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

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.




View attachment 1085783

 

A great victory. A 6-3 decision.

 

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.

 

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.....

 

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

 

"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.

 

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:

 

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 .

 

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.

 

These 6 states will make it as restrictive as possible and test the limits of the court as always.

 

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.

 

This link is a good read.


https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1539980197117706242?t=nRIdIoQ_1grOM8-SnGiVfw&s=19

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

This was even more explicit.