Landmark 2nd Amendment victory at SCOTUS in NYSRPA Inc. v. Bruen!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Aim1

member
Joined
Oct 24, 2015
Messages
2,310
This is a huge victory. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen.

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether New York’s discretionary gun permit law, which requires an applicant demonstrate “proper cause” to carry a weapon for self-defense purposes, violates the Second Amendment. Robert Nash and Brandon Koch applied for a general concealed carry permit under New York law, but their applications were denied by Richard McNally for lack of proper cause.
This will change a lot of laws.


Thomas Opinion.

Held: New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.



https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1539979772473839620?s=20&t=X9vj0fyMWuwNJPzZEQLctw





https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf



Hopefully the next 2nd Amendment case pertains to so-called "Assault Weapons" AND "High Capacity Magazines" and not just one or the other as the two go hand in hand. When one bans assault weapons they almost always also ban high capacity magazines.




Screenshot_20220623-093644_Twitter.jpg View attachment 1085783
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately, the viewpoint that carry can be restricted in certain locations was upheld. Sure, you can get a permit, but it's only good on private property where you are specificly authorized to carry- your house, your personality owned business, and maybe some other 2A friendly locations. If pursued by anti-gun activists in state/local governments, public property (like parks), public transportation, churches, banks, theaters, most retail locations (like malls and major chain grocery stores) equals forget about it with regards to legal carry. [EDIT TO ADD] It appears that declaration of broad expansive "sensitive" areas was addressed by Thomas, who indicated only specific discrete locations could be named. Obviously open to debate depending on who is doing the defining, but a positive for people who are concerned about EDC being defacto prohibited due to blanketing restrictions. I don't go to the courthouse or government administration buildings with any real frequency, but do cross public property (like parks or walking trails) nearly everyday when in town.
 
Last edited:
But now what happens when people want to actually carry a gun. What hoops are required to actually get a concealed carry license.
Being in Florida it is very simple, I do not know about other States especially NY!

Private business can post no firearms allowed .
 
Private businesses are a different kettle of fish. To my mind, one of the most important elements of this decision is that it affirms the right to carry a firearm: (a) outside the home; (b) for the purpose of self-defense. "The Second Amendment’s plain text thus presumptively guarantees petitioners Koch and Nash a right to “bear” arms in public for self-defense."
 
This part is significant as well, because it drives a stake in the heart of the argument that the 2A only applies to muskets:

Its reference to “arms” does not apply “only [to] those arms in existence in the 18th century.” 554 U. S., at 582. “Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” Ibid. (citations omitted). Thus, even though the Second Amendment’s definition of “arms” is fixed according to its historical understanding, that general definition covers modern instruments that facilitate armed self-defense. Cf. Caetano v. Massachusetts...​

While Heller stated that the 2A protects arms in "common use," this explicitly states that the 2A applies to arms regardless of when they were invented. This will be used to challenge assault weapons bans and magazine capacity restrictions.
 
This should be the end of the ongoing discussion of whether "strict scrutiny" or "intermediate scrutiny" applies to gun rights. No level of scrutiny applies. The analysis should be historical and textual.

The Alito and Kavanaugh/Roberts concurring opinions are concerning. This paragraph from Justice Alito is typical:

That is all we decide. Our holding decides nothing about
who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements
that must be met to buy a gun. Nor does it decide anything
about the kinds of weapons that people may possess. Nor
have we disturbed anything that we said in Heller or
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010), about restrictions
that may be imposed on the possession or carrying of guns.
​
This is not a good omen regarding a possible "assault weapon" or magazine-capacity case. The Court is not there yet.
 
Rule3 said:
But now what happens when people want to actually carry a gun. What hoops are required to actually get a concealed carry license.
Being in Florida it is very simple, I do not know about other States especially NY!

Private business can post no firearms allowed .
Click to expand...

These 6 states will make it as restrictive as possible and test the limits of the court as always.
 
There will have to be a specific weapons type and magazine ban case. Will there have to be court challenges in other candidate states? Not being a lawyer, I don't know. Or does this one invalidate them automatically?

Sensitive places will expand, leaving a gun in the car will be banned, to come up with a crazy quilt to make carry impractical at times.

Being a worry wort, I worry that folks will pick at wording to support restrictions as happened with Heller.
 
The significance of the case is this: "may-issue" states, in principle, are converted to "shall-issue." Pardon me for saying so, but this is not a "tremendous" victory. Let's see how long it takes for gun owners in New York to actually get their carry permits.

Meanwhile, the real issue, which is what types of weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment, is deferred for another day.
 
IANAL, so after reading J. Thomas' opinion, I ask just what does this mean:
"New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."
Does that mean they have not decided this case on Second Amendment merits?
 
dodo bird said:
Agreed very good and celebratory. I still can’t believe the other 3 don’t think your rights are not as important as the politically connected.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
Click to expand...
Infringed because the founders knew what the government would do and has done. Because as citizens we suck. They told us not to trust the government which they learned from history.
 
AlexanderA said:
The Alito and Kavanaugh/Roberts concurring opinions are concerning. This paragraph from Justice Alito is typical:

That is all we decide. Our holding decides nothing about
who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements
that must be met to buy a gun. Nor does it decide anything
about the kinds of weapons that people may possess. Nor
have we disturbed anything that we said in Heller or
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010), about restrictions
that may be imposed on the possession or carrying of guns.
​
This is not a good omen regarding a possible "assault weapon" or magazine-capacity case. The Court is not there yet.
Click to expand...

The who is a BIG who in that statement. Red flag laws will be abused since due process can be trampled. What you write online and where you go online will be used against you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
If SCOTUS rules positively in NYSRPA Inc. v. Bruen how far away are we from Constitutional Carry?
2 3
Replies
54
Views
2K
Spats McGee
Spats McGee
F-111 John
  • Locked
Supreme Court Issues Final Ruling: NYSRPA v. Bruen
2 3 4 5
Replies
118
Views
6K
LiveLife
LiveLife
LiveLife
Antonyuk v. Nigrelli - Supreme Court Will Rule On States Defying Its NYSRPA v. Bruen Decision
2 3
Replies
56
Views
6K
jstert
jstert
A
  • Locked
What happens to a Constitutional Carry case at SCOTUS after today's ruling in NYSRPA Inc. v. Bruen?
Replies
6
Views
475
F-111 John
F-111 John
A
  • Locked
SCOTUS accepts first major 2nd Amendment Gun case in over a decade - NY State Rifle & PA v. Corlett
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Replies
187
Views
11K
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
Back
Top