Jump to content

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


Euler
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 11/3/2021 at 5:24 PM, starwatcher said:

No one brought up that the state/police has no duty to protect its citizens.

 

If the state disarms its citizens it should be responsible for their safety.

 

There are some states that have passed laws that puts the onus on private businesses that post their business.  If they ban carry of any kind, then those businesses could be held liable (and sued) by victims of an attack on business property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/3/2021 at 4:14 PM, starwatcher said:

I haven't listened to everything yet.

 

One thing that stood out to me is the subway attack example, yet no justice brought up Lozito v. New York City.

 

Just because police are in the area, that means nothing since they have no duty to protect or help you.

I was listening to an analysis of the arguments and the jist here was that a crowded city, because of higher crime, has a greater need for allowing citizens to arm themselves for protection. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why the answer to the question about if it can be restricted in a place that serves alcohol isn't only if the person is drinking

Does someone else's activity restrict your 2nd rights? 

I mean you can't carry if the Cheesecake Factory when your going for diner because they serve alcohol? 

Yeah I know but I ignore their restriction because there is no sign on any door.   On the wall walking in, is not the law. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/5/2021 at 8:06 AM, Plinkermostly said:

Does the 'State' have a duty to protect its citizens??? 

 

 

Police (big NO, South vs Maryland)!  OSHA?  Congress (LOL)?

 

2nd amendment is for self-protection -- and to keep the govment (sic) in line (which is self protection also), right?

In the preamble to the Illinois state constitution it does state “ 

insure domestic tranquility; provide for the common defense


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Cook Co Public Defender chimes in, in favor of NYSRPA:

 

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/gun-control-supreme-court/

There’s No Second Amendment on the South Side of Chicago

Why public defenders are standing with the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association in the Supreme Court.

I think about a man my office represents, a father of four kids and professional driver, who purchased a firearm after being caught in the cross fire of a shooting on the freeway. He was willing to do anything to keep himself and his family safe. But he was Black. Shortly after he started carrying a gun for his own protection, suburban police arrested him and prosecutors charged him with a felony for not having the right license.

 

I also think about the hundreds of young Black men my office represents every year, arrested and facing years in prison for simple possession of a gun because they were terrified, but didn’t have enough money, the wherewithal, or time to purchase a license. Often, they are denied a license because of a prior drug conviction—an obstacle to licensure that their white counterparts, far less likely to be arrested for drug possession than Black and brown Americans, do not face.

 

I think about how differently they would be treated by police and prosecutors if they were born a different color, lived in a different area of the state. Here’s the stark reality of injustice: Over 75 percent of firearm possession convictions in Illinois occur in Cook County, in a few Chicago neighborhoods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/6/2021 at 9:39 AM, mikew said:

Cook Co Public Defender chimes in, in favor of NYSRPA:

...

I also think about the hundreds of young Black men my office represents every year, arrested and facing years in prison for simple possession of a gun because they were terrified, but didn’t have enough money, the wherewithal, or time to purchase a license. Often, they are denied a license because of a prior drug conviction—an obstacle to licensure ...

 

Unless the court decides that permitless carry is the law throughout the nation, this case is unlikely to change the problems he describes, although I suppose it's a start. If the "prior drug conviction" is a felony, then there's really no hope in the NYSPRA case.

 

Personally, I think too many crimes are felonies. Once upon a time, felonies were crimes for which the death penalty was an option: murder, rape, burglary, and treason. With the decline of death sentencing, there's been an increase in categorizing lesser crimes as felonies, which only leads to disfavored individuals being convicted of felonies. Favored individuals are pled to misdemeanors or not even charged at all. NYSRPA isn't going to change any of that.

 

But if this article means somebody somewhere is half waking up to reality, half is better than nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/6/2021 at 8:39 AM, mikew said:

Cook Co Public Defender chimes in, in favor of NYSRPA:

 

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/gun-control-supreme-court/

There’s No Second Amendment on the South Side of Chicago

Why public defenders are standing with the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association in the Supreme Court.

I think about a man my office represents, a father of four kids and professional driver, who purchased a firearm after being caught in the cross fire of a shooting on the freeway. He was willing to do anything to keep himself and his family safe. But he was Black. Shortly after he started carrying a gun for his own protection, suburban police arrested him and prosecutors charged him with a felony for not having the right license.

 

I also think about the hundreds of young Black men my office represents every year, arrested and facing years in prison for simple possession of a gun because they were terrified, but didn’t have enough money, the wherewithal, or time to purchase a license. Often, they are denied a license because of a prior drug conviction—an obstacle to licensure that their white counterparts, far less likely to be arrested for drug possession than Black and brown Americans, do not face.

 

I think about how differently they would be treated by police and prosecutors if they were born a different color, lived in a different area of the state. Here’s the stark reality of injustice: Over 75 percent of firearm possession convictions in Illinois occur in Cook County, in a few Chicago neighborhoods.

Yet they keep electing the same Democrats that keep ramming these restrictions through, making concealed carry costs high, and making various drug possessions a felony. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/6/2021 at 2:28 PM, Euler said:

Personally, I think too many crimes are felonies.

 

You are not alone, they have certainly diluted what felonies were originally supposed to be.  There are so many non-violet crimes that in no way should cause one to lose a protected right for life.  The war on drugs has created a ton of them even for end users.

Edited by Flynn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/11/2021 at 1:21 PM, Bitter Clinger said:

Well, we already have indefinite incarceration for alleged "trespassing" in DC, which include solitary confinement, torture and other abuses.

 

January 6th: The day it became apparent that Property Rights, the defense thereof, and the DOJ only exist for members of Congress. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

G&G has a nice analysis of SCOTUS process there.  One thing missing from the analysis is mention of dissents.  Cases with significant dissenting opinions that are designed to gain support from other justices or are intended to introduce competing legal theories typically are released much later as these dissenting opinions take a great deal of time.  The suggestion that this opinion will be written by Thomas is solid analysis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

My prediction is that the opinion for NYSPRA will come the week of the 23rd.

 

The 23rd is the last conference of the term.

 

There are currently 4 cases that SCOTUS have on hold pending this NYSPRA opinion being released.

 

Young v Hawaii - Open carry permits

Duncan v Bonta - Magazine Capacity Ban

ANJRPC v NJ - Magazine Capacity Ban

Bianchi V Frosh - AWB and Magazine Capacity Ban

 

NYSPRA opinion will have some impact on those 4 cases. Assuming the positive because we have a super majority at SCOTUS. There would be no logical reason to place these 4 cases on hold if the opinion did not have some impact on them, also no reason to hold if they will just deny them. No reason to hold if they aren’t going to reverse the lower court and basically find that those bans are unconstitutional.

 

These four cases will probably be PC with a Grant, Reverse, Remand, along with a short opinion and disents.

 

PC orders for the most part only happen after a conference. If opinions and dissents are being written for them. Then they need to be put on hold for a while or even rescheduled or relisted to give time for the opinions and dissents to be written.

 

In addition they can’t really issue a PC on these cases prior to issuing the NYSPRA opinion, especially if the NYSPRA is needed for those four cases.

 

 

Thus NYSPRA will be released on or before the 23rd probably that week, and those four cases soon after.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 12/9/2021 at 2:37 PM, Euler said:

 

You can still have both. They're not incompatible.

Felony Jaywalking with $100,000 fine (we GOTTA enrich those cronies!)

 

Excessive fines and penalties?    Muahahahaha.   Never enforced against big fines, that's why we see $1000 traffic tickets in Virginia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/20/2022 at 2:00 PM, Ranger said:
NEW: The Supreme Court will issue more opinions next TUESDAY and THURSDAY. Eighteen cases remain to be decided, including cases on abortion, guns, climate change, and religion in schools.
 
 

 

If you look at SCOTUS calendar, Tuesday and Thursday is the last two days listed for opinions to be released. Nothing is showing for next week expect on Monday with orders scheduled. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Molly B. changed the title to NYSRPA v Bruen (Corlett): 6-3 U.S. Supreme Court Ruling Strikes down May-issue

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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