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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't see the courts saying that zero training is the standard. But when you brag about increasing the amount of training required solely to make it harder for people to get permits, you are just asking the courts to say that's not constitutional.
 
AND that liability may be either civil or criminal!

or both.....
I was specifically referring to 42 USC 1983, which is civil. If there's criminal liability attached to something like this, it would have to be found elsewhere.
 
If https://www.newsday.com/news/region...ul-concealed-carry-law-supreme-court-vcwi4xgk
is true and those restrictions passed, then the NY carry permit becomes worthless on a practical level. I'd bet the major of major business opt out of carry - the prose that businesses have to opt in to carry isn't carry. An automatic business ban as default seems to violate Thomas' warning about total sensitive bans. In TX, store has to post bans.

So if these become the law - kiss pratical carry good bye and perhaps years of lawsuits to undo.

The private property ban and government building bans were always used to make carry useless. It will happen again.

That's why SCOTUS never thinks this through.
They don't live in a world of having to carry daily in their rarefied lives. If they sat down and role played everyday life of a working person's or parent's carry - they would have stated that locale bans could only be based on technical reasons (such as the MRI). Instead they leave glaring loopholes to ban which were obvious. Heller did the same thing with Scalia's famous kowtow to Kennedy (from Stevens) that allow all the state weapons and mag bans to be supported in the lower courts. Thomas' comments on locale bans were too loose.

TOPS is private property. It bans. The next killer doesn't care. He goes to TOPS. The Buffalo killer said he chose that store as it was unlikely he would run into a carrier. Of course, he ran into a security guard who was stymied by body armor. That leads folks to say: OH, NO - no armed citizen could have been useful.

Thus, this is great !! I don't have to fill in the reason section. More folks in tougher counties will get permits. AND - we can't use them everyday (if these laws go into effect).
 
SCOTUS has no enforcement power. What happens if they rule against NY state and NY decides to just ignore it? Then what? The court has no power of the purse, it has no army at its command, and it cannot force the state do to what it says. Only the Executive or possibly the Legislative branch of the Federal Government can enforce the decision. And neither is interested in doing so.
I know, but if an executive of the state or the US fails to uphold the rulings of the judiciary, that sets a President up for impeachment (never happening) or if it's a state to be delcared in insurrection and gives a President the authority to arrest state government officials.

Of course the latter is only if you have a President willing to do it and I doubt even Trump would deploy the army to NY as it would bring the country to the brink of another civil war.
 
If https://www.newsday.com/news/region...ul-concealed-carry-law-supreme-court-vcwi4xgk
is true and those restrictions passed, then the NY carry permit becomes worthless on a practical level. I'd bet the major of major business opt out of carry - the prose that businesses have to opt in to carry isn't carry. An automatic business ban as default seems to violate Thomas' warning about total sensitive bans. In TX, store has to post bans.

So if these become the law - kiss pratical carry good bye and perhaps years of lawsuits to undo.

The private property ban and government building bans were always used to make carry useless. It will happen again.

That's why SCOTUS never thinks this through.
They don't live in a world of having to carry daily in their rarefied lives. If they sat down and role played everyday life of a working person's or parent's carry - they would have stated that locale bans could only be based on technical reasons (such as the MRI). Instead they leave glaring loopholes to ban which were obvious. Heller did the same thing with Scalia's famous kowtow to Kennedy (from Stevens) that allow all the state weapons and mag bans to be supported in the lower courts. Thomas' comments on locale bans were too loose.

TOPS is private property. It bans. The next killer doesn't care. He goes to TOPS. The Buffalo killer said he chose that store as it was unlikely he would run into a carrier. Of course, he ran into a security guard who was stymied by body armor. That leads folks to say: OH, NO - no armed citizen could have been useful.

Thus, this is great !! I don't have to fill in the reason section. More folks in tougher counties will get permits. AND - we can't use them everyday (if these laws go into effect).
The restrictions that are being proposed are all setting the stage for the Supreme Court to go nuclear and strike down all conceal carry license schemes.

Why Scotus didnt do that in Bruen is I feel they wanted to give may issue states a chance to toe the line and clearly New York has no intention of doing that and having a shall issue scheme in name only. The moral character nonsense and these numerous sensative areas are being abused and violate equal protection because we dont see in cities like Houston or Dallas or Chicago these types of laws.

If NY wants to play with fire they will get burned, so long as Scotus bas the will to burn them and I think, after overturning Roe and all the death threats, they will.
 
The restrictions that are being proposed are all setting the stage for the Supreme Court to go nuclear and strike down all conceal carry license schemes.

Why Scotus didnt do that in Bruen is I feel they wanted to give may issue states a chance to toe the line and clearly New York has no intention of doing that and having a shall issue scheme in name only. The moral character nonsense and these numerous sensative areas are being abused and violate equal protection because we dont see in cities like Houston or Dallas or Chicago these types of laws.

If NY wants to play with fire they will get burned, so long as Scotus bas the will to burn them and I think, after overturning Roe and all the death threats, they will.


I find it unlikely that SCOTUS would ever shut down all licensing schemes and allow Constitutional Carry.


Also the risk for this is high as it is a long term plan what happens if SCOTUS is majority liberal by the time this happens?
 
More big and excellent news:

View attachment 1087240



Wouldn't it have been better for SCOTUS to grant cert on the Assault Weapons ban and High Capacity Mag ban cases and rule on them forever solidifying the right to possess both?


If the lower courts rule positively for 2nd Amendment supporters now but a new ban comes at a later date and works it's way up the court to a SCOTUS with a more liberal makeup we could be in trouble, no?
 
Wouldn't it have been better for SCOTUS to grant cert on the Assault Weapons ban and High Capacity Mag ban cases and rule on them forever solidifying the right to possess both?....
Only if it ruled in our favor. Vacating and sending it back to the lower courts is completely normal, though. SCOTUS is (kind of) saying "Y'all got it wrong, so we're vacating your rulings. Here's a new rule. Try again."
 
****'s about to get wild. (Possibly really quickly.)

I can't read minds, but the SCOTUS does not seem happy with how the lower courts responded to Heller. Speaking as someone who's been in front of judges, it is never a good idea to piss a judge off. And this just screams pissed off judge. (Still haven't read all of Bruen though.)

We're watching history in the making gentlemen.

Screenshot_20220630-173707.png
 
...now the person(s) petition the court for relief a.k.a. lawsuit need to attach a monetary amount, crystal isn't as clear as this bogus law, RIGHT after SCOTUS.

Say, $100mil per individual occurrence with punitive damages of $300billion against the state, to be given to charity. Yes, billion with a B. They haven't learned and outside jailing them, drain their wallet of every last dollar, quarter, dime, penney, farthing, peso, shilling, etc. etc.

Then, they will not be so quick to make another mess, due to, having to set up a payment plan...
 
Well, as I feared, it’s getting much worse!
From a news report in Syracuse.com;
NY overhauls handgun rules in effort to preserve some limits”
Read the whole article here - NY overhauls handgun rules in effort to preserve some limits
“Among other things, the state’s new rules will require people applying for a handgun license to turn over a list of their social media accounts so officials could verify their “character and conduct.””

“People applying for a license to carry a handgun will also have to provide four character references, take 16 hours of firearms safety training plus two hours of practice at a range, undergo periodic background checks and turn over contact information for their spouse, domestic partner or any other adults living in their household.”

“Under the new system, the state won’t authorize permits for people with criminal convictions within the past five years for driving while intoxicated, menacing or third-degree assault. People also won’t be allowed to carry firearms at a long list of “sensitive places,” including New York City’s tourist-packed Times Square.
That list also includes schools, universities, government buildings, places where people have gathered for public protests, health care facilities, places of worship, libraries, public playgrounds and parks, day care centers, summer camps, addiction and mental health centers, shelters, public transit, bars, theaters, stadiums, museums, polling places and casinos.”
This last one is my “favorite”…
“New York will also bar people from bringing guns into any business or workplace unless the owners put up signs saying guns are welcome.People who bring guns into places without such signs could be prosecuted on felony charges.”

I’m really interested to hear what some of you legal experts feel about these news limits on our right to protect ourselves.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top