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

MEHavey said:

Only after sued... and even then they will passively-aggressively ignore/find other ways to hinder and refute all attempts to loosen up.
It's in their deep sate blood for generations.

How's Heller working out in DC for the past 14 years ? (he asks)

Click to expand...

they are also backed by Billions of Bloomburg $$$$ pet project money. But a win is a win for our rights and let it be set in stone. The 2nd Amendment is to insure government keeps their hand off our rights to Keep & Bear Arms!

What recourse does the judiciary have if a public entity does not implement an order from them at this level?

The reality is that very few court rulings are "iron clad" in the sense that they cannot be opposed through a variety of means.

And this one gives proof of exactly that. Nor should any of us have expected any different.

What it HAS done, however, is give us another very powerful tool with which to defend our RKBA. Yes, the opposition WILL challenge our RKBA, because that's what they do. But our tool box of defenses now includes a tool we didn't have before and we should avail ourselves of this tool whenever the need arises. It will perform some things other tools cannot, and it will perform some things better than what we've been using before.

RetiredUSNChief said:

But our tool box of defenses now includes a tool we didn't have before

Click to expand...

As I read it over, it seems like this ruling provides more than a few new tools for our tool bag. The utter destruction of the two step framework for assessing the constitutionality of a gun law seems like a very powerful tool. I'm reading the decision now and I think this was a nuclear bomb dropped on the gun grabbers. It reinforced Heller and McDonald and I think it provides powerful ammunition to use against an "assault weapon" ban by way of the reinforcement of the "in common use at the time" principle and the destruction of the two step framework. Was the Henry repeating rifle not a highly effective and efficient "weapon of war" during the civil war? Yes, it was. Was it in common use at the time? Absolutely. And were there many/any laws that banned ownership of this firearm? No, there were not. And so that's the end of the argument since intermediate and strict scrutiny are not applicable. A complete ban on box magazine fed semi-automatic firearms that are in common use today is unconstitutional. I think we'll be pouring over the words contained in this ruling for decades much like Heller and the gun grabbers have very good reason to be "deeply disappointed".

Begin Realpolitik Analysis

I don't view this as much of a victory at all. Once again, the court has made a narrow ruling on a technicality that does very little to nothing to expand gun rights. All this does is prohibit may issue states. May issue states will not become shall issue states, they will become (at least de facto) no issue states once more.
And that is assuming that they bother to follow the ruling, which they likely will not. As we have seen time and again, court rulings mean nothing without the force of other branches of government, and if the fed does not force the states to follow a law they are happy to just ignore it.
Without a strong federal executive that is friendly to the 2A, I don't see this changing anything.

unclenunzie said:

But after orders to comply come from a federal judge, kicking and screaming, they will follow the law.

Click to expand...

Tricky part of this, is that the original Court Dismissed the case for Cause; followed by the Appeals Court, which also Dismissed.

There's nothing to "order" in the ordinary sense of it.

The District Court will have to hear the case and rule on its merits. Now, the District Court might not award Injunctive Relief, but could simply issue Permits to the Class and call it "Even."

Now, because SCOTUS was pretty clear on the matter, that would force yet another expensive Appeal. This case dates back to like 2007, NYS can be a stick-in-the-mud if it suits them.

lilguy said:

What recourse does the judiciary have if a public entity does not implement an order from them at this level?

Click to expand...

None. It's happened before. President Jackson said "They made the ruling, let them come enforce it"...when SCOTUS ruled it was illegal forcing the Cherokee on the trail of tears....

It's a good example in a couple ways...it's shows leaders can, will, and have, ignored the rule of law, the Checks and balances, and do whatever they please.

Also shows government simply doesn't give a cow pattie about certain groups of people if they are not on the majority or political favorites.

They just overturned Roe V Wade...while I think they got this one way wrong...it doesn't really effect me in my life...but except massive violence and all the Brown shirts the Dems have waiting in the wings to spring into action.

Keep your powder dry...here it comes!

brewer12345 said:

The left wants to ignore the rule of law? As the meme says, "your terms are acceptable."

Click to expand...

I find it interesting that Those that scream " democracy is in danger" are the ones actually working against democracy

BlueHeelerFl said:

I find it interesting that Those that scream " democracy is in danger" are the ones actually working against democracy

Click to expand...

It's called Machiavellian politics.

Part of that philosophy is accusing your political opponents of doing the very things you, yourself are doing.

The Dems/Socialists/commies are getting ever adept at it.

Pick just about any issue...they are using this tactic.

Threat to Democracy (setting aside the fact that the USA is NOT a Democracy, its a Republic)...but they never give details how the GOP and SCOTUS are a threat...if they did, they would expose themselves.

Will Munny said:

Begin Realpolitik Analysis

I don't view this as much of a victory at all. Once again, the court has made a narrow ruling on a technicality that does very little to nothing to expand gun rights. All this does is prohibit may issue states. May issue states will not become shall issue states, they will become (at least de facto) no issue states once more.
And that is assuming that they bother to follow the ruling, which they likely will not. As we have seen time and again, court rulings mean nothing without the force of other branches of government, and if the fed does not force the states to follow a law they are happy to just ignore it.
Without a strong federal executive that is friendly to the 2A, I don't see this changing anything.

Click to expand...

Did you even read the opinion?

The decision recognizes the right to carry a firearms for self defense outside the home. The right is not contingent on the existence of a permitting system. If a state refuses to issue permits it essentially makes non-permitted carry legal.

I expect the states with may-issue permitting systems to slow-roll compliance. They will need to be forced into compliance through further litigation. That may include Section 1983 suits for deprivation of civil rights under color of law.

Dave Markowitz said:

Will Munny said:

I don't view this as much of a victory at all.

Click to expand...

Did you even read the opinion?

Click to expand...

Sometimes that helps.

BTW, here's a breakdown by an attorney of this landmark Supreme Court ruling - https://rumble.com/v19mf7s-supreme-...ecision-changes-everything-nysrpa-v.-bru.html

• Huge win for Second Amendment
• Case ruling will influence other 2A cases
• "Two-step" approach struck down and all the cases by different states are now open to challenge (Two-step approach first looks at constitutional text and history to see whether a regulation comes under the 2A and then, if it does, looks at the government’s justification for the restriction)
• Burden now falls on the states to prove why "shall issue" needs to be limited
• NY's license scheme is unconstitutional ... NY's proper cause requirement violates the 14th Amendment of "ordinary" citizens' RKBA in public for self-defense
• Consistent with Heller and McDonald, Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect individual's right to carry handguns outside of home
• 6 "may issue" states lack the historic context to justify "proper cause" and court found them unconstitutional
• Justice Thomas concluded constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not a "second class right" ... First Amendment does not work like this for freedom of speech/religion nor the Sixth Amendment
• NY's claim of "sensitive places" lacks merit just because a place is crowded and protected by police department and court rejected NY's argument for "sensitive places" of 50 or more people as court found no historic basis
• "May issue" not allowed moving forward
• Case ruling will affect other 2A/gun rights cases moving forward
• Happy birthday justice Thomas! (June 23rd )

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...r-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-5#post-12334414

Plan2Live said:

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.

Click to expand...

Guns for me but not for thee.

Were my iPhone and telegraph system part of the Founding Fathers' First Amendment? well....I didn't think so.

I will Trade my guns for a pair of muskets after I first watch everybody out there learn how to use & Depend on the use of smoke signals ,
but they had the Morse Code in 1776 also ?

In 2920 the spike in anxiety produced Lots of new gun owners among people of Both main Parties.

This is what helped to throw a wrench into their plans to exploit every little spilled drop (!) of ..... " Innocent.........Ballistol. "------------ Is this too subtle ?

Supreme Court of the United States of America justices should have as much security detail as the President. Yes, they are that important

Dave Markowitz said:

Did you even read the opinion?

The decision recognizes the right to carry a firearms for self defense outside the home. The right is not contingent on the existence of a permitting system. If a state refuses to issue permits it essentially makes non-permitted carry legal.

I expect the states with may-issue permitting systems to slow-roll compliance. They will need to be forced into compliance through further litigation. That may include Section 1983 suits for deprivation of civil rights under color of law.

Click to expand...

It will not make non permitted carry legal. Rest assured the states in question will impose restrictions that make carry illegal in practice, which is the world we actually live in, not a theoretical one. The court merely saying that you have a right to carry outside the home is not going to do anything. The decision was also clear that restrictions on place were fine. So that will include virtually any kind of business or building except your home, as well as the transportation network that most people use to get places (the subway and the thruway). So you can carry down your street, but to go anywhere in a practical sense will be illegal.

And mind you that is if the states even bother to follow the ruling, if they choose not to nothing will happen.

DTL said:

We in NJ and those in the other four states named by Justice Thomas ( CA, MD, HI, MA,) and DC stand to gain the most from this decision. They outright deny us of the right to carry for self-defense in places no law enforcement agency could ever cover well enough to do anything more than respond too late and do too little to ensure that safety.

Click to expand...

Agreed. The NJ AG issued guidance today essentially dropping the justifiable need requirement. We've rejoined the USA! Ref -> https://www.nj.gov/oag/dcj/agguide/...ements For Carrying Of Firearms In Public.pdf

Not sure if I should reach out to one of the ANJRPC attorneys for guidance or just go down to the police station Monday and get the forms to submit before they pass the next round of laws with onerous shall issue requirements.

Good things are already beginning to happen in response to Bruen. Rejoice, gentlemen, rejoice.

I’m curious what the most restrictive states will soon require just to qualify for and then Have a Carry Permit.

It’s difficult to imagine that in NYC, CA etc it will be anything similar to TN, TX etc.

Ignition Override said:

I’m curious what the most restrictive states will soon require just to qualify for and then Have a Carry Permit.

It’s difficult to imagine that in NYC, CA etc it will be anything similar to TN, TX etc.

Click to expand...

Probably more like Illinois with an expensive permit, expensive training, no reciprocity, and a long list of places you can't carry which makes it pretty useless in urban areas or when using mass transit. But still shall issue.

ilbob said:

Probably more like Illinois with an expensive permit, expensive training, no reciprocity, and a long list of places you can't carry which makes it pretty useless in urban areas or when using mass transit. But still shall issue.

Click to expand...

Yet the SCOTUS specifically said, don't do that; I don't think so especially in light of PRNJ & PRCA AG's issuing the new guidance letters in post #93.

Other words, not a good time to be the oddball.

Aim1 said:

Doesn't it raise the bar of scrutiny for future cases and finally states that 2nd Amendment protects the right to carry guns outside the home for the 1st time?

Click to expand...

Yes and Yes.
If you don't think those two things alone represent a great victory, you don't understand what really happened.

DoubleMag said:

Yet the SCOTUS specifically said, don't do that; I don't think so especially in light of PRNJ & PRCA AG's issuing the new guidance letters in post #93.

Other words, not a good time to be the oddball.

Click to expand...

It's not like they have all that much choice in the matter. I expect that there will be a quick legislative session in the restrictive states to limit where guns can be carried. Although you never really know because most of those states the people who have licenses have a lot of clout and they may not like being restricted where they can carry. Or inertia might win out and nothing changes.

Although this ruling sounds good. Its mainly a feel good story for states already living by this ruling. For states with the more draconian views on this matter, I think its probably going to ratchet up the even MORE draconian rules.

ilbob said:

It's not like they have all that much choice in the matter. I expect that there will be a quick legislative session in the restrictive states to limit where guns can be carried. Although you never really know because most of those states the people who have licenses have a lot of clout and they may not like being restricted where they can carry. Or inertia might win out and nothing changes.

Click to expand...

Let them pass their silly prohibitions then. Let me know when they put metal detectors at every subway entrance. Gun owners will adapt and overcome as we always do. This was a major victory. Short of openly defying the SCOTUS, any action they take will be insufficient to deter our progress in the coming years. if this was a war, this would be a turning point.