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:
    2,137

    Interesting question.


    Also, Thomas didn't say strict scrutiny must apply to the 2nd Amendment either so I don't know where that stands, although strict scrutiny may have been in the Heller decision.
     
    RetiredUSNChief likes this.
  2. unclenunzie
    • Contributing Member

    unclenunzie Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    985
    Location:
    Texas.
    14th - Priviledges and Immunities. I recall this should heavily fortify the legal position of the right as now clarified by Scotus. Details are beyond my knowledge and very limited lay education.

    Excerpt only:

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
     
    RetiredUSNChief likes this.
  3. tark

    tark Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2013
    Messages:
    4,479
    Location:
    atkinson, ill
    Quite true, but this is already the situation in every state with CCW. There are always a plethora of locations where carry is forbidden.

    I offered the local library the use of a sign I made. It said:

    "No need to carry your guns in here, guys. Our staff is armed to the teeth."

    The declined.
     
  4. CapnMac

    CapnMac Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    14,523
    Location:
    DFW (formerly Brazos County), Texas
    The case was not brought on its 2nd Amendment "merits."
    NYS asserted that it was upholding the 2nd, and merely applying conditions For The Public Good. Something long held to be legitimate "restraints" on various Amendments.

    The case hinged on the fact that the law represented a denial of rights in a way that violated the 14th Amendment.
     
  5. CapnMac

    CapnMac Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    14,523
    Location:
    DFW (formerly Brazos County), Texas
    The most pressing thing here, will be if NYS just decides to ignore the ruling, much as DC did after Heller (or Chicago after McDonald).
     
  6. .455_Hunter

    .455_Hunter Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2005
    Messages:
    4,517
    Location:
    Colorado Front Range
    Until recently in CO, that list of legally off-limits locations was very short.
     
    RetiredUSNChief and tark like this.
  7. Plan2Live

    Plan2Live Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,161
    Location:
    Columbia, SC
    I'm happy with the ruling.

    I don't believe in zero restrictions on civilian ownership of firearms and I don't believe in a total ban on civilian ownership of firearms. For the most part (repeat, most part) I believe we are somewhere in the middle of those two extremes and I am comfortable with that middle position.
     
  8. GEM

    GEM Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    10,595
    Location:
    WNY
    About red flag laws, if they are going to be overused in a trivial fashion, expect billboards and TV commercials from law firms offering defense. We have those all over for car crashes, slips and falls and DUIs. I know it is fear that we will have thousands of red flag reports to try to ban guns but that takes folks to make the complaint. We will see if that is a real threat. Civil rights legislation against frivolous car stops is out there, expect the same if Red Flag laws reach the level of minority harassment.
     
  9. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    5,742
    Location:
    CA,AZ,CA,TX
    Ex of that is stun gun in Massachusetts

    Caetano v. Massachusetts
     
    RetiredUSNChief likes this.
  10. Poper

    Poper Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Messages:
    2,690
    Location:
    Semi-Free State of Arizona
    But:
     
    RetiredUSNChief likes this.
  11. Poper

    Poper Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Messages:
    2,690
    Location:
    Semi-Free State of Arizona
    Of course they will.
     
    RetiredUSNChief likes this.
  12. GEM

    GEM Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    10,595
    Location:
    WNY
    Gov. says they are going to have a special session with new legislation to try to control this horror for them. Ignoring straight out doesn't seem an option. Restrictions based on training, sensitive places are probably going to be in place.
     
    RetiredUSNChief and DoubleMag like this.
  13. usaral63

    usaral63 Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2021
    Messages:
    135
    It will be most interesting to see what occurs when the first case alleging a violation of civil rights is brought. Violations can be both criminal and civil and persons so doing bear personal responsibility as well as fiscal liability............that application of the 14th as well ought to make for an interesting legal soup. See: Ch 1983/1984, U.S.C.
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2022
    RetiredUSNChief likes this.
  14. Old Dog

    Old Dog Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    9,050
    Location:
    on Puget Sound
    We as gun-owners and RKBA advocates are collectively a bunch of cynical curmudgeons.

    Can't even savor a big Supreme Court ruling win before the predictions start...

    Some don't seem to understand that it's actually what this ruling means for the future of RKBA nationwide rather than the short-term effects on concealed carry regulations in New York state.
     
  15. .455_Hunter

    .455_Hunter Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2005
    Messages:
    4,517
    Location:
    Colorado Front Range
    We gun owners have a long basis for being curmudgeonry. My concern isn't New York- it's how the ruling will impact the VERY ACTIVE local municipality anti-gun movement here in CO.
     
  16. dh1633pm
    • Contributing Member

    dh1633pm Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2009
    Messages:
    4,256
    Location:
    Central New York
    To be honest, it only changes one thing. I no longer have to justify need. Many will still have to wait as I did for 18 months to get their license. Yes their appeared to be provision for this in the ruling, but the slow walk to the court will insure a fix many months and dollars down the road. In the mean time, all sorts of other road blocks will be thrown up.
     
  17. Spats McGee

    Spats McGee Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    6,430
    Location:
    Arkansas
    It's more than saying something is idiotic. When a judge tells the lawyers that their arguments 'border on frivolous,' it's a warning. From the American Bar Ass'n's Model Rules of Professional Conduct;
    In practicing law, frivolous arguments get you sanctioned.

    It means that they decided it on 2A and 14A grounds. Apologies, but while I have all of this legal stuff rolling around in my head, I don't have time to give a clearer explanation than that right now.
     
  18. Insignificant bill

    Insignificant bill Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2019
    Messages:
    1,016
    Well since Constitutional carry works just fine their should be no arguments about guns. The attention should be where it belongs on actually punishing those who commit crimes with a gun. As well as working on mental health issues without RedFlag laws.
     
    RetiredUSNChief likes this.
  19. CapnMac

    CapnMac Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    14,523
    Location:
    DFW (formerly Brazos County), Texas
    Well, "we" see everything in its 2nd context.

    The NYS law, from their perspective, did not prevent the right to keep and bear--you just needed a "good cause."

    The requirement to justify access to a Right violates the 14th most clearly of all the parts of the Constitution. And, thus, that's how the Court viewed it.

    What may be more important is that, in focusing on the 14th, that confers a nation-wide application of the opinion. Which ought wrap up the pending "show good cause" cases in MD & NJ. But, that Assenting Opinion is very troubling.
     
    qwert65, RetiredUSNChief and usaral63 like this.
  20. Poper

    Poper Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Messages:
    2,690
    Location:
    Semi-Free State of Arizona
    I did find this rather interesting:
     
    RetiredUSNChief, redcon1 and usaral63 like this.
  21. Dave Markowitz

    Dave Markowitz Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,744
    Location:
    SE PA
    Agreed. I was admitted to the bar in 1996. ;) (Retired my license in 2012, though.)

    Unfortunately, lower courts and legislatures have been ignoring the language in Heller. IMO it's a reason why Thomas spelled it out so explicitly for their benefit. IOW, it's the, "And we really <bleeping> mean it" part of the decision.
     
  22. csirre

    csirre Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2022
    Messages:
    32
    The Supreme Court rules for the 2nd Amendment only due to the fact that NY law requires the permit applicant to show proper cause that he should carry a gun. I believe a State can still enact the other requirements to bar some people from carrying a gun. And I totally agree with that, some people should be not allowed to carry. Also I am glad that the Supreme Court stand firm to the words of the Constitution, not swayed by recent mass shooting incidents.
     
    Tony50ae and RetiredUSNChief like this.
  23. Spats McGee

    Spats McGee Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    6,430
    Location:
    Arkansas
    I think I knew that, but my brain misplaced it this morning. Sorry.
     
  24. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    9,170
    Location:
    Virginia
    The 14th Amendment is the way by which the various articles of the Bill of Rights, which originally applied to the federal government only, have gradually been "incorporated" so as to apply to the states. McDonald v. Chicago is the case that did this regarding the 2nd Amendment. In McDonald, Justice Thomas, while concurring in the result, would have based that on the "Privileges and Immunities" clause of the 14th. He was the only one to do so. The other Justices relied on "Substantive Due Process" under the 14th. "Privileges and Immunities" is a much stronger basis for gun rights. Interesting that Thomas should now be the one to write the Bruen opinion.
     
  25. Dave Markowitz

    Dave Markowitz Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,744
    Location:
    SE PA
    I was hoping in Bruen that Thomas would revive the P&I Clause, overturn the Slaughterhouse Cases, and get rid of the oxymoronic concept of substantive due process. I'm sure he didn't have enough votes to do so, however.
     
    CapnMac and AlexanderA like 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