Supreme Court Issues Final Ruling: NYSRPA v. Bruen

This will be impossible someone like a single mom to take the training required and the banned areas is far too broad.



https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status/1543038759003983872?t=OM8oOQ3nYyBF5rFKA0jQWg&s=19

 

A more thorough breakdown.



https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-york-approves-gun-law-requiring-buyers-provide-social-media-handles

 

If you want to read it..
https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2021/s51001

 

Well I think we all knew this was the next step in the fight. Now we have to bring suits so the courts can rule on permissable restrictions/requirements.

 

The problem being is that those writing the decisions do not game plan the pushback when they consider the issues. My naive view is that they lack strategic and tactical focus. They get lost in the weeds of past precedents and obscure principle as solving the problem of the moment and don't realize their discussions leave major loopholes. They do not have an everyday view of how gun rights are utilized. Thus, Scalia and Thomas fell into traps (yes, Scalia had to bow to Kennedy and Thomas - who knows what his clerks fed to him). They need to focus on protecting and enhancing gun rights clearly and unambiguously.

Unless a Justice carried in every day environs, competed, etc. - they probably don't know squat about what we do every day.

Not the court, but I recall Sec. DeVos when asked why we should carry in schools, said some idiocy about Grizzly bears. Parkland, VT, Sandy Hook - not bears. Also Senator Thune when asked about ARs, said - well, folks use them on prairie dogs.

That's the problem. I know in my professional life in academic debates and presentations, we always practiced and red teamed rebuttals.

 

I'm not surprised at New York's actions. If anyone has ever read the opinions of the District Courts and the State Supreme Courts of Illinois, California or New York concerning the Second Amendment, the rulings are idiotic drivel. The District Court for the Southern District of New York will rubber stamp this new law and then the next stop after that is the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

They are the crew that held New York's $340 residential handgun licensing fee did not impose an unconstitutional burden on the exercise of Second Amendment rights in Kwong v. Bloomberg and found against Alan Kachalsky in Kachalsky v. Cacace

 

Why are the political leaders of NY not being charged with contempt of court?

Am I just naive or do I just not have a basic understanding of the law?

 

The Supreme Court has no enforcement arm, it relies on the Legislative and Executive branches to enforce their rulings. Do you honestly think the current Dem occupiers of those two branches are going to enforce it?

 

Maybe after November?

 

I agree but Clarence mentioning the idea of not making all of Manhattan a sensitive area let the cat out of the bag.

 

All courts rule on precedent, and guidance from SCOTUS. And, awarding the plaintiff as per the relief requested; it is a known hallmark of a successful legal position to receive a monetary award as part of the restoration (or being made whole).

Courts can and do enforce a decision via a monetary award.

 

They can pass whatever they want in the NYS Congress but those are the same “restrictions” that lead to the decision. Character references were already in effect, as was social media in a few places. You see the whole “may issue thing” is the problem. This “to determine” your character is way to subjective and will not hold up. They are ****ing in the wind. Won’t pass muster.

 

I'll return to the issue of not legislating from the bench. That might have been true in the fantasy world of Justices Breyer and Barrett saying they are not political animals. Just going by the 'law'. No, they are chosen and confirmed in today's world to carry out decisions that have social policy effects. They interact with legislation to enact or remove social policies.

Their personal values (for which they are chosen) drive their decision. The legal precedents that fill pages are just selective information processing and confirmation bias after the fact to justify and defend their political/social world view. That we get such disparate opinions on social issues are clear evidence that is the process in play.

Justice Thomas had to chime in on gay marriage and sodomy. Why - his personal biases and indicating how he would 'legislate' if he had the chance. That he was just expressing a neutral bias on legal issue is naive or disingenuous at best.

Thomas had opined in the past that the 2A was being mistreated in the lower courts. Occam's razor (carried concealed) still suggests to me that he was not worried about legislating from the bench, he was concerned with the 2A, but rather - he was out thought on the counter-punch. Can Scotus deal with this in real time or wander off into something else?

 

the social media thing really rankles me. what a terrible precedent to set. it must be struck down.

 

Here:

https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-g.../the-judiciary/the-supreme-court-in-operation

 

Oh, wow - President Biden sends in the National Guard to issue shall-issue permits across the land in the states that deny them, of course - if Scotus undoes the NYS new nonsense. Governor H. stands in the door of the county clerk! Sorry.

 

Since this is "Legal", I am going to put my "Average layperson" disclaimer ...

You are both correct.

The legislative branch writes bills and the executive branch signs these bills into laws. But the judicial branch exists to rule whether actions of two other branches are constitutional.

Since current executive and some in legislative branch don't support recent Supreme Court decisions, "We the People" will have to wait for the 2022/2024 elections for full enforcement of Supreme Court rulings if/when we would have executive/legislative branches that support the Supreme Court rulings. (In the meantime, expect flurry of executive/legislative activities to introduce more anti-gun laws which is already happening)

This is what justice Gorsuch said about Bill of Rights, enforcement and government powers (More at link) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...with-question-on-the-second-amendment.856201/

"Bill of Rights and liberty ... Bill of Right is a set of promises on paper ... What makes a promise worth the words on paper is the enforcement mechanisms behind it ... Our Bill of Rights is excellent."

... Judges are the backstop to ensure rights and liberties, that is our job

I am an originalist ... We have a written constitution that our founder wrote down ... They made a charter among 'We the people' ... This is what we agreed to as to what the government's powers are and what they are not ... What our rights are. Originalists ... honor what's written there. Honor those words ... Don't make stuff up and don't take things away. That's the idea"​

And even CNN supports this - https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/01/politics/what-is-the-supreme-court-how-does-it-work/index.html

What does the Supreme Court do? ... the court decides if laws and government actions are constitutional and outlines the breadth and limits of government.

Are Supreme Court decisions final? ... Yes, in the sense that they can’t be overturned by another body.

Can Congress overrule decisions? ... Not directly, but Congress can pass laws that respond to rulings.​