Megawatt maker
Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2017
- Messages
- 699
California AG just ordered what's basically "shall issue" change to CCW applications.
Landmark 2nd Amendment victory at SCOTUS in NYSRPA Inc. v. Bruen!!!
- Thread starter Aim1
- Start date
- Status
BlueHeelerFl
Member
it would be interesting to see how they would enforce a ban on guns on the subway. Putting metal detectors and police at every train or bus stop would be a massive funding of the police, which a sizable portion of their base is against.
they are also strongly against stop and frisk as well.
They will not put metal detectors in subways, not practical. However, accidental exposures will be fully prosecuted - what will be the penalty? A felony? Second if you use the gun in the subway you will go down the Bernhard Goetz rabbit hole. Goetz was found not guilty on grounds of self-defense but the sympathetic jury felt it had no choice but convict on gun carrying, not a trivial crime.
Also if your shoot is ambiguous and you are tried civilly, your deliberate breaking the law will be used against to show your murderous intent. This happened to Goetz.
Thus, violating the law after this decision is the same as illegal carry in NYC is now. The license is irrelevant if carry is banned, you committed a crime. The penalties will be worked out.
Also if your shoot is ambiguous and you are tried civilly, your deliberate breaking the law will be used against to show your murderous intent. This happened to Goetz.
Thus, violating the law after this decision is the same as illegal carry in NYC is now. The license is irrelevant if carry is banned, you committed a crime. The penalties will be worked out.
redcon1
member
Exactly. It's kind of a win-win for the law abiding citizens.
Poper
Member
I found this footnote on pg.36 quite interesting:
ETA:
I also found this one amusing (footnote pg.53):
ETA:
I also found this one amusing (footnote pg.53):
New Mexico was admitted to the Union January 6, 1912.
Last edited:
LiveLife
Member
You meant 1912 - https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/new-mexico-joins-the-unionNew Mexico was admitted to the Union January 6, 2012.
Poper
Member
Please reread my post.
Yes, I did. I quoted text of SCOTUS's decision where it states 1911 in the footnote on page 53.
LiveLife
Member
I was responding to you posting "2012"
New Mexico was admitted to the Union January 6, 2012.
Poper
Member
Insignificant bill
Member
- Joined
- May 2, 2019
- Messages
- 1,209
Yep, I was thinking no wonder people thought New Mexico was part of Mexico since it didn't become a state until 2012
Will Munny
Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2021
- Messages
- 336
Basura Blanca
Member
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 377
I'm not so sure. It instructs issuing authorities to cease asking for good cause but that's about it. However, the alert then goes on to emphasize and provide some guidance for determining "good moral character". The AG is almost hinting that *that* should be the fallback criteria to deny permits. A third of the alert is dedicated to that discussion alone. Or maybe I'm just jaded. But here, judge for yourself:
Accordingly, in assessing whether an applicant has established “good moral character,” issuing authorities should recognize that Bruen does not eliminate the duty or authority of local officials to protect the communities that they know best by ensuring that licenses are only issued to individuals who—by virtue of their character and temperament—can be trusted to abide by the law and otherwise ensure the safety of themselves and others. The investigation into whether an applicant satisfies the “good moral character” requirement should go beyond the determination of whether any “firearms prohibiting categories” apply, such as a mental health prohibition or prior felony conviction. Those categories, which may be found to apply during the DOJ-conducted background check (including the many categories pertaining to an applicant’s criminal history), simply determine whether the applicant is even eligible to own or possess firearms under state and federal law. When it comes to evaluating an applicant’s moral character, however, the issue is not whether the applicant meets the minimum qualifications to own or possess firearms under other statutory criteria. “Good moral character” is a distinct question that requires an independent determination.
{more}
TTv2
Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 4,987
In the short term, probably, even tho states are falling in line over shall issue. NYC is bound and determined to declare as much of it a sensitive area, but the courts will strike much of it down because the text and history at the founding believed there were very few places that would be considered sensitive areas where arms not be carried in any manner, mostly courts and government buildings.
New York City is going to try to make every place of public transit and 1000 yard perimeters around every school, court, hospital, bar, barbershop, bakery, and delicatessen "sensitive" areas. That's not going to fly and if the NY Supreme Court even tries to uphold any laws along those lines, SCOTUS is going to Caetano that decision so fast it'll make Mayor Adams' newest fur coat start screaming in agony like the one in Ghostbusters 2.
What happened after Heller and the lower courts taking the two step approach is over, SCOTUS has put them all on notice and this isn't the SCOTUS we had when Kennedy was on the bench, this is a new SCOTUS, a much more hardened SCOTUS that is kicking ass and taking names because this SCOTUS has had to deal with leaks for the first time in its history, protests outside justices homes, and also an attempted murder of Kavanaugh, and now with the overturning of Roe thousands of death threats on social media.
What the lower courts will do and how they will react to this new SCOTUS, IDK, but what I think SCOTUS is ready to do is if states like NY, NJ, and MA try to play games with the licensing and sensitive area stuff, SCOTUS would be just fine with doing away with shall issue licensing altogether and make constitutional carry the law of the land in all 50 states, with the only restrictions being no carrying in government buildings.
I hope they'll be giving per curium rulings more often, given the knee jerk reaction of politicians in NY:
NEW YORK (AP) — New York’s Democratic leaders aim to preserve as many restrictions as possible on carrying a handgun in public after the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday struck down key portions of the state’s gun-licensing law.
State and New York City officials are zeroing in on specifying “sensitive locations” where concealed weapons could be forbidden, including a concept that would essentially extend those zones to the entire metropolis.
https://apnews.com/article/us-suprem...4ec09221f668c3 [emphasis added]
Which is pretty incredible, given this quote from NYSRPA v Bruen:
.... respondents’ attempt to characterize New York’s proper-cause requirement as a “sensitive-place” law lacks merit because there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a “sensitive place” simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department. NYSRPA v Bruen, page 3 [emphasis added]
When the Supreme Court says "Don't do this" and politicians respond with "We're going to do it anyway", it calls for a swift smackdown.
I hope they'll be giving per curium rulings more often, given the knee jerk reaction of politicians in NY:
NEW YORK (AP) — New York’s Democratic leaders aim to preserve as many restrictions as possible on carrying a handgun in public after the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday struck down key portions of the state’s gun-licensing law.
State and New York City officials are zeroing in on specifying “sensitive locations” where concealed weapons could be forbidden, including a concept that would essentially extend those zones to the entire metropolis.
https://apnews.com/article/us-suprem...4ec09221f668c3 [emphasis added]
Which is pretty incredible, given this quote from NYSRPA v Bruen:
.... respondents’ attempt to characterize New York’s proper-cause requirement as a “sensitive-place” law lacks merit because there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a “sensitive place” simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department. NYSRPA v Bruen, page 3 [emphasis added]
When the Supreme Court says "Don't do this" and politicians respond with "We're going to do it anyway", it calls for a swift smackdown.
This is interesting. Could remove losing your right to possess a firearm for a misdemeanor Domestic Abuse conviction.
I've never thought you should be able to lose your right to possess a firearm over a misdemeanor.
https://www.courthousenews.com/poli...ieces-of-supreme-courts-gun-rights-expansion/
I've never thought you should be able to lose your right to possess a firearm over a misdemeanor.
https://www.courthousenews.com/poli...ieces-of-supreme-courts-gun-rights-expansion/
Poper
Member
These quotes make it sound like the judges in the lower courts are expected to act like grade school kids and are incapable of critical thinking and will be unable to reason along the lines of the decision as written and reasoned by SCOTUS.
I am sure there are some judges that are blinded by their ideology and will be reversed by higher courts but I wonder if there will really be the necessity of taking all that many cases to SCOTUS.
CapnMac
Member
It's long reading, going through the history Thomas cited.
One of the points that was repeatedly mentioned that the historical convention of "Surety Bonds" was, historically, only applied to those known or gazetted as being Hazards to Public Decency or guilty of Affray.
This is subtle stuff, but the ground work is clearly laid out that NYS cannot simply make permits $10K, or require exorbitant bonding or insurance. Not unless they had been previously known to be Contrary to the Public Good. In other words, they'd have to be guilty "post crime" not "pre crime."
Now, from the extensive review of history, and let us not forget that the notion of felons being Prohibited Persons is only 51 years old, this suggests a method for Rights Restoration (another thing that has not existed for 51 years, barring enormously exceptional situations). Which would be for those people, having completed their sentences (and paroles) to acquire a surety bond that would be forfeit for any use other than self-defense, This would be entirely in keeping with how the 2nd was interpreted for the century from the 14th Amendment to GCA 68 or the 173 years back to the 2nd.'s ratification.
One of the points that was repeatedly mentioned that the historical convention of "Surety Bonds" was, historically, only applied to those known or gazetted as being Hazards to Public Decency or guilty of Affray.
This is subtle stuff, but the ground work is clearly laid out that NYS cannot simply make permits $10K, or require exorbitant bonding or insurance. Not unless they had been previously known to be Contrary to the Public Good. In other words, they'd have to be guilty "post crime" not "pre crime."
Now, from the extensive review of history, and let us not forget that the notion of felons being Prohibited Persons is only 51 years old, this suggests a method for Rights Restoration (another thing that has not existed for 51 years, barring enormously exceptional situations). Which would be for those people, having completed their sentences (and paroles) to acquire a surety bond that would be forfeit for any use other than self-defense, This would be entirely in keeping with how the 2nd was interpreted for the century from the 14th Amendment to GCA 68 or the 173 years back to the 2nd.'s ratification.
Will Munny
Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2021
- Messages
- 336
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.
There's one other avenue: Civil litigation will hit NY in its purse.
Mark_Mark
Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2021
- Messages
- 17,890
Gun Talks did an entire show on the win and brought in the lawyers who was working the case. And, their expert options on the LONG term implications of this!!!
Great Listen!!
https://guntalk.libsyn.com/
Great Listen!!
https://guntalk.libsyn.com/
BryanDavis
Member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2010
- Messages
- 85
Sounds a bit like what happened with Brown v. Board of Education. Yeah, if various factions refuse to abide by the law things could indeed get... messy.
I'm not a lawyer but I envision contempt of court charges and worse, if people decide to take the path of lawlessness. I wasn't around for it, but I've read about the National Guard being called in to enforce desegregation after Brown.
Anyone ever read about Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus?
What we're talking about is an assault on basic rule of law in America. I would really hope though that America doesn't go down that path though and law and order prevails. Time will tell.
Mark_Mark
Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2021
- Messages
- 17,890
This might be the most important Supreme Court of the United States of America in history. This really sets a path for American to be free. Big Win for everyone, even if you don’t like guns!!!
Last edited:
Will Munny
Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2021
- Messages
- 336
The difference was that in Brown Eisenhower was in charge and was a law and order man that also wanted to see the school desegregated (and he was indeed influencing justices behind closed doors to get that effect).
Biden has criticized the decision, and along with others in the party its not hard to imagine that they will simply do nothing to enforce the order. They don't care about the rule of law.
Well, this should go to court immediately.
As expected NY put up many road blocks for people to obtain permits such as excessive classroom time and range time which could be hard for a single mother in Harlem to complete that many hours of training with a babysitter and even getting to training, also, are there any large gun ranges in NYC?
https://www.newsday.com/news/region...ul-concealed-carry-law-supreme-court-vcwi4xgk
As expected NY put up many road blocks for people to obtain permits such as excessive classroom time and range time which could be hard for a single mother in Harlem to complete that many hours of training with a babysitter and even getting to training, also, are there any large gun ranges in NYC?
https://www.newsday.com/news/region...ul-concealed-carry-law-supreme-court-vcwi4xgk
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
