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

Status
Not open for further replies.
csirre said:
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.
Click to expand...
Tell that to the criminals and gang bangers. Maybe they will stop? (I'll bet they don't, though.)
 
I remember a time on this very website where people were hoping for strict scrutiny when it comes to NYSRPA vs. Bruen. But as I read the ruling it seems that Thomas did something even better than that:

From page 16 of the ruling: "Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support applying means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Instead, the government must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms."

Isn't this a step above strict scrutiny?

I'm not a lawyer and haven't finished reading the entire ruling but it sounds really, really good.
 
I can't add much that hasn't been said, but to say, very good news indeed.
Justice Thomas' opinion did not disappoint. Very well reasoned.

Most striking to me is that the court did it's job of preserving our Constitutional rights in a heated environment of gun ban hysteria. A period of perceived chaos is not a good time or reason to gut the Constitution, but even more so a reason to clarify and strengthen it.

One thing is certain... America's national media is as far left and biased as ever. They're all reporting on the SCOTUS ruling as they would report on a natural disaster... like the earthquake in Afghanistan.
 
From the ruling.....

This is from the New York Times so I cannot link it for some reason, pay wall I believe.



Screenshot_20220623-205752_NYTimes.jpg Screenshot_20220623-205951_NYTimes.jpg



Breyer did add:

"In dissent, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said the majority’s guidance was inadequate, leaving unclear the scope of the court’s ruling.

“What about subways, nightclubs, movie theaters and sports stadiums?” Justice Breyer wrote. “The court does not say.”



I believe NY will attempt to block carrying on the subways.


Not sure how that will work.
 
Last edited:
Aim1 said:
Breyer did add:“What about subways, nightclubs, movie theaters and sports stadiums?”
Click to expand...

So what about them? Why are they any less likely of a location for a citizen to need the right to self-defense? History blatantly shows the opposite is true (see "Aurora" and "Pulse" for examples). In addition, the transit to and away from such locations are absolutely a concern, and would fall under a defacto ban due to restriction at the referred location.
 
This is crazy.


https://www.thetrace.org/2022/06/supreme-court-ruling-bruen-new-york/



Screenshot_20220623-224259_Chrome.jpg




A couple things I could see NYC/NY doing to obtain your permit:


1.) Make you have to qualify at a shooting range.

(Very few shooting ranges in certain areas).

Very hard for people who take public transportation like the subway to get to a shooting range and also find time time to use the range, they may have to get a babysitter which would be cost prohibitive.



2.) Excessive classroom time to obtain your permit.


Make you take like 20 hours of classroom training.

(Very hard for low income people who need to take off for work or get babysitters)


3.) Not allowing you to leave your gun in your car.

If you're going to establishments that do not allow you you to bring your gun like work, the post office, private business than you cannot bring your gun because you can't leave it in your car.


If your work won't allow you to bring a gun inside but you want it for safety on your daily work commute and cannot bring leave it in your car than you will not be able to bring your gun to or from work.


3.) Making everywhere a sensitive area where you cannot carry a firearm.

Making the subway a sensitive area where you cannot carry and with so many people who take the subway to work and other places you'd cut down where people could carry tremendously.


4.) Make it cost prohibitive to obtain.


Like the above one where it is a $400 non-refundable payment, many people could never afford that.



5.) Making the permit only valid for a short time like 2 years before renewal.

Obviously the more often you have to do it the more of a hardship it is.
 
Last edited:
We in NJ and those in the other four states named by Justice Thomas ( CA, MD, HI, MA,) and DC stand to gain the most from this decision. They outright deny us of the right to carry for self-defense in places no law enforcement agency could ever cover well enough to do anything more than respond too late and do too little to ensure that safety.
 
DTL said:
We in NJ and those in the other four states named by Justice Thomas ( CA, MD, HI, MA,) and DC stand to gain the most from this decision. They outright deny us of the right to carry for self-defense in places no law enforcement agency could ever cover well enough to do anything more than respond too late and do too little to ensure that safety.
Click to expand...
Good stuff, good warning to my state of Washington to not mess with the Law of the Land, the Supreme Court of the United States of America
 
Aim1 said:
Breyer did add:

"In dissent, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said the majority’s guidance was inadequate, leaving unclear the scope of the court’s ruling.

“What about subways, nightclubs, movie theaters and sports stadiums?” Justice Breyer wrote. “The court does not say.”
Click to expand...

The guidance was spelled out plainly, a very short list of possible prohibited places was LISTED.

Justice Breyer questioned something that wasn't questionable; in Justice Thomas' list, he had the OPPORTUNITY to list other places and did NOT...

Justice Breyer could very well have just provided a dissenting list that has no merit and provided the 1st example of an attempt to significantly expanding the provided list.

Would have been better to have not commented at all and leave it for interpretation for the lower courts IMHO ! !
 
The more I think about this decision, the more apparent a couple of things becomes. Before I get into those, I want to briefly touch on the historical constitutional standards. Depending on which constitutional right is being addressed, there are three basic, established constitutional standards of review. Here they are, boiled down to my perception of them:

First, rational basis -- If there's any rational basis for a law, it will be upheld. -- AKA: Gov't wins.
Second, intermediate scrutiny -- A law must be substantially related to an important gov't interest -- AKA: Gov't usually wins, but it's a closer call.
Third, strict scrutiny -- A law must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling gov't interest -- AKA: Plaintiff usually wins.​

It's important to note that in all of the scenarios listed above, the burden remains at all times with the Plaintiff to show that a law is unconstitutional. It's just easier under strict scrutiny than under the other two. Now, on to a couple of other things:

First, this text:
"We reiterate that the standard for applying the Second Amendment is as follows: When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.” Bruen, p. 15 (internal citations omitted)​

I'll freely admit that I was one of the ones hoping to get a ruling stating that strict scrutiny was required in 2A challenges. I didn't get that, and I'll reserve judgment until I've seen how this shakes out. With that said, the standard we've got looks awfully good at first blush. We've gone from the "2A Two-step," which: (a) the burden remained with the Plaintiff; and (b) courts in restrictive jxs were freely using to justify all manner of restrictions, to a framework in which the government must justify its restriction, if the Plaintiff can show that his or her conduct falls under the 'plain text' of the 2A. That looks a bit like shifting the burden off the Plaintiff to me.

Second, footnote 9:
"That said, because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry." Bruen, p. 30.​

That looks an awful lot like a flag that SCOTUS is open to other 2A challenges.
 
.455_Hunter said:
So what about them? Why are they any less likely of a location for a citizen to need the right to self-defense? History blatantly shows the opposite is true (see "Aurora" and "Pulse" for examples). In addition, the transit to and away from such locations are absolutely a concern, and would fall under a defacto ban due to restriction at the referred location.
Click to expand...

In my personal experience the subways are/were a traditional place where victims would be mugged, or worse. I also agree with your insight as to passing to and from such places, especially at night. There were even stations which in particular had to be avoided.
 
A couple of observations --

-- The terms "rational basis," "intermediate scrutiny," "strict scrutiny" are no longer relevant in gun cases. From now on, cases are to be decided on the basis of textual and historical analysis, without a balancing of interests.

-- The concurring opinions by Alito and Kavanaugh are extremely important. (The Barrett concurrence, not so much.) What the Alito/Kavanaugh concurrences do is carry forward all the weaknesses of the Heller case. Three Justices (Alito, Kavanaugh, and Roberts) are signalling that they are not prepared to go forward in areas such as which classes of arms are protected, etc. Add these three Justices to the three liberals, and the prospects are not good for overturning "assault weapon" and magazine bans, etc. (Maybe, at best, they are signalling a pause in further gun cases.)
 
Only after sued... and even then they will passively-aggressively ignore/find other ways to hinder and refute all attempts to loosen up.
It's in their deep state blood for generations.

How's Heller working out in DC for the past 14 years ? (he asks)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
If SCOTUS rules positively in NYSRPA Inc. v. Bruen how far away are we from Constitutional Carry?
2 3
Replies
54
Views
2K
Spats McGee
Spats McGee
F-111 John
  • Locked
Supreme Court Issues Final Ruling: NYSRPA v. Bruen
2 3 4 5
Replies
118
Views
6K
LiveLife
LiveLife
LiveLife
Antonyuk v. Nigrelli - Supreme Court Will Rule On States Defying Its NYSRPA v. Bruen Decision
2 3
Replies
56
Views
6K
jstert
jstert
A
  • Locked
What happens to a Constitutional Carry case at SCOTUS after today's ruling in NYSRPA Inc. v. Bruen?
Replies
6
Views
475
F-111 John
F-111 John
A
  • Locked
SCOTUS accepts first major 2nd Amendment Gun case in over a decade - NY State Rifle & PA v. Corlett
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Replies
187
Views
11K
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
Back
Top