Quantcast
  1. Upgrade efforts paused for now. Thanks for your patience. More details in the thread in Tech Support for those who are interested.
    Dismiss Notice

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

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Aim1, Jun 23, 2022.

  1. Aim1

    Aim1 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,168
    This is a huge victory. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen.

    This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether New York’s discretionary gun permit law, which requires an applicant demonstrate “proper cause” to carry a weapon for self-defense purposes, violates the Second Amendment. Robert Nash and Brandon Koch applied for a general concealed carry permit under New York law, but their applications were denied by Richard McNally for lack of proper cause.
    This will change a lot of laws.


    Thomas Opinion.

    Held: New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.



    https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1539979772473839620?s=20&t=X9vj0fyMWuwNJPzZEQLctw





    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf



    Hopefully the next 2nd Amendment case pertains to so-called "Assault Weapons" AND "High Capacity Magazines" and not just one or the other as the two go hand in hand. When one bans assault weapons they almost always also ban high capacity magazines.




    Screenshot_20220623-093644_Twitter.jpg View attachment 1085783
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2022
  2. tark

    tark Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2013
    Messages:
    4,597
    Location:
    atkinson, ill
    A great victory. A 6-3 decision.
     
  3. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    63,569
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
  4. .455_Hunter

    .455_Hunter Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2005
    Messages:
    4,613
    Location:
    Colorado Front Range
    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- your 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. [EDIT TO ADD] It appears that declaration of broad expansive "sensitive" areas was addressed by Thomas, who indicated only specific discrete locations could be named. Obviously open to debate depending on who is doing the defining, but a positive for people who are concerned about EDC being defacto prohibited due to blanketing restrictions. I don't go to the courthouse or government administration buildings with any real frequency, but do cross public property (like parks or walking trails) nearly everyday when in town.
     
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2022
    RetiredUSNChief, tark and SharpDog like this.
  5. unclenunzie

    unclenunzie Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    1,039
    Location:
    Texas.
    It is a tremendous victory. From the scotusblog.com link download the order. I have only started reading it and the language used in my lay opinion eviscerates the states case. I could be wrong but this looks like a serious smack down under 2 and 14.
     
  6. Aim1

    Aim1 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,168
    Some of the ruling definitely isn't good but I don't think anyone expected to get everything we wanted. We have work to go from here but it's definitely better than a loss.


    I can link this article so from the Daily Wire, so.....


    Screenshot_20220623-102856_Chrome.jpg Screenshot_20220623-102908_Chrome.jpg Screenshot_20220623-102920_Chrome.jpg
     
  7. GEM

    GEM Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    10,688
    Location:
    WNY
    RetiredUSNChief and Blue Jays like this.
  8. redcon1

    redcon1 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2008
    Messages:
    983
    Location:
    Northern Ohio
    "They're" gonna be POed. They'll want to expand the court after this and will do so if they get the chance. but, never the less, let the gloating begin.
     
  9. Aim1

    Aim1 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,168
    We need Thomas more than ever but I could see him being the next to retire from SCOTUS.

    I can't link this article from the NYT for some reason but here's what he wrote:


    Screenshot_20220623-104912_NYTimes.jpg Screenshot_20220623-105004_NYTimes.jpg
     
  10. Rule3

    Rule3 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    9,824
    Location:
    Florida
    But now what happens when people want to actually carry a gun. What hoops are required to actually get a concealed carry license.
    Being in Florida it is very simple, I do not know about other States especially NY!

    Private business can post no firearms allowed .
     
    RetiredUSNChief likes this.
  11. Spats McGee

    Spats McGee Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    6,506
    Location:
    Arkansas
    Private businesses are a different kettle of fish. To my mind, one of the most important elements of this decision is that it affirms the right to carry a firearm: (a) outside the home; (b) for the purpose of self-defense. "The Second Amendment’s plain text thus presumptively guarantees petitioners Koch and Nash a right to “bear” arms in public for self-defense."
     
  12. Dave Markowitz

    Dave Markowitz Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,775
    Location:
    SE PA
    This part is significant as well, because it drives a stake in the heart of the argument that the 2A only applies to muskets:

    Its reference to “arms” does not apply “only [to] those arms in existence in the 18th century.” 554 U. S., at 582. “Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” Ibid. (citations omitted). Thus, even though the Second Amendment’s definition of “arms” is fixed according to its historical understanding, that general definition covers modern instruments that facilitate armed self-defense. Cf. Caetano v. Massachusetts...​

    While Heller stated that the 2A protects arms in "common use," this explicitly states that the 2A applies to arms regardless of when they were invented. This will be used to challenge assault weapons bans and magazine capacity restrictions.
     
  13. Spats McGee

    Spats McGee Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    6,506
    Location:
    Arkansas
    @Dave Markowitz -- You are correct, but the "it only applies to muskets" has been rejected by SCOTUS before. If memory serves, SCOTUS called it "bordering on frivolous."
     
  14. AlexanderA

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    9,424
    Location:
    Virginia
    This should be the end of the ongoing discussion of whether "strict scrutiny" or "intermediate scrutiny" applies to gun rights. No level of scrutiny applies. The analysis should be historical and textual.

    The Alito and Kavanaugh/Roberts concurring opinions are concerning. This paragraph from Justice Alito is typical:

    That is all we decide. Our holding decides nothing about
    who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements
    that must be met to buy a gun. Nor does it decide anything
    about the kinds of weapons that people may possess. Nor
    have we disturbed anything that we said in Heller or
    McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010), about restrictions
    that may be imposed on the possession or carrying of guns.

    This is not a good omen regarding a possible "assault weapon" or magazine-capacity case. The Court is not there yet.
     
  15. Aim1

    Aim1 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,168
    These 6 states will make it as restrictive as possible and test the limits of the court as always.
     
    RetiredUSNChief likes this.
  16. MifflinKid

    MifflinKid Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    260
    Location:
    Maryland (but I'll get back to Pennsylvania some d
    This is a substantial victory.
    No SCOTUS decision can be immediately effective, nor will all opposition disappear at once. But this is a great step for us.
     
  17. Aim1

    Aim1 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,168
  18. GEM

    GEM Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    10,688
    Location:
    WNY
    There will have to be a specific weapons type and magazine ban case. Will there have to be court challenges in other candidate states? Not being a lawyer, I don't know. Or does this one invalidate them automatically?

    Sensitive places will expand, leaving a gun in the car will be banned, to come up with a crazy quilt to make carry impractical at times.

    Being a worry wort, I worry that folks will pick at wording to support restrictions as happened with Heller.
     
  19. natman

    natman Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    Messages:
    4,000
    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.
     
    RetiredUSNChief and DoubleMag like this.
  20. AlexanderA

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    9,424
    Location:
    Virginia
    The significance of the case is this: "may-issue" states, in principle, are converted to "shall-issue." Pardon me for saying so, but this is not a "tremendous" victory. Let's see how long it takes for gun owners in New York to actually get their carry permits.

    Meanwhile, the real issue, which is what types of weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment, is deferred for another day.
     
    RetiredUSNChief likes this.
  21. Poper

    Poper Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Messages:
    2,709
    Location:
    Semi-Free State of Arizona
    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?
     
    RetiredUSNChief likes this.
  22. dodo bird

    dodo bird Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2010
    Messages:
    796
    Agreed very good and celebratory. I still can’t believe the other 3 don’t think your rights are not as important as the politically connected.

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
     
  23. Insignificant bill

    Insignificant bill Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2019
    Messages:
    1,016
    Infringed because the founders knew what the government would do and has done. Because as citizens we suck. They told us not to trust the government which they learned from history.
     
  24. Hartkopf

    Hartkopf Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2019
    Messages:
    2,330
    Location:
    Texas
    The who is a BIG who in that statement. Red flag laws will be abused since due process can be trampled. What you write online and where you go online will be used against you.
     
  25. Dave Markowitz

    Dave Markowitz Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,775
    Location:
    SE PA
    This was even more explicit.
     
    RetiredUSNChief likes this.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice