training requirement for carry permits.
 
While Gov. Murphy has announced that he intends to try to limit carry in every way possible, whatever actions he tries to take will have to pass Constitutional muster under Bruen. Today's announcement by the Attorney General is nothing short of EARTH-SHAKING and represents the culmination of decades of incredibly difficult work by gun owners.
 

CONGRATULATIONS TO EVERY HONEST GUN OWNER IN NEW JERSEY!

 

https://www.anjrpc.org/page/NJDropsJustifiableNeed

 

https://www.nj.gov/oag/dcj/agguide/directives/ag-Directive-2022-07_Directive Clarifying Requirements For Carrying Of Firearms In Public.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It also seems that Justice Thomas has done away with approaching 2nd Amendment cases with levels of scrutiny.  It seems he could have resolved this issue just by saying that all 2nd Amendment cases should be examined with strict scrutiny.

 


As Justice David Souter said, “Strict scrutiny leaves few survivors.” meaning almost no law survives strict scrutiny.

 

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think so.

 

An argument could be made that it violates the 14th Amendment, but it doesn't seem obvious that Bruen would do away with such a requirement. 

 

Even though Kavanaugh's opinion doesn't set out the guiding principles of the ruling, he states:

 

Quote

...the Court’s decision does not prohibit States from imposing licensing requirements for carrying a handgun for self-defense. In particular, the Court’s decision does not affect the existing  licensing regimes—known as “shall-issue” regimes—that are employed in 43 States.  The Court’s decision addresses only the unusual discretionary licensing regimes, known as “may-issue” regimes, that are employed by 6 States including New York.

 

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/25/2022 at 10:35 AM, C0untZer0 said:

I don't think so.

 

An argument could be made that it violates the 14th Amendment, but it doesn't seem obvious that Bruen would do away with such a requirement. 

 

Even though Kavanaugh's opinion doesn't set out the guiding principles of the ruling, he states:

 

 

 

.

What I read is that it not only addresses the may issue states but also the shall issue states that impose over strict restrictions on limited places (sensitive) and on high fees.

I would think this opens up questions about Illinois many prohibited places

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/25/2022 at 11:54 AM, Smallbore said:

What I read is that it not only addresses the may issue states but also the shall issue states that impose over strict restrictions on limited places (sensitive) and on high fees.

I would think this opens up questions about Illinois many prohibited places

What about the 30 day wait for a FOID, and then another 90 days for the carry permit, after complete the courses. could those be excessive given the federal govt has to do a background check for a sale of a handgun in 72 hours? They didn’t define excessive in the ruling. Given the “modern” times we live in 30 + the 90 = a lifetime in the modern era. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/25/2022 at 12:43 PM, mab22 said:

What about the 30 day wait for a FOID, and then another 90 days for the carry permit, after complete the courses. could those be excessive given the federal govt has to do a background check for a sale of a handgun in 72 hours? They didn’t define excessive in the ruling. Given the “modern” times we live in 30 + the 90 = a lifetime in the modern era. 

 

Take a look at my post on this other thread, it touches on your concerns and provides my thoughts on the FOID overall:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Non resident carry will be filed in numerous states very soon, IL being one of them. 

 

The training requirements of 16 hours would likely be challenged but it's hard to say if those are successful. SCOTUS said the training requirements are fine, but where would they draw the line between what's fine and excessive and burdensome?

 

The best way IMO is to look at firearm accident stats in states with zero training requirements (since training won't turn a good person bad and vise versa). If the state can show a correlation then it could be found constitutional. But if they say it's "common sense" with nothing else, then it may get shot down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/26/2022 at 8:12 AM, press1280 said:

Non resident carry will be filed in numerous states very soon, IL being one of them. 

 

The training requirements of 16 hours would likely be challenged but it's hard to say if those are successful. SCOTUS said the training requirements are fine, but where would they draw the line between what's fine and excessive and burdensome?

 

The best way IMO is to look at firearm accident stats in states with zero training requirements (since training won't turn a good person bad and vise versa). If the state can show a correlation then it could be found constitutional. But if they say it's "common sense" with nothing else, then it may get shot down.

 

It may also be relevant that when Illinois' carry law passed, much was made of the fact that our training requirement was the highest in the nation.  Being an extreme outlier could work against that requirement now.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/26/2022 at 8:12 AM, press1280 said:

Non resident carry will be filed in numerous states very soon, IL being one of them. 

 

The training requirements of 16 hours would likely be challenged but it's hard to say if those are successful. SCOTUS said the training requirements are fine, but where would they draw the line between what's fine and excessive and burdensome?

 

The best way IMO is to look at firearm accident stats in states with zero training requirements (since training won't turn a good person bad and vise versa). If the state can show a correlation then it could be found constitutional. But if they say it's "common sense" with nothing else, then it may get shot down.

The decision specifically excludes (and prohibits lower courts from engaging in) an interest balancing analysis; it’s either constitutional or it’s not…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/26/2022 at 8:12 AM, press1280 said:

Non resident carry will be filed in numerous states very soon, IL being one of them. 

 

The training requirements of 16 hours would likely be challenged but it's hard to say if those are successful. SCOTUS said the training requirements are fine, but where would they draw the line between what's fine and excessive and burdensome?

 

The best way IMO is to look at firearm accident stats in states with zero training requirements (since training won't turn a good person bad and vise versa). If the state can show a correlation then it could be found constitutional. But if they say it's "common sense" with nothing else, then it may get shot down.


I disagree that the court affirmed training requirements. The only use of the word “training” is on BK’s concurrence, which isn’t binding. 
 

The current case’s controversy didn’t present the constitutionality of permitting. It will be very interesting to see how the new standard of review is applied over the next couple of years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/23/2022 at 2:17 PM, Euler said:

 

Strict scrutiny is gone for constitutional issues. The court rejected tiered scrutiny. Either something violates the Constitution or it doesn't. NY's proper cause requirement violates it.

 

Yep, after reading the opinion, I believe you are 100% correct.  

The FOID needs to get into the federal courts. It won't survive the SCOTUS. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpK45hpjTN8

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/27/2022 at 1:19 PM, Ranger said:

Interested in rulings on the four cases TexasGrillChef references...

I've looked, but not seen any updates, yet those with more skills in legal matters may know where to find them better than I.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/27/2022 at 1:31 PM, bmyers said:

I've looked, but not seen any updates, yet those with more skills in legal matters may know where to find them better than I.

 

I was watching SCOTUSblog today, but didn't see anything about those four. There's supposedly another opinion day on Wednesday, that might be the earliest day we'd get an update.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/27/2022 at 1:36 PM, MrTriple said:

I was watching SCOTUSblog today, but didn't see anything about those four. There's supposedly another opinion day on Wednesday, that might be the earliest day we'd get an update.

As of now the court has opinions scheduled for Wednesday, but not orders. That could change before Wednesday, but there actually aren’t any scheduled orders days on the Court’s calendar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/27/2022 at 1:57 PM, Craigcr2 said:

As of now the court has opinions scheduled for Wednesday, but not orders. That could change before Wednesday, but there actually aren’t any scheduled orders days on the Court’s calendar.

The real question is when we'll hear about any of the four.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/27/2022 at 4:14 PM, MagSlap said:

Well....we know how beetlejuice feelz about Thomas...

Regarding killing babies up to birth anyway...

Yet...I suspect her/he/its feelz are the same across the board...includeing 2A rights.

 

 

Why not, Thing in Man Suit?  You expect us to "stand idly by" while you take away our Second Amendment rights.  Hypocritical box checker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/27/2022 at 5:07 PM, 2A4Cook said:

Why not, Thing in Man Suit?  You expect us to "stand idly by" while you take away our Second Amendment rights.  Hypocritical box checker.

 

The collective IQ of that 'crowd'...couldnt be more than a few hundred points... :rofl:

Considering an old adage....

 

In the land of the blind..the one eyed man is king.......

 

In this case....somewhat....

In the land of the who has the most 'diversity points'... BeetleJuice is king of the social 'tards..... :rofl:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...