Supreme Court Issues Final Ruling: NYSRPA v. Bruen

Status
Not open for further replies.
With the historical record of privateers owning cannons, and wealthy patrons buying machine guns to equip their town's expeditionary force traveling to Cuba, I don't think that there is anything "dangerous and unusual" about an AR. As to "unprecedented societal concerns," the FBI has designated 61 incidents as "mass shootings," hardly an unprecedented societal concern when compared to the estimated 100,000 deaths each year due to medical malpractice.
 
We saw terrible rulings in Woollard v. Gallagher, Kwong v. Bloomberg and Kachalsky v. Cacace.

Activist outcome-based judges are always going to find ways to undermine the Second Amendment. The difference now though is that the Supreme Court will no longer be denying the Petition for a writ of certiorari. Going forward, bad rulings by the circuit courts will now be heard and overturned by the Supreme Court justices.
 
We saw terrible rulings in Woollard v. Gallagher, Kwong v. Bloomberg and Kachalsky v. Cacace.

Activist outcome-based judges are always going to find ways to undermine the Second Amendment. The difference now though is that the Supreme Court will no longer be denying the Petition for a writ of certiorari. Going forward, bad rulings by the circuit courts will now be heard and overturned by the Supreme Court justices.


How?
 
So I went with my wife on Monday to pick up her Permit Renewal at my Counties Pistol License Section. The line was fairly long, some normal business but a few new customers due to the ruling. To elevate the line a supervisor was vetting the crowd and handing out applications. He specifically mentioned that parts of the application were no longer necessary, the justification portions as well as references. He was polite, up beat but did not have any other official guidance as to changes that would take place, clearly above his pay grade. The “handbook” which outlines carry restrictions one would customarily sign for which was always given at new issue and renewal was not given. He did acknowledge that he expected an influx of applicants. Funny thing though there were some in line unaware of the ruling.
 
The difference now though is that the Supreme Court will no longer be denying the Petition for a writ of certiorari. Going forward, bad rulings by the circuit courts will now be heard and overturned by the Supreme Court justices.
The SC workload precludes that. As always, the Court will be very selective as to which cases it hears.
 
NYSRPA v. Bruen addressed the "may issue" aspect of New York State's concealed licensing scheme, but did it address New York State's issuance of 'restricted' vs. 'unrestricted' licenses specifically? Will a new lawsuit be necessary to force the state to recognize all currently issued valid restricted concealed carry licenses as unrestricted? After all, the permit holders did meet all of the statute requirements to be issued a concealed license, save for the restrictions on when and where the holder can carry concealed.
 
NYSRPA v. Bruen addressed the "may issue" aspect of New York State's concealed licensing scheme, but did it address New York State's issuance of 'restricted' vs. 'unrestricted' licenses specifically?
To be useful for self-defense outside the home, it would have to be a NY "unrestricted" license. So yes, the Bruen decision would mandate an "unrestricted" license if the objective issuing standards were met.
 
One can see by these attempts already NY is trying to remain NYC centric. The rest of the state does not have Subways, homes are privately owned. They will over reach, then it will get green lighted back to the Supreme Court and get smacked down again. The arrogance is thick! In a way it has the play out. Warning were given in the decision, you cannot put a high fee on a right, nor can you intentionally place unreasonable hurdles. But try they will!

The easy way to do this is to require an additional application for Unrestricted Carry. Some people are happy with their Sportsman Permit, it encompasses Premise, Range, Field and Carry to and from. Just like any other state not everyone will carry or wants to. Some just like a handgun for home protection. The background checks on the original investigation were far deeper than a NICS check, character references and employment checks. These are no longer valid. Prints when I first got mine in 1990 were ink and mailed away to the FBI. The 6 month wait was blamed on this part of the investigation. Now that is almost instant with scanned prints and NICS checks. Standard time from application to issuance is over 18 months now. That will be seen as an over reach. It will be back at the court in no time. At this point it is a process unless November is a good election month.
 
Last edited:
NYSRPA v. Bruen addressed the "may issue" aspect of New York State's concealed licensing scheme, but did it address New York State's issuance of 'restricted' vs. 'unrestricted' licenses specifically? Will a new lawsuit be necessary to force the state to recognize all currently issued valid restricted concealed carry licenses as unrestricted? After all, the permit holders did meet all of the statute requirements to be issued a concealed license, save for the restrictions on when and where the holder can carry concealed.
Given NY's post-Bruen moves, I think a lawsuit will almost absolutely be necessary to get NY to do much of anything. That said, it oughta be fun to watch (for law-nerds like me).
 
To be useful for self-defense outside the home, it would have to be a NY "unrestricted" license. So yes, the Bruen decision would mandate an "unrestricted" license if the objective issuing standards were met.
Going forward with new licenses, I agree that they will be unrestricted.

I was wondering specifically about those licenses already issued that had restrictions such as "hunting and target shooting only," which was the case for the two petitioners Brandon Koch and Robert Nash, who were already restricted concealed carry holders, but applied for and were denied unrestricted licenses which triggered the lawsuit.

I have read a lot regarding the elimination of the 'unusual circumstances' provision for new applications, but have not seen addressed specifically if all currently valid NY State restricted licenses are now automatically upgraded to unrestricted, or does each license holder need to re-apply for an unrestricted license on a case-by-case basis?
 
We saw terrible rulings in Woollard v. Gallagher, Kwong v. Bloomberg and Kachalsky v. Cacace.

Activist outcome-based judges are always going to find ways to undermine the Second Amendment. The difference now though is that the Supreme Court will no longer be denying the Petition for a writ of certiorari. Going forward, bad rulings by the circuit courts will now be heard and overturned by the Supreme Court justices.

The SC workload precludes that. As always, the Court will be very selective as to which cases it hears.

In Heller, SCOTUS clearly stated that the Second Amendment covers arms that were not in existence when it was written, just as the First Amendment covers communication media that were not in existence when it was written.

Years later, the Massachusetts Supreme Court in Caetano ruled that a stun gun was NOT covered by the Second because it didn't exist when the Second was written. This directly contradicted what SCOTUS had said in Heller 8 years prior. SCOTUS sent the case back to the Mass court for reconsideration via a per curium decision without even bothering to hear arguments. This is much faster than having to squeeze the case into an always crowded docket.

In effect, such a decision says to the lower court that your reasoning was so bad we're not going to waste time hearing arguments, we're going to overturn the case right now. Needless to say, this is embarrassing for the lower court. Per curium decisions are rare, but I'm hoping that they'll be used to deal with the foot dragging that NY is already doing.
 
The Governor wants a law that bans carry in businesses UNLESS the business explicitly posts that carry is allowed. I cannot see many major businesses doing this. Second, leaving a gun in the car will be against the law.

There are other banned locales suggested. However, just the business rule (if passed) will make the permit functionally useless for most of every day life. For NYC, add the subway rule as a carry killer.

All the rest of this discussion is trivial compared to these two suggested rules. It's the killer.

Thomas, like Scalia, failed in not thinking this through. His discussion of sensitive places need to be more explicit based on the everyday life of regular folks. It should have been 'red teamed' for exactly this sort of attack. As Heller let to the interpretations positive to state gun and mag bans, we will see if sensitive places makes the NYSPRA decision problematic as the affected states adopt laws similar to what the Governor is proposing.
 
The Governor wants a law that bans carry in businesses UNLESS the business explicitly posts that carry is allowed. I cannot see many major businesses doing this. Second, leaving a gun in the car will be against the law.

There are other banned locales suggested. However, just the business rule (if passed) will make the permit functionally useless for most of every day life. For NYC, add the subway rule as a carry killer.

All the rest of this discussion is trivial compared to these two suggested rules. It's the killer.
While I disagree that "the rest of this discussion is trivial," you're absolutely right about the rest.
 
OK, I should have said, the rest of discussion is 'academic' if the laws are passed. Sorry.
 
All the rest of this discussion is trivial compared to these two suggested rules. It's the killer.

They are killer rules. And, they are where the next phase of this process must begin. If anyone here thought that the battle was over with the Bruen decision, well, let me be the first to welcome you to the the civil rights struggle of our age.

Bruen is simply the Dredd Scott of 2A rights. It represents the beginning of the struggle.
 
Last edited:
OK, the opinion talks about 43 states that are shall-issue, and 6 states that are may-issue (which by virtue of this decision are being converted into shall-issue). By my arithmetic that's 49 states that have some form of permit system. That leaves only one state with permitless carry. That can't be right -- there are actually quite a few states with permitless carry. Or are they including "optional" permits for reciprocity purposes in the shall-issue total?
Some states are both. My state is shall issue if you want a concealed carry permit but you are not required to have a permit to carry. Advantages of getting the permit are reciprocity carrying in other states that DO require a permit and when you purchase a firearm the FFL doesn't have to call in for approval if you are a permit holder. Permit is also good for private sales because if you have a permit then the seller can be assured you are allowed to own a gun.
 
Federal law exempts concealed pistol license holders from the Gun Free School Zones act, where state law then takes over.

Several states allow some form of firearms carry on school grounds by CPL holders.

https://www.ncsl.org/research/education/school-safety-guns-in-schools.aspx

This is 100% correct. Here in Missouri, we are allowed to have firearms on school property, they just have to remain inside of our vehicles. Also here in Missouri, you can carry inside of a school with permission of the school board. But most school boards will never give permission. The same goes for state and local government offices, other than court buildings.

It will definitely be interesting to see how New York will fight this ruling tooth and nail.
 
After Moore v Madigan, one Illinois lawmaker tried make gas stations one of the restricted places where having a loaded firearm on your person or in your car would be prohibited. That would mean that before you pulled in for gas you would have to unload your firearm and store it in the glovebox, center console or other container and then only after you left the gas station could you re-load it.

The gas-station provision didn't get included in the final bill - the Illinois Firearm Concealed Carry Act, but the intent obviously was to make carrying impracticable.

New York citizens may not be fortunate enough to avoid that kind of shenanigans.
 
Wouldn't that put the NY state government in contempt of court? That's pretty serious as at any level the judge can have you arrested. I would imagine that being held in contempt at the SC level to be pretty bad.

Will the SC judges have these elected officials that have publicly refused to accept their descision arrested? Can they?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top