Links to Post NYSRPA v Bruen Court Rulings

[Molly B.]

So this was a federal district judge denying a motion for  preliminary injunction, correct? I believe this will be appealed.

[Euler]

On 3/27/2023 at 9:22 PM, Molly B. said:

So this was a federal district judge denying a motion for  preliminary injunction, correct? I believe this will be appealed.

 

Correct, the decision is only a denial of a preliminary injunction. The case itself has not been heard.

[Evil Porkchop]

On 3/27/2023 at 8:04 PM, Evil Porkchop said:

At some point SCOTUS just needs to say that any law banning, firearms, accessories, parts etc are unconstitutional, period, end of story. These lower courts, twisting themselves all sorts of ways to try and ignore Brown.

Err Bruen... Stupid autocorrect.

[springfield shooter]

On 3/27/2023 at 8:27 PM, Euler said:

 

Correct, the decision is only a denial of a preliminary injunction. The case itself has not been heard.

 

"Thanks", to you and Molly both.

[jcable2]

The judge still believes they can use interest balancing. Judges like this really need to be removed from the bench. They cannot even follow simple clear instructions from the supreme Court. 

[fenris]

On 3/27/2023 at 7:13 PM, gunuser17 said:

Delaware District Court Ruling today:

 

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6644/attachments/original/1679952127/DSSA_v_DSHS_58_Opinion.pdf?1679952127

 

Appears to be a garbage decision that ignores the clear test of Heller, Bruen and much more.  The 2nd amendment is not limited to self defense and in common use is sort of opposite of unusual.

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 3/28/2023 at 8:50 PM, fenris said:

Appears to be a garbage decision that ignores the clear test of Heller, Bruen and much more.  The 2nd amendment is not limited to self defense and in common use is sort of opposite of unusual.

 

On 3/27/2023 at 10:36 PM, jcable2 said:

The judge still believes they can use interest balancing. Judges like this really need to be removed from the bench. They cannot even follow simple clear instructions from the supreme Court. 

 

It is the twisted logic they are using to get around the clear wording of Bruen.  

 

In California they tried coming up with historic analogs, and all they submitted were racist laws.  California used them with the caveat that they don't endorse the racist laws, but they are there and were enforced at the time.  They must have figured out that wasn't going to work. 

 

So they have come up with this twisted interpretation of Bruen + Heller.  That is the historic analogs demanded by the Bruen test are not about the laws in 1791, they are about the guns in common use in 1791. So since semi-autos weren't in common use in 1791 they aren't covered by Bruen.  The Delaware judge seemed to add an additional provision to this, and ruled something to the effect of... even if Bruen applied to semi-autos, there are more modern laws that do regulate semi-autos - and the more modern laws should also be considered historic.  And so, since Bruen doesn't apply, they can interest balance.  

[John Q Public]

The SC will tire of this crap and it will cost them in the long run. I think they might have let some smaller things slide, but ignoring, or willful violation of points made clear are going to put them in a foul mood when it comes to dealing with future cases. 

 

These political jurists/attorneys have made a huge mistake with this approach.

 

 

 

JQ

Edited March 29, 2023 at 09:43 PM by John Q Public

[Flynn]

On 3/29/2023 at 4:24 PM, John Q Public said:

I think the SC will tire of this crap and it will cost them in the long run. I think they might have let some smaller things slide, but ignoring, or willful violation of points made clear are going to put them in a foul mood when it comes to dealing with future cases. 

 

I think, political jurists/attorneys have made a huge mistake with this approach.

 

I believe you are correct, Bruen was the white glove slap for ignoring Heller and putting the inferior courts on notice, I can't see the Supreme Court continuing to entertain inferior courts flat out defying them for much longer.

[steveTA84]

“Bidet” appointed judge strikes down MN under 21 carry ban 

 

[Euler]

On 3/31/2023 at 12:46 PM, steveTA84 said:

“Bidet” appointed judge strikes down MN under 21 carry ban 

BREAKING: Worth v. Harrington (D. MN): Judge strikes down Minnesota's under-21 carry ban, saying the state failed to show that it "is consistent with the nation’s history and tradition of firearm regulations as required by Bruen." https://t.co/fqzRt38Z2q pic.twitter.com/6dyY6v3j3W

— Rob Romano (@2Aupdates) March 31, 2023

 

The case is Worth v Harrington. Minnesota is in the 8^th US Circuit.

[Molly B.]

Added: Minnesota U.S. District Court - Worth v. Harrington struck down a state restriction limiting handgun carry permits to those over age 21

[Molly B.]

Added: Third Judicial Circuit Court, Madison Co., IL - Davis v Yenchko - Judge Donald Foster ruled suspending FOID cards for persons charged but not convicted of a felony is unconstitutional. Enjoins ISP from suspending FOID cards for person charged with a felony but not convicted. 3/10/2023.

 

I expect this to case to be appealed by the state.

[Molly B.]

Another U.S. District Court - this time in Virginia - A federal judge Robert Payne has struck down a law barring the sale of handguns to adults under the age of 21 as unconstitutional. - John Corey Fraser, 20, along with several other plaintiffs, challenged the constitutionality of the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the associated regulations from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. . . .5/10/2023