Jump to content

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


Euler

Recommended Posts

On 6/27/2022 at 6:54 PM, MagSlap said:

 

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:

 

If Preckwinkle had been a lesbian AND had an Asian or Native American grandparent, she would have won that box-checking contest of an "election."  Extra points for being both trans and lesbian, ala Mrs. Garrison from South Park.

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.

 

 

I will say this. 
The Illinois Democrats did not give same sex couples “gay marriage”, or the right to “marry” each other. 
They created a thing called a “civil union”, not marriage, that is the law in Illinois. Why didn’t they just change the marriage law and allow it to include same sex couples, as an additional slap in the face, non-same sex couples can also get a civil union, so it’s not even specifically carved out for only same sex couples. Feel free to look it up.
Democrats are just making it look like they care, so FU Light on Brains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/24/2022 at 3:46 AM, Euler said:

...

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.

...

 

And so it appears that NYC needs to be enjoined, rather than voluntarily seeing the writing on the wall like CA and NJ did. NYC has a carve-out in NY state law that allows it to issue its own carry licenses using its own process and qualifications. (BTW, Philadelphia has the same carve-out in PA law, but PA is a shall-issue state.)

 

Second Amendment Foundation

SAF said:

Based on the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court striking down New York State's unconstitutional "good cause" requirement for concealed carry permit applicants, the Second Amendment Foundation today filed a preliminary injunction motion seeking to enjoin the City of New York from further enforcement of its long-standing permit regulations.

 

Joining SAF in this legal action are the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. and five private citizens. The motion was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs are represented by attorney David D. Jensen of Beacon, N.Y. In addition to the City of New York, Police Commissioner Dermot Shea is named as a defendant in his official capacity.

 

"In light of the Supreme Court's ruling that New York State's 'good cause' mandate is unconstitutional, we felt compelled to file this action because the city's 'proper cause' requirement is just as bad if not worse," said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. "Two of our plaintiffs previously held carry licenses in New York City for decades, but in 2020, both were denied renewal on the grounds they lacked 'proper cause'."

 

Gottlieb said the perpetuation of this requirement in the aftermath of the high court's ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen is an affront to the Constitution and an insult to the Court, not to mention the good citizens of New York City who should no longer need to demonstrate some special need in order to exercise a fundamental right.

...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/1/2022 at 1:55 PM, Sweeper13 said:

NY is going to test SCOTUS on there CCW sensitive places. Should be fun.

 

https://www.theblaze.com/news/new-york-democrats-gun-control

 

Gotta love this part:

 

The first (database to be created) would be a statewide license and record database to be created and maintained by police and checked each month for accuracy and to verify whether a person is a valid license holder. These records would be checked against records for criminal convictions, criminal indictments, mental health, extreme risk protection orders (granted by the state's red-flag law), and protection orders.

 

 

So, this is more evidence that that the may-issue regime was cronies only and they don't care if cronies have any of the above issues.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/1/2022 at 3:55 PM, Sweeper13 said:

NY is going to test SCOTUS on there CCW sensitive places. Should be fun.

 

https://www.theblaze.com/news/new-york-democrats-gun-control

 

"The bill put forward Friday would also ban carrying firearms on private property by default, unless the property owner installs signage permitting guns or has otherwise expressed consent to guns being permitted"

 

That combined with all their 'public' spaces is pretty much a blanket ban across the state, no way that passes court muster in regards to a right, but they will do what they do knowing it will take time to work through the courts...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/2/2022 at 1:52 AM, Joeyl said:

From the article "A violation would be a felony offense".   Ouch! Hopefully this gets struck down. I thought Ill.  misdemeanor for carrying in banned places was bad. 

 

It's by design to give them an easily way to revoke your 2nd rights entirely...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/2/2022 at 10:44 AM, mikew said:

I think this will cause some (quiet or loud?) outrage among those extra special people who already had NY carry permits.

Yeah the ironic thing about the Bruen ruling is that, for the moment, it actually set carry backwards in CA and NY. They went from a may issue regime where if you actually got a permit it was halfway decent; to a kinda shall issue worthless permit that won’t let you carry anywhere. I’m very curious if there will be some degree of backlash from the connected class that you reference.
 

Im also curious if there will backlash among the general population who may have not have been interested in carry in the past but see the news about the Bruen decision and try to apply for a permit they soon find out is worthless. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/1/2022 at 4:10 PM, BobPistol said:

 

Gotta love this part:

 

The first (database to be created) would be a statewide license and record database to be created and maintained by police and checked each month for accuracy and to verify whether a person is a valid license holder. These records would be checked against records for criminal convictions, criminal indictments, mental health, extreme risk protection orders (granted by the state's red-flag law), and protection orders.

 

 

So, this is more evidence that that the may-issue regime was cronies only and they don't care if cronies have any of the above issues.

 

 

 

On 7/1/2022 at 4:51 PM, Flynn said:

 

"The bill put forward Friday would also ban carrying firearms on private property by default, unless the property owner installs signage permitting guns or has otherwise expressed consent to guns being permitted"

 

That combined with all their 'public' spaces is pretty much a blanket ban across the state, no way that passes court muster in regards to a right, but they will do what they do knowing it will take time to work through the courts...

Sounds like they are following our failed state of Illinois. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NY and Ca will get their butts handed back to them in a year or two when the new cases make it back to them, and it won’t take very long this time around either.

 

SCOTUS and Especially Justice Thomas and Justice Alito don’t take to kindly to when a State thumbs their noses at them, and gives them the ole middle finger in defiance. Trust me, when the new cases make it back to them. You will see their wrath.

 

They wanna think things are bad for them now? Just wait…. They will write a new opinion and or give them a mandate that will give them very little leeway.

 

Who knows, maybe they (SCOTUS) is looking for a really good reason to give the nation constitutional carry. This may just be the camel that breaks the back of gun control. Especially if next year we get 3 or 4 more states to join the CC bandwagon and take it from 25 CC States to 28, 29 or even 30.

 

Next year May get us PA, LA, NE, SC, and possibly FL. That would give us 30.

 

The magical number is 34 though, 34 states go CC those 34 could easily push the issue with a constitutional convention and pass another amendment (only takes 34 states to ratify) and poof… we have CC nationwide! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/5/2022 at 4:32 PM, Texasgrillchef said:

NY and Ca will get their butts handed back to them in a year or two when the new cases make it back to them, and it won’t take very long this time around either.

 

SCOTUS and Especially Justice Thomas and Justice Alito don’t take to kindly to when a State thumbs their noses at them, and gives them the ole middle finger in defiance. Trust me, when the new cases make it back to them. You will see their wrath.

 

They wanna think things are bad for them now? Just wait…. They will write a new opinion and or give them a mandate that will give them very little leeway.

 

Who knows, maybe they (SCOTUS) is looking for a really good reason to give the nation constitutional carry. This may just be the camel that breaks the back of gun control. Especially if next year we get 3 or 4 more states to join the CC bandwagon and take it from 25 CC States to 28, 29 or even 30.

 

Next year May get us PA, LA, NE, SC, and possibly FL. That would give us 30.

 

The magical number is 34 though, 34 states go CC those 34 could easily push the issue with a constitutional convention and pass another amendment (only takes 34 states to ratify) and poof… we have CC nationwide! 

Here's what I don't get: Any halfway-decent lawyer should be telling them that this will result in another court case, another loss, and another negative precedent. Lisa Madigan was smart enough not to appeal Moore for precisely this reason.

 

So what's their logic? Are they hoping to cause problems for gun owners just for the sake of it? That would be stupid, since the law would only last a few years (at most) before getting struck down. It would gain them nothing in the end.

 

And it doesn't make sense to try and craft clever workarounds in the hope of staying within the letter of the law. Bruen is surprisingly broad and far-reaching. Do they honestly think that a clever-by-half "compromise" will really survive judicial scrutiny, especially given the precedent that would set?

 

I just don't understand what their lawyers are thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/5/2022 at 4:50 PM, MrTriple said:

Here's what I don't get: Any halfway-decent lawyer should be telling them that this will result in another court case, another loss, and another negative precedent. Lisa Madigan was smart enough not to appeal Moore for precisely this reason.

 

So what's their logic? Are they hoping to cause problems for gun owners just for the sake of it? That would be stupid, since the law would only last a few years (at most) before getting struck down. It would gain them nothing in the end.

 

And it doesn't make sense to try and craft clever workarounds in the hope of staying within the letter of the law. Bruen is surprisingly broad and far-reaching. Do they honestly think that a clever-by-half "compromise" will really survive judicial scrutiny, especially given the precedent that would set?

 

I just don't understand what their lawyers are thinking.


 

I can sum it up in four words.

 

It’s an Election Year.

 

They believe that they can put up a fight and show their constituents that they are trying and the problem is with us conservative republicans. They are hoping this will gain more support and mor voted for them. If they can gain full control, then maybe they can do away with SCOTUS, The constitution, and the filibuster.

 

What they don’t realize is that a cival war will happen before any of that will happen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/6/2022 at 10:07 AM, Texasgrillchef said:

What they don’t realize is that a cival war will happen before any of that will happen

 

Growing up I would have never in 1000 years even imagined a 2nd civil war could be a reality, those odds aginst have dropped like a rock in water these last 5 years!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/2/2022 at 10:44 AM, mikew said:

I think this will cause some (quiet or loud?) outrage among those extra special people who already had NY carry permits.

There is usually a work-around, from the tyrants perspective. Perhaps they would make a two tier license system, both shall issue. The 1st tier, they issue a license that is onerous and useless. This would be issued to the unwashed who would have previously been denied a license. 2nd tier would be for the special types of people who get them now.  Sure, lawsuits would be filed, the government would win at the federal circuit and district levels, and 24 or 36 months later, Certiorari would be asked of the Supremes by the unwashed gun owners. And that's time enough for an assassination of one or  more conservative Justices to succeed, and President Pudding-head to make history again by appointing a progressive of elevated pigmentation or questionable sexual interests to the court.   Certiorari gets denied, and the libs keep their crap law for a number of years.   Sigh.  

 

Or am I being too negative 🤔  ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/12/2022 at 8:00 PM, Howard Roark said:

There is usually a work-around, from the tyrants perspective. Perhaps they would make a two tier license system, both shall issue. The 1st tier, they issue a license that is onerous and useless. This would be issued to the unwashed who would have previously been denied a license. 2nd tier would be for the special types of people who get them now.  Sure, lawsuits would be filed, the government would win at the federal circuit and district levels, and 24 or 36 months later, Certiorari would be asked of the Supremes by the unwashed gun owners. And that's time enough for an assassination of one more conservative Justices to succeed, and President Pudding-head to make history again by appointing a progressive of elevated pigmentation or questionable sexual interests to the court.   Certiorari gets denied, and the libs keep their crap law for a number of years.   Sigh.  

 

Or am I being too negative 🤔  ?

You're being too negative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/12/2022 at 10:09 PM, mikew said:

I think that a few select cases will bubble up to this level, during and after the remands, and get cert.

 

I think as it stands, if the lower courts are not following the precedent, cert will be granted quite fast in multiple cases.  I suspect we might even see an emergency appeal in Supreme Court being accepted sooner than later at this point if the lower courts don't 'get it right'.  I feel the SCOTUS conservative Justices are already quite perturbed that Heller was for the most part ignored by the lower courts, if the lower courts continue on that 'ignore' path, I can see the white glove coming off sooner than later to drive home the reality of their decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/12/2022 at 10:21 PM, Flynn said:

 

I think as it stands, if the lower courts are not following the precedent, cert will be granted quite fast in multiple cases.  I suspect we might even see an emergency appeal in Supreme Court being accepted sooner than later at this point if the lower courts don't 'get it right'.  I feel the SCOTUS conservative Justices are already quite perturbed that Heller was for the most part ignored by the lower courts, if the lower courts continue on that 'ignore' path, I can see the white glove coming off sooner than later to drive home the reality of their decisions.

Didn’t they deny cases after heller and point towards heller only to get a crap decision?
How do you get an emergency appeal if your not with the Government? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/12/2022 at 10:36 PM, mab22 said:

Didn’t they deny cases after heller and point towards heller only to get a crap decision?

 

They did, and that adds more to it, now they have the likely solid majority though, before they really didn't and I don't think either side was willing to roll the dice.

 

Quote

How do you get an emergency appeal if your not with the Government? 

 

Anyone can appeal, generally the SCOTUS would basically ignore most appeals from individuals until you move up the court ladder, but I feel they might not be so fast to ignore appeals if the lower courts don't 'get it'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/12/2022 at 10:36 PM, mab22 said:

Didn’t they deny cases after heller and point towards heller only to get a crap decision?
How do you get an emergency appeal if your not with the Government? 

What might happen instead are explicit orders granting, vacating, and remanding any cases that stray from the Bruen standard. I'm thinking it wouldn't require as much time as a normal cert grant with oral arguments, since a remand order can be shorter (such as the one in Caetano).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/12/2022 at 11:36 PM, mab22 said:

Didn’t they deny cases after heller and point towards heller only to get a crap decision?
...

 

The court wanted to wait for the effect of the Heller (and McDonald) decision to settle down before it started accepting 2A cases again. The idea is that the lower courts should be allowed some time to follow the Supreme Court's lead. The decision in this case was more prescriptive. It should be harder for the lower courts to ignore the prescription.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/12/2022 at 11:08 PM, MrTriple said:

What might happen instead are explicit orders granting, vacating, and remanding any cases that stray from the Bruen standard. I'm thinking it wouldn't require as much time as a normal cert grant with oral arguments, since a remand order can be shorter (such as the one in Caetano).

I'm also thinking that the Supreme Court will be much quicker in GVR'ing any cases that deviate from Bruen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/12/2022 at 11:08 PM, MrTriple said:

What might happen instead are explicit orders granting, vacating, and remanding any cases that stray from the Bruen standard. I'm thinking it wouldn't require as much time as a normal cert grant with oral arguments, since a remand order can be shorter (such as the one in Caetano).

I can see some per curium decisions coming down the pike.   Basically instead of GVR and telling the lower courts to try again, and then end up with the same result.  They just issue a per curium saying you are wrong and here is the right decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/13/2022 at 4:20 AM, RANDY said:

I can see some per curium decisions coming down the pike.   Basically instead of GVR and telling the lower courts to try again, and then end up with the same result.  They just issue a per curium saying you are wrong and here is the right decision.

Yes, that too. Would also be much quicker since they wouldn't have to schedule oral arguments, with all the delay that entails.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/12/2022 at 9:00 PM, Howard Roark said:

There is usually a work-around, from the tyrants perspective. Perhaps they would make a two tier license system, both shall issue. The 1st tier, they issue a license that is onerous and useless. This would be issued to the unwashed who would have previously been denied a license. 2nd tier would be for the special types of people who get them now.  Sure, lawsuits would be filed, the government would win at the federal circuit and district levels, and 24 or 36 months later, Certiorari would be asked of the Supremes by the unwashed gun owners. And that's time enough for an assassination of one or  more conservative Justices to succeed, and President Pudding-head to make history again by appointing a progressive of elevated pigmentation or questionable sexual interests to the court.   Certiorari gets denied, and the libs keep their crap law for a number of years.   Sigh.  

 

Or am I being too negative 🤔  ?

 

Bad news, NY already did that.  New York's terrible and completely unconstitutional law:

See 265.01-e 3 (d),(e),(g),(h),...  They create a class of license holders to whom the ludicrous restrictions do not apply.

 

I hope the courts slap NY down hard for this blatant disregard for SCOTUS decisions they don't like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/13/2022 at 9:55 AM, Xwing said:

 

Bad news, NY already did that.  New York's terrible and completely unconstitutional law:

See 265.01-e 3 (d),(e),(g),(h),...  They create a class of license holders to whom the ludicrous restrictions do not apply.

 

I hope the courts slap NY down hard for this blatant disregard for SCOTUS decisions they don't like.

I think they will. This isn't merely a case of them getting creative with some exception to the rule; this is them blatantly doing what they were explicitly told they cannot.

 

Oh, and apparently the Firearms Policy Coalition already filed a lawsuit against the NY SAFE Act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Molly B. pinned this topic
  • Molly B. unpinned this topic

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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