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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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?


Interesting question.


Also, Thomas didn't say strict scrutiny must apply to the 2nd Amendment either so I don't know where that stands, although strict scrutiny may have been in the Heller decision.
 
14th - Priviledges and Immunities. I recall this should heavily fortify the legal position of the right as now clarified by Scotus. Details are beyond my knowledge and very limited lay education.

Excerpt only:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
 
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- you 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.
Quite true, but this is already the situation in every state with CCW. There are always a plethora of locations where carry is forbidden.

I offered the local library the use of a sign I made. It said:

"No need to carry your guns in here, guys. Our staff is armed to the teeth."

The declined.
 
Does that mean they have not decided this case on Second Amendment merits?
The case was not brought on its 2nd Amendment "merits."
NYS asserted that it was upholding the 2nd, and merely applying conditions For The Public Good. Something long held to be legitimate "restraints" on various Amendments.

The case hinged on the fact that the law represented a denial of rights in a way that violated the 14th Amendment.
 
Quite true, but this is already the situation in every state with CCW. There are always a plethora of locations where carry is forbidden.

I offered the local library the use of a sign I made. It said:

"No need to carry your guns in here, guys. Our staff is armed to the teeth."

The declined.

Until recently in CO, that list of legally off-limits locations was very short.
 
I'm happy with the ruling.

I don't believe in zero restrictions on civilian ownership of firearms and I don't believe in a total ban on civilian ownership of firearms. For the most part (repeat, most part) I believe we are somewhere in the middle of those two extremes and I am comfortable with that middle position.
 
About red flag laws, if they are going to be overused in a trivial fashion, expect billboards and TV commercials from law firms offering defense. We have those all over for car crashes, slips and falls and DUIs. I know it is fear that we will have thousands of red flag reports to try to ban guns but that takes folks to make the complaint. We will see if that is a real threat. Civil rights legislation against frivolous car stops is out there, expect the same if Red Flag laws reach the level of minority harassment.
 
The case was not brought on its 2nd Amendment "merits."
NYS asserted that it was upholding the 2nd, and merely applying conditions For The Public Good. Something long held to be legitimate "restraints" on various Amendments.

The case hinged on the fact that the law represented a denial of rights in a way that violated the 14th Amendment.
But:
Petitioners then sued respondents—state officials who oversee the processing of licensing applications—for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that respondents violated their Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights by denying their unrestricted-license applications for failure to demonstrate a unique need for self-defense.[/quote/
 
Gov. says they are going to have a special session with new legislation to try to control this horror for them. Ignoring straight out doesn't seem an option. Restrictions based on training, sensitive places are probably going to be in place.
 
It will be most interesting to see what occurs when the first case alleging a violation of civil rights is brought. Violations can be both criminal and civil and persons so doing bear personal responsibility as well as fiscal liability............that application of the 14th as well ought to make for an interesting legal soup. See: Ch 1983/1984, U.S.C.
 
Last edited:
We as gun-owners and RKBA advocates are collectively a bunch of cynical curmudgeons.

Can't even savor a big Supreme Court ruling win before the predictions start...

Some don't seem to understand that it's actually what this ruling means for the future of RKBA nationwide rather than the short-term effects on concealed carry regulations in New York state.
 
We as gun-owners and RKBA advocates are collectively a bunch of cynical curmudgeons.

Can't even savor a big Supreme Court ruling win before the predictions start...

Some don't seem to understand that it's actually what this ruling means for the future of RKBA nationwide rather than the short-term effects on concealed carry regulations in New York state.

We gun owners have a long basis for being curmudgeonry. My concern isn't New York- it's how the ruling will impact the VERY ACTIVE local municipality anti-gun movement here in CO.
 
To be honest, it only changes one thing. I no longer have to justify need. Many will still have to wait as I did for 18 months to get their license. Yes their appeared to be provision for this in the ruling, but the slow walk to the court will insure a fix many months and dollars down the road. In the mean time, all sorts of other road blocks will be thrown up.
 
DC v Heller, page 8

In the formal language of a Supreme Court decision, saying that an argument borders on the frivolous is a polite way of saying it's idiotic. Which it was.
This was even more explicit.
It's more than saying something is idiotic. When a judge tells the lawyers that their arguments 'border on frivolous,' it's a warning. From the American Bar Ass'n's Model Rules of Professional Conduct;
A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. A lawyer for the defendant in a criminal proceeding, or the respondent in a proceeding that could result in incarceration, may nevertheless so defend the proceeding as to require that every element of the case be established.
In practicing law, frivolous arguments get you sanctioned.

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?
It means that they decided it on 2A and 14A grounds. Apologies, but while I have all of this legal stuff rolling around in my head, I don't have time to give a clearer explanation than that right now.
 
Well since Constitutional carry works just fine their should be no arguments about guns. The attention should be where it belongs on actually punishing those who commit crimes with a gun. As well as working on mental health issues without RedFlag laws.
 
Well, "we" see everything in its 2nd context.

The NYS law, from their perspective, did not prevent the right to keep and bear--you just needed a "good cause."

The requirement to justify access to a Right violates the 14th most clearly of all the parts of the Constitution. And, thus, that's how the Court viewed it.

What may be more important is that, in focusing on the 14th, that confers a nation-wide application of the opinion. Which ought wrap up the pending "show good cause" cases in MD & NJ. But, that Assenting Opinion is very troubling.
 
I did find this rather interesting:
Nor does any party dispute that handguns are weapons “in common use” today for self-defense. See id., at 627; see also Caetano, 577 U. S., at 411–412. We therefore turn to whether the plain text of the Second Amendment protects Koch’s and Nash’s proposed course of conduct—carrying handguns publicly for self-defense. We have little difficulty concluding that it does. Respondents do not dispute this. See Brief for Respondents 19. Nor could they. Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms.
 
It's more than saying something is idiotic. When a judge tells the lawyers that their arguments 'border on frivolous,' it's a warning. From the American Bar Ass'n's Model Rules of Professional Conduct;

In practicing law, frivolous arguments get you sanctioned.


It means that they decided it on 2A and 14A grounds. Apologies, but while I have all of this legal stuff rolling around in my head, I don't have time to give a clearer explanation than that right now.

Agreed. I was admitted to the bar in 1996. ;) (Retired my license in 2012, though.)

Unfortunately, lower courts and legislatures have been ignoring the language in Heller. IMO it's a reason why Thomas spelled it out so explicitly for their benefit. IOW, it's the, "And we really <bleeping> mean it" part of the decision.
 
The Supreme Court rules for the 2nd Amendment only due to the fact that NY law requires the permit applicant to show proper cause that he should carry a gun. I believe a State can still enact the other requirements to bar some people from carrying a gun. And I totally agree with that, some people should be not allowed to carry. Also I am glad that the Supreme Court stand firm to the words of the Constitution, not swayed by recent mass shooting incidents.
 
14th - Privileges and Immunities. I recall this should heavily fortify the legal position of the right as now clarified by Scotus. Details are beyond my knowledge and very limited lay education.
The 14th Amendment is the way by which the various articles of the Bill of Rights, which originally applied to the federal government only, have gradually been "incorporated" so as to apply to the states. McDonald v. Chicago is the case that did this regarding the 2nd Amendment. In McDonald, Justice Thomas, while concurring in the result, would have based that on the "Privileges and Immunities" clause of the 14th. He was the only one to do so. The other Justices relied on "Substantive Due Process" under the 14th. "Privileges and Immunities" is a much stronger basis for gun rights. Interesting that Thomas should now be the one to write the Bruen opinion.
 
I was hoping in Bruen that Thomas would revive the P&I Clause, overturn the Slaughterhouse Cases, and get rid of the oxymoronic concept of substantive due process. I'm sure he didn't have enough votes to do so, however.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top