Jump to content

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


Euler
 Share

Recommended Posts

NY and CA should have just let Lisa appeal Posner’s ruling. With the composition of the Court at that time, even a ruling upholding the 7th Circuit decision would probably not have been as pro-2A as the one they’re now going to have to live with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/23/2022 at 10:14 AM, Molly B. said:

This ruling seems to open the door to challenge the high fees, long waits, and the conceal carry review board.

I was thinking along the same lines...  It will be an interesting ride to see how this goes. 

 

Congrats to all of us, and for the court to have the nads to FINALLY, put in writing, what they already knew. As to the other three, the constitution has no meaning for them they are simply activists in robes... sad that.

 

Expect the howls to pack the court to intensify as well as calls to do a Constitutional rewrite. 

 

JQ

 

PS Alito is a badazz. :)

Edited by John Q Public
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This sounds like even "strict scrutiny" is too lenient?

 

"We reiterate that the standard for applying the Second Amendment is as follows: When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.  The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s 'unqualified command'."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now if they do something about mag limits.  I’m not suggesting AT ALL that there be more shootings, and the ones that have happened are a very sad situation.  But for example if you have a handgun with a 11 round mag and they try to say you can only have 10.  But glad they finally released this.  It’s been needed for a while.  Maybe now in places like NY once people can get permits maybe crime will slow down if people attacking others have a reason to think twice.

Edited by illinois_buckeye
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/23/2022 at 10:53 AM, jcable2 said:

Reading through the ruling, the struck down the 2 step process courts have been using. Leaving just a single step that will be hard to say most regulations don't violate the second amendment after applying the new single step. Time to sue for charging high fees and to sue states that don't have reciprocy. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/23/2022 at 10:14 AM, Molly B. said:

This ruling seems to open the door to challenge the high fees, long waits, restrictive non-resident licensing, and the conceal carry review board here in IL.

From what I read could also effect some of the 23 prohibited locations as far as sensitive locations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/23/2022 at 10:28 AM, bmyers said:

I like Alito's response to the dissent

 

In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see what legitimate purpose can possibly be served by most of the dissent’s lengthy introductory section. See post, at 1–8 (opinion of BREYER, J.). Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years? Post, at 4–5. Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator. What is the relevance of statistics about the use of guns to commit suicide? See post, at 5–6. Does the dissent think that a lot of people who possess guns in their homes will be stopped or deterred from shooting themselves if they cannot lawfully take them outside?  (Pg 71 of the PDF)

 

When a judge writing an opinion resorts to "the feelz", they probably don't have the Constitution on their side....and they know it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/23/2022 at 12:00 PM, steveTA84 said:

 

Does this also mean that “due process” is a thing again and judges can’t say the red light and speed camera kangaroo courts are “a sort of, or kind of, due process of law”?

Kinda like all of our rites in the constitution have just been returned and no longer get various levels of scrutiny?


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/23/2022 at 12:46 PM, mab22 said:

Does this also mean that “due process” is a thing again and judges can’t say the red light and speed camera kangaroo courts are “a sort of, or kind of, due process of law”?

Kinda like all of our rites in the constitution have just been returned and no longer get various levels of scrutiny?


 

It also means that, since “unregulated” homemade firearms were around and common in the 18th century, that “ghost gun” bans are unconstitutional too

7CFC2D80-F2C3-447C-9D72-F4BFDDADDB34.jpeg.d4c443bf584190e9135e6153020fe4bf.jpeg

Edited by steveTA84
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/23/2022 at 12:57 PM, vezpa said:

All this did was set up another 20 years of endless litigation while they use loopholes and work-arounds to curtail your constitutional rights.

 

/YAWN

 

Sadly that was what any court ruling was going to do since we have politicians (and even lower courts) that ignore high court rulings because the barrier to succeed in a 1983 lawsuit is so high they face no consequences.  The 1983 barriers need to be lowered and politicians and lawmakers need to more easily be held personally accountable for deprivation of rights.

 

We already have the NY mayor basically saying they will ignore the ruling

 

nothing.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My summary of the opinion:

 

The court rejects means-ends interest balancing (i.e., tiered scrutiny) in favor of plain language. In particular, federal courts have often used intermediate scrutiny to defer to state legislatures instead of to the Constitution. Deference should be granted entirely to the Constitution.

 

The Constitution makes no distinction between public and private availability of weapons for immediate self-defense.

 

Restrictions on carry have included prohibition in "sensitive" places such as schools and government buildings. The island of Manhattan, for example, is not a sensitive place just because there are a lot of people and because there is a general need for a police force to protect it. States may still restrict weapons from sensitive places.

 

The bearing of arms in public was restricted in the Reconstruction South to the extent that some people were bearing arms for the purpose of terrorizing the general public. People carry concealed weapons for self-defense, not to terrorize the general public. This point expands upon the position that the Second Amendment is "not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." The Second Amendment is not a license to commit crimes with a weapon.

 

Historically, some states once required some individuals to post a surety bond in order to carry a weapon. However, that bond was required only after a particular individual had demonstrated reasonable cause to believe he might use the weapon to commit a breach of the peace. He was still allowed to carry once the bond was posted.

 

The requirement of showing proper cause (need) is overturned.

 


 

Rejecting tiered scrutiny is big. Cook County's AWB was upheld based on tiered scrutiny. Magazine size limits in other states have been upheld on tiered scrutiny.

 

As for the surety bonds, think carry liability insurance. The decision mentions it without finding a problem with it, although in context NY was trying to justify a carry prohibition. (If people can't pay, then they can't carry.) It's good that the opinion points out that only specific people had a pay a bond.

 

Showing proper cause is required by California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island. Only those states are immediately affected by the ruling, although it does also prevent any others from enacting may-issue.

 

Edited by Euler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So...  What is required in those states like New York where they claim it changes nothing?  Does a private citizen now need to sue in court for damages, get another ruling, or what, if anything, is needed to get those actions prohibited by this ruling nullified?  Also, can a citizen who was prosecuted in those states based upon an unconstitutional restriction now appeal to get their record expunged, reimbursement of attorney fees, and damages?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 6-3 vote in this case is a perfect illustration of how Democrats only appoint judicial activists masquerading as "judges."  The Constitution means nothing to them.  They are Democrats first, liberals second, and somewhere down the line, they insert, "Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States."  When the new abortion decision comes out, rest assured the three of them will vote on the side of the 49 year old made up "precedent," as well as likely Roberts and possibly a coward or two.

 

We should just look at them as Jedi:

 

OBUMMERWAN:  "Rule with your feelings; you know it to be true."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/23/2022 at 11:05 AM, raymond963 said:

This sounds like even "strict scrutiny" is too lenient?

 

"We reiterate that the standard for applying the Second Amendment is as follows: When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.  The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s 'unqualified command'."


I took it as they moved the needle as close to strict scrutiny as possible without stating strict scrutiny. Otherwise the opinion would have stated strict scrutiny should be applied, and they would not have mentioned laws that are "historical tradition".   So it doesn't look like the NFA is going away.  

However, I think this opinion clearly shows that the FOID is unconstitutional based on licensing and the waiting period.  I think the fee for carry licenses in IL is going to need to be reduced.  

I don't think this sets the ground work for Constitutional Carry because the court only mentioned lengthy waits/applications and high fees would not be acceptable.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...