Supreme Court Issues Final Ruling: NYSRPA v. Bruen

Status
Not open for further replies.
Spats McGee said:
I expect that The Usual Suspect States (NY, CT, IL, CA, etc.) will create "objective" standards for issuing licenses, but those standards will be so stringent as to put them out of reach for a lot of people.
Click to expand...

I don't think the Illinois politicians have much appetite for another 2nd Amendment fight. They know that its a losing battle and they're content to let sleeping dogs lie.

It is also interesting to see that much of what Judge Posner said in Moore v. Madigan shows up in the majority opinion of NY State Rifle & Pistol Association v Bruen. The Moore v. Madigan ruling threw out the provision of the Illinois Unlawful Use of a Weapon law which made it illegal to have a firearm on your person ouside of your home or personally owned business. The ruling in Moore v. Madigan gave rise to the Illinois Firearm Concealed Carry Act which is a shall-issue law. There was much debate at the time from the most rabid gun-grabbers that Illinois should enact a may-issue law, but the majority of the Democrats saw the writing on the wall and didn't think a may-issue law would withstand scrutiny for long (and they were right :) )

I believe that the Illinois carry law is unconstitutional based on the14th Amendment, and I think it will be challenged. The Illinois Firearm Concealed Carry Act prohibits people from carrying on public transportation, but crime statistics show that public transportation is extremely dangerous. People using the CTA in Chicago have more of a need for a firearm for self-defense than people just walking down the street. People just walking on the sidewalk, driving their car or riding a bike are able to exercise their Second Amendment rights, but people who utilize the CTA are not able to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

That seems like unequal protection under the law to me...
 
Highland Ranger said:
NJ dropped justifiable need today - https://www.nj.gov/oag/dcj/agguide/directives/ag-Directive-2022-07_Directive Clarifying Requirements For Carrying Of Firearms In Public.pdf
Click to expand...
When I purchased a firearm, I didn't want family or friends knowing about it. Most my family and people are antigun. Other than that, what if a person is a loner or an introvert who has not known anyone well enough for 3 years who are willing to go through the process for them? I can not see how their "three references clause" would past a constitutionality test.

Other than that, I guess it's better than what they had before. Rome wasn't built in a day. We are headed in the right direction.
 
Styx said:
Well to that I'd say that Heller clearly says in plan English that weapons in common use are protected by 2A from being banned, yet over 10 years after Heller, the most popular sporting rifles (assault weapons) are still banned. Other states have recently banned them and/or standard capacity magazines. Seems like they found a way around Heller just fine.
Click to expand...
The deal with Heller and McDonald is that those cases were heard in a pre-Bruen world. SCOTUS (thanks to Justice Thomas) has ruled that the two step scrutiny approach is no longer valid and that all 2A cases going forward must meet a text, history, and tradition approach. With this change, all the lower courts must follow and I see no reason why they will not as there is nothing in the text or history of the US to say that certain rifles or magazines are subject to restriction.

I even see large parts of the NFA being struck down, especially state based bans on NFA items, which most of the formerly May Issue carry states were banning.

What I'm not sure about is Machine Guns and the Hughes Amendment. I get the feeling that given MG's weren't in common use at the time of the NFA, nor are today, that they will remain subject to NFA requirements Ad Infinitum. Hughes, however, clearly has no legal rationale and I see it being struck down in the future.
 
C0untZer0 said:
I don't think the Illinois politicians have much appetite for another 2nd Amendment fight. They know that its a losing battle and they're content to let sleeping dogs lie.....
Click to expand...
You're clearly more up-to-speed on IL politics than I am, so I'll defer to you on that.
 
wcwhitey said:
Just to give you some background, I was a Supervisor of a Manhattan Detective Squad when I retired. Not only do I know the city I know a bit about the laws. I also am fairly well versed in the NYPD’s Pistol Licensing process execution.....The system was always designed to discourage applications. It’s a throw back to Tammany Hall when those in power would only allow those with power to legally be armed.....
Click to expand...
Thank you for that post. It's nice to get some clarification from someone familiar with the particular system we're discussing here.
 
Unfortunately here in NY state I’m afraid that in the end we won’t be able to legally cc anywhere. Our state leaders will lash out with a flurry of legislation to limit law abiding folk. It would be nice for once to see them go after criminal behavior with such vigor. Never seen such disdain for working class,law abiding people from both the federal and state level in my short 62 years….
 
Highland Ranger said:
NJ dropped justifiable need today - https://www.nj.gov/oag/dcj/agguide/directives/ag-Directive-2022-07_Directive Clarifying Requirements For Carrying Of Firearms In Public.pdf
Click to expand...

I lived in NJ for over 30 years. I bought my first handguns there, some of which would no longer be permissible with their factory standard magazines (15 rounds). I hoped but never expected the may issue regime to fall, yet here we are. Congratulations to NJ residents and those in the other states where 'may issue' always meant 'forgeddaboutit'.
 
mnash50259 said:
Unfortunately here in NY state I’m afraid that in the end we won’t be able to legally cc anywhere. Our state leaders will lash out with a flurry of legislation to limit law abiding folk. It would be nice for once to see them go after criminal behavior with such vigor. Never seen such disdain for working class,law abiding people from both the federal and state level in my short 62 years….
Click to expand...

That might be true. The most risk will come if private, everyday businesses (the market, offices, etc.) can ban with the force of law and car storage forbidden. Thus, most of my journeys out of the house will not allow carry. Private property bans for business locales open to the public are a terrible, practical risk if the commercial culture adopts them. TX - it was mixed as to signage. Concealed not so much, OC more signage. Don't know about constitutional as not there anymore.

NYS culture might produce more ban signs. The MUH PROPERTY RIGHTZ argument will destroy practical carry. Businesses accept all kinds of government rules but folks get hair on fire about being told to allow carry. Never understood that. TOPS might ban carry because a nut came in with an AR - make sense?
 
mnash50259 said:
Our state leaders will lash out with a flurry of legislation to limit law abiding folk. It would be nice for once to see them go after criminal behavior with such vigor. Never seen such disdain for working class,law abiding people from both the federal and state level in my short 62 years….
Click to expand...

You and millions of other New Yorkers can take this opportunity to express these sentiments to your legislators. It is amazing how flexible legislators' minds are when their constituents express their opinions en masse.
 
luzyfuerza said:
You and millions of other New Yorkers can take this opportunity to express these sentiments to your legislators. It is amazing how flexible legislators' minds are when their constituents express their opinions en masse.
Click to expand...
The thing is the majority are antigun as is the Democrat party. If a budding Democrat politician wants to move up in their career, supporting gun control is political suicide much in the same way as supporting gun control would be in a strong red state. Not to mention that all the campaign money they will be missing out from via Bloomberg, other million and billionaires, and antigun corporations.
 
GEM said:
NYS culture might produce more ban signs. The MUH PROPERTY RIGHTZ argument will destroy practical carry.
Click to expand...

A response to these folks are to furnish them with a "No Guns/No Money" card, then let everyone know that the business does not support personal safety rights, and (if correct) that the business does not furnish adequate safety to on-site customers. Social media would seem to be a prefect method to do so.

When the Cody Museum of the West installed "no firearms" signs they receive much negative feed back, and the signs disappeared (haven't been there for 15+ years, so I don't know if the signs returned).
 
I am not lawyer, but at Svengoolie movie night they do list what actors in that nights movie also also appeared on Perry Mason.

Seriously tho' I need to download the ruling from Volokh Conspiracy and read it. [Nevermind, the link is in the opening post. My duh.]
 
Last edited:
Spats McGee said:
I'm reading it now and my first impression is this: This is big.
Click to expand...

Yes this is big. I remember following Peruta v San Diego. What a dissapointment it was.

Judge William Fletcher, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit:

Peruta v San Diego

Based on the overwhelming consensus of historical sources, we conclude that the protection of the Second Amendment — whatever the scope of that protection may be — simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public.
Click to expand...

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2016/06/09/10-56971 6-9 EB opinion plus webcites.pdf


Justice Thomas, Supreme Court of The United States

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc,. et al. v Bruen, Superintendant of New York State Police, et al.
To confine the right to “bear” arms to the home would nullify half of the Second Amendment’s operative protections. The Second Amendment’s plain text thus presumptively guarantees petitioners Koch and Nash a right to “bear” arms in public for self-defense.
Click to expand...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
 
Last edited:
C0untZer0 said:
I don't think the Illinois politicians have much appetite for another 2nd Amendment fight. They know that its a losing battle and they're content to let sleeping dogs lie.

It is also interesting to see that much of what Judge Posner said in Moore v. Madigan shows up in the majority opinion of NY State Rifle & Pistol Association v Bruen. The Moore v. Madigan ruling threw out the provision of the Illinois Unlawful Use of a Weapon law which made it illegal to have a firearm on your person ouside of your home or personally owned business. The ruling in Moore v. Madigan gave rise to the Illinois Firearm Concealed Carry Act which is a shall-issue law. There was much debate at the time from the most rabid gun-grabbers that Illinois should enact a may-issue law, but the majority of the Democrats saw the writing on the wall and didn't think a may-issue law would withstand scrutiny for long (and they were right :) )

I believe that the Illinois carry law is unconstitutional based on the14th Amendment, and I think it will be challenged. The Illinois Firearm Concealed Carry Act prohibits people from carrying on public transportation, but crime statistics show that public transportation is extremely dangerous. People using the CTA in Chicago have more of a need for a firearm for self-defense than people just walking down the street. People just walking on the sidewalk, driving their car or riding a bike are able to exercise their Second Amendment rights, but people who utilize the CTA are not able to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

That seems like unequal protection under the law to me...
Click to expand...
And since permitless carry proves that lawabiding people don't willy nilly shoot their weapons that banning them from carrying on public transit is just more bs. Criminals are already doing it.
 
Sooooo when to apply in NJ? I have non resident Florida,Utah and New Hampshire.Took a class to qualify for Fla and Ut. Is that or will it be enough "training"
 
I'm hoping this ruling helps clear up the muddiness that is the process here in CT. While technically we're a shall-issue state, each town has the authority to add requirements to the process that can cause indefinite delays. Some towns have a requirement to "interview" with the CoP or resident state trooper, which is basically where they explain their stance from an LE perspective, but they are basically shall-issue; and other towns require you to obtain 3 character references from people unrelated to you before they even consider your application. My hope is that it all goes the way of the dinosaur.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Landmark 2nd Amendment victory at SCOTUS in NYSRPA Inc. v. Bruen!!!
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
165
Views
7K
Insignificant bill
Insignificant bill
Sebastian the Ibis
  • Locked
Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association Responsible For ATF pulling SS109 Comments??
Replies
4
Views
1K
barnbwt
barnbwt
LiveLife
Antonyuk v. Nigrelli - Supreme Court Will Rule On States Defying Its NYSRPA v. Bruen Decision
2 3
Replies
56
Views
6K
jstert
jstert
Gary Slider
  • Locked
New Jersey and California Updates
Replies
0
Views
312
Gary Slider
Gary Slider
Q
  • Locked
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on Baker v Kealoha (Hawaii)
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
pendennis
P
Back
Top