Jump to content

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


Euler
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 6/23/2022 at 2:51 PM, Ranger said:

So...  What is required in those states like New York where they claim it changes nothing?  ...

 

The case has been remanded back to the district court, which will likely issue an order to NY state to suspend the proper cause requirement. In the case of NYC, which issues its own licenses separate from the state and has declared that it's not changing anything, we'll see how it goes once the district court issues its order. Today's statement of intended defiance is zero-cost political pandering. It's not actually defying anything yet.

 

Other states may need to be similarly ordered based on some other case in each state, although those states may also just accept the inevitable and drop the requirement. For California and Massachusetts, licenses are issued county by county. If each sheriff has to be ordered individually, that could get messy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/23/2022 at 1:51 PM, Ranger said:

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?

 

Those states are effectively holding their breath and stomping their feet.  They are going to test just how far the SCOTUS enforcement of the decision will go.   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/23/2022 at 3:06 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

I took it as they moved the needle as close to strict scrutiny as possible without stating strict scrutiny. ...

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The next question is what the court will do with the four cases they are presently sitting on, including two magazine ban cases and an "assault weapon" case (Bianchi v. Frosh).

 

If those get granted, vacated, and remanded, that alone could be huge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/23/2022 at 2:14 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

Those states are effectively holding their breath and stomping their feet.  They are going to test just how far the SCOTUS enforcement of the decision will go.   

 

Keep in mind, SCOTUS does not, and really can not enforce their decisions.
Any enforcement actions would need originate from the DOJ. How do you think that’s going to go?

The only other option for regular folks is to, once again, turn to the courts and it’s long drawn out process…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will be curious to see how citizens from one State are denied their Constitutional Right in another State and that stands up in Federal Court. 

 

Your right to free speech or to attend whatever church you would like, doesn't change when you cross a State border, so why does your Right to bear arms change?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.courthousenews.com/policymakers-picking-through-the-pieces-of-supreme-courts-gun-rights-expansion/

WASHINGTON (CN) — The rigorous permitting scheme to carry a concealed weapon in New York may have been the issue that brought the Second Amendment to the Supreme Court for the first time in a decade, but experts warn that the court’s ruling Thursday creates a framework under which all gun laws will now have to be evaluated. 

What was once considered settled law may now be on the chopping block. 


What this means is that we’re going to see a parade of litigation challenging what we would otherwise think of as fairly well settled legal restrictions on who can possess weapons, where they can be carried, what kind of weapons are protected,” professor Darrell Miller from Duke Law said in a phone call. “We’re going to see a parade of litigation that will say that these regulations are insufficiently analogous to some kind of regulation that existed around 1791 or thereabouts.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/23/2022 at 3:12 PM, Tip said:

Any enforcement actions would need originate from the DOJ. How do you think that’s going to go?

 

 

Based on thier statement that they disagree with the court, they have become quite politicized and may just ignore the law of the land in favor of their political stance...

 

 

doj.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone know when we'll hear about the other four gun cases pending at the court? I originally thought that they'd be released at the same time as Bruen but they weren't.

 

Is there even another conference scheduled before the court goes on summer break?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/23/2022 at 3:55 PM, MrTriple said:

Does anyone know when we'll hear about the other four gun cases pending at the court? I originally thought that they'd be released at the same time as Bruen but they weren't.

 

Is there even another conference scheduled before the court goes on summer break?

 

Check the Supreme Court website they have been updating the calender (on the main page) constantly, like every couple of days if not every day...  https://www.supremecourt.gov/

 

 

Edited by Flynn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last 4 cases on hold will be issued a PC. Grant, vacate, remand. A short opinion will be issued with each, as well I’m sure a dissent with each as well. This will come onf Friday, or the following Monday. I would be highly surprised if these are denied.

 

Especially after reading the opinions of the 6 Justices. We got ur 6-3 vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/23/2022 at 4:17 PM, Sweeper13 said:

Got this from my buddie that lives in Maryland. 

 

image000000.png

 

URL is invalid? So have no clue what this dude is saying. If you go to the official Maryland Wear and Carry web page. Nothing has been said offcially

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Time for all the IL 2A groups to get busy. Groundwork laid to kill FOID and MANY other laws

https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/scotus-threatens-california-gun-laws-17260774.php?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

Supreme Court puts almost all of California's gun control laws in danger

The ruling will have significant impacts in California beyond only concealed carry laws, UCLA law professor Adam Winkler told SFGATE.

"It's fair to say this ruling will have its biggest effects in states like California with more restrictive gun laws," said Winkler, who is the author of "Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America." "This is the beginning of a period where we’ll see a wide variety of California gun laws called into question, if not struck down entirely."

 

 

Edited by steveTA84
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/23/2022 at 4:23 PM, Texasgrillchef said:

Last 4 cases on hold will be issued a PC. Grant, vacate, remand. A short opinion will be issued with each, as well I’m sure a dissent with each as well. This will come onf Friday, or the following Monday. I would be highly surprised if these are denied.

What were the four cases? I have seen a list, but can't find it right now and was hoping you could point me in the right direction.

 

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/23/2022 at 4:30 PM, Texasgrillchef said:

 

URL is invalid? So have no clue what this dude is saying. If you go to the official Maryland Wear and Carry web page. Nothing has been said offcially

 

It was an image , no url to click.  If it's not the right info ,I will communicate that to my buddy.

Edited by Sweeper13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/23/2022 at 5:53 PM, bmyers said:

What were the four cases? I have seen a list, but can't find it right now and was hoping you could point me in the right direction.

 

Thanks

 

They should be:

 

*Duncan v. Bonta (California magazine ban)

*ANJRPC v. Platkin (New Jersey magazine ban)

*Bianchi v. Frosh (Maryland "assault weapon" ban)

*Young v. Hawaii (Hawaii open carry)

Edited by MrTriple
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/23/2022 at 5:53 PM, bmyers said:

What were the four cases? I have seen a list, but can't find it right now and was hoping you could point me in the right direction.

 

Thanks

Young v Hawaii - Open Carry —— Hawaii

Duncan v Bonta - Magazine Ban —- California

ANJRPC v Platkin Magazine ban —- New Jersey

Bianchi v Frosh - AWB and mag ban… Maryland

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you read the opinion closely, there is comment made about making fees to high, as unconstitutional as well.

 

Wonder if now someone will take up the challenge and claim Illinois fees are to high? $150 for in state, $300 for out of state.

 

BTW…. When all is said and done, and it will take another year for Paul Clement to see a paycheck on this one. but New York will have to pay a Million dollar bill.

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...