Jump to content

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


Euler
 Share

Recommended Posts

If I may, I would like to make an observation that is related to this case.

We got a 6:3 decision largely due to Supreme Court Judge choices made during the previous presidency.

Many gun owners voted for Biden because they did not like Trump and, in particular,

his personality, and twitter habits.  It's a personal choice, and I respect that, but at the same time

a gun owner who cares about being able to carry, cannot afford to do that again.   

That Court decision could have gone the other way.

Eyes on the big picture.

Edited by roundkot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/23/2022 at 8:30 PM, starwatcher said:

If lower courts were blatantly misapplying Heller (someone correct me if I'm wrong) what makes SCOTUS think they will appropriately apply this ruling to other 2A cases?

 

This case basically spelled out how those courts must rule, since Heller didn't the lower courts were playing games, this essentially closes that 'loophole' the lower courts were using to ignore Heller.  That doesn't mean courts won't continue to ignore it, I highly supsect many will, its going to take more white glove smackdowns by the Supreme Court in the future to shame the lower courts into following the law...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's going to be interesting to see how the courts rule moving foward.

 

We have red flag laws on the books, are those really supported by historical context?

Gun accessories, like bump stocks, suppressors, things that go up and down, and what not, supported by historical context?

Magazine limits, supported by historical context?

Waiting periods, supported by historical context?

Body Armor band, supported by historical context?

More than one bullet with each pull of the trigger ban, supported by historical context?

Caliber restrictions, supported by historical context?

Out of state purchase restrictions, supported by historical context?

Differing Second 'rights' by state line, supported by historical context?

 

And the 'sensitive places' is going to be interesting, as the court already snipped that too clever by half 'loophole'

 

It's going to be a interested next few years.

Edited by Flynn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/23/2022 at 6:08 PM, Howard Roark said:

Elections matter. If Hillary was elected, she would have 3 picks for the court, this case would have gone the other way and scotus would have overturned Heller and Macdonald.  

 

And imagine what level of totalitarianism would have happened under COVID too.    We already saw Joe push the jab mandate but by then COVID had already started winding down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/23/2022 at 8:08 PM, Howard Roark said:

Elections matter. If Hillary was elected, she would have 3 picks for the court, this case would have gone the other way and scotus would have overturned Heller and Macdonald.  

She would have only had one pick. Garland would have been confirmed, RBG would have still succumbed to age and Breyer may not have retired.

 

Different makeup yes, but Trump got 3 damn near forever nominees on the sole basis of SCOTUS pick list. If you think Hillary can run a short list for her picks you would be sadly mistaken.

 

Trump will forever go down as a SCOTUS remake president, regardless of his other feats that Obam.... Biden was able to overturn via EO.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SAF basically predicts a busy future for itself.

 

Second Amendment Foundation

SAF said:

...

"We expect bureaucrats and even judges in various courts to resist today's ruling," [SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M.] Gottlieb acknowledged. "Too many of them have resisted and even ignored the Supreme Court Heller and McDonald rulings on Second Amendment rights in the past. We're putting them on notice we'll be watching for any such misconduct and we won't be shy about taking legal action especially if New York City officials adopt near city wide 'sensitive area' restrictions making it impossible to carry in New York City.["]

...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/23/2022 at 9:40 PM, cls74 said:

She would have only had one pick. Garland would have been confirmed, RBG would have still succumbed to age and Breyer may not have retired.

 

Different makeup yes, but Trump got 3 damn near forever nominees on the sole basis of SCOTUS pick list. If you think Hillary can run a short list for her picks you would be sadly mistaken.

 

Trump will forever go down as a SCOTUS remake president, regardless of his other feats that Obam.... Biden was able to overturn via EO.

 

 

 

Ugh. Was Kennedy who retired.

 

 

 

Still stands Killary only got 1, as dumb as that ..... is.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/24/2022 at 12:14 AM, mab22 said:

Can you shed any light on what exactly they could do? 
A lot of people think a judge can just crap on what happened today and not have any consequences.

 

As I understand it:

 

Generally, Federal District Courts should issue injunctions prohibiting enforcement of the state laws having to do with requiring "proper cause" for carry applicants. This case would apply to NY. Other states may need other cases, if they choose not to act without being enjoined.

 

If government executives ignore the injunctions, they would be in contempt of court. The first consequence of that contempt is essentially a collapse of the rule of law. The second consequence is that those governments, any governments, bring cases before courts all the time. If government executives think they can go to war with the federal judiciary, they're going to start losing a lot of cases, maybe all of them.

 

If the district courts refuse to issue injunctions, some interested parties can petition the applicable Circuit Court of Appeal for a writ of mandamus, which is an order to a lower court (or other government agency) to do whatever it is that it's supposed to do. If the district judges still refuse, theoretically superior courts can remove judges from inferior courts if the inferior judges are found to be unfit, which refusing to do their jobs would demonstrate. There have been plenty of writs of mandamus when somebody somewhere put up a fight. So far, nothing has ever escalated to removal for unfitness in the US. Similarly the US Supreme Court is superior to the Circuit Courts of Appeal.

 

No one would be imprisoned, but there would definitely be consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and regarding repeating arms and capping magazines (“that’s too many rounds!!!”), meet the Girardoni rifle. Unlike the pucklengun, this rifle was non-stationary and is a traditional style rifle. It had the rate of fire of a lever action and the magazine held 20 rounds. It was designed for military use and Ben Franklin’s people even had one. There were no restrictions for civilian use and ownership either, obviously. Lewis from the Lewis & Clark expedition carried one too on his cross country journey. When was this “hi-capacity” repeating rifle invented? 1779, 12 years before the 2A was ratified. Thus, the “the founders could never envision such firearms with large capacity and fast rate of fire” argument any anti-gun judge or lawyer would use is null and void (looking at you, Cook Co, Highland Park and Deerfield)
https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/the-girandoni-air-rifle/

 

 

Edited by steveTA84
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

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.

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.

 

Mass transportation is GIGANTIC.   I find it stupid that I can't carry on the Metra when heading into Chicago.   Same for parks and such.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus there's good arguments to be made that predate even Bruen. If someone relies primarily or exclusively on public transit, then a transit carry ban is, in effect, a total ban on public carry for the affected individual(s).

Edited by MrTriple
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?

 

 

I think the key will be what the Supreme Court does with Bianchi v. Frosh. If they GVR the case, I believe that will have the same effect as GVR'ing Caetano v. Massachusetts seems to have had on stun gun bans.

 

We've seen a number of stun gun bans at the local or state level get struck down by the courts in recent years, including the DuPage law here in Illinois. I think the lower courts took Caetano as a sign, and figured the most prudent/pragmatic thing was simply to declare such bans unconstitutional. It wasn't worth their time nor the effort to pick a losing fight with the Supreme Court.

Edited by MrTriple
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

I believe this ruling opens the door to challenge these IL prohibited places.

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.

 

 

It also opens up the federally prohibited places as well, such as post offices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/24/2022 at 10:11 AM, BobPistol said:

 

It also opens up the federally prohibited places as well, such as post offices.

The Opinions says,

 

"Consider, for example, Heller’s discussion of “longstanding” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.”... Although the historical record yields relatively few 18th- and 19th-century “sensitive places” where weapons were altogether prohibited—e.g., legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses—we are also aware of no disputes regarding the lawfulness of such prohibitions. ... We therefore can assume it settled that these locations were “sensitive places” where arms carrying could be prohibited consistent with the Second Amendment. And courts can use analogies to those historical regulations of “sensitive places” to determine that modern regulations prohibiting the carry of firearms in new and analogous sensitive places are constitutionally permissible."

 

and Kavanaugh says this in his concurring opinion:

 

"[N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

 

These make it sound like it might be difficult to eliminate some of the prohibited places.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/24/2022 at 12:30 PM, raymond963 said:

The Opinions says,

 

"Consider, for example, Heller’s discussion of “longstanding” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.”... Although the historical record yields relatively few 18th- and 19th-century “sensitive places” where weapons were altogether prohibited—e.g., legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses—we are also aware of no disputes regarding the lawfulness of such prohibitions. ... We therefore can assume it settled that these locations were “sensitive places” where arms carrying could be prohibited consistent with the Second Amendment. And courts can use analogies to those historical regulations of “sensitive places” to determine that modern regulations prohibiting the carry of firearms in new and analogous sensitive places are constitutionally permissible."

 

and Kavanaugh says this in his concurring opinion:

 

"[N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

 

These make it sound like it might be difficult to eliminate some of the prohibited places.

Public parks, public transportation, restaurants, forest preserves, shouldn’t be an issue. I doubt they would lift “government buildings” like a post office. 
And a big bird to Kav for bringing some of this up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/24/2022 at 12:30 PM, raymond963 said:

The Opinions says

 

It also says

 

Quote

That said, respondents’ attempt to characterize New York’s proper-cause requirement as a “sensitive-place” law lacks merit because there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a “sensitive place” simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department. Pp. 17–22.

 

The court is putting legislators on notice that 'too clever by half' defacto proxy bans using a broad brush to paint 'sensitive areas' won't fly.

 

It's going to take a few court cases (especially in states like Illinois) but I can see many of the so called 'sensitive' places failing the court's test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The riots and unrest that transpired over the last couple years awakened many of the people who'd normally be anti-gun, to the fact that they're responsible for their own safety and well-being. 

 

Anti-gun legislation will always be unpopular so long as the government is unable to provide adequate protection for its citizens. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/23/2022 at 1:15 PM, Flynn said:

 

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

"We cannot let New York become the wild wild west..."

 

That was Daley's delusion. Come up with something original, Rochester.

 

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQVD6ifktD0fmjbgci0LPStn9GbENbr7Af_W37ozEDiIY_XbcnjkoyOMWtEQQ&s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/24/2022 at 2:02 PM, spanishjames said:

The riots and unrest that transpired over the last couple years awakened many of the people who'd normally be anti-gun, to the fact that they're responsible for their own safety and well-being. 

 

Anti-gun legislation will always be unpopular so long as the government is unable to provide adequate protection for its citizens. 

 

Or unwilling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is interesting to see that much of what Judge Posner said in Moore v. Madigan shows up in the majority opinion of NY State Rifle & Pistol Association v Bruen.

 

The 2 most important aspects of this ruling are:

 

1) It destroys the 2-part approach to deciding gun cases.  The 2-part approach was an intellectually dishonest charade that liberal, outcome-based judges used to ignore the Constitution to enact "gun control" and infringe on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

 

2) Judge Thomas shows how the 14th Amendment must be applied in RTKBA cases.

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Molly B. pinned this topic

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...