SCOTUS 2A Victory: NYSRA v Bruen

[toddnjoyce]

@AndiTurner what’s the likelihood of a successful case to or get the lege to overturn 30.05/.06/.07 signs based on Bruen?

 

[DoubleDuty]

That's what i have called to happen for years

 

[Axxe55]

 

[Axxe55]

 

[Alpha.Geek]

I found this quite humorous...

 

[kbaxter60]

From what I’ve read, the justices really poked a lot of holes in New York’s arguments


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Yeah, but then they probably walked in the courtroom with a lot of holes in their argument .

 

[cbp210]

‘We’ didn’t trigger shit. In this specific instance, NY could have changed their law, but chose not to. In the abortion case, Missouri put in a place a 15 week timeline. Abortion rights group didn’t like it and sued.

In their eyes we did. Yes they did cause their demise as what they did was "take an inch go for the mile approach.

 

[cbp210]

Yes, but the real biggie is a very old SCOTUS decision exending the “Interstate Commerce Clause”.

If they reverse that one, we go back to pure federalism, and the entire “big government” and its “deep state” come tumbling down.

I don’t think that they have the guts to “do the right thing”; but we may be surprised.

Pray !

I am surprised daily with this SCOTUS. I am hoping that they take up the Rhode vs Becerra ammo case.

 

[etmo]

I look for some sort of backlash from New York politicians and legislators in light of this SCOTUS ruling. But I see the new ruling possibly hindering them quite a bit. I hope anyways.

The backlash is well underway, but the next SCOTUS b*tchslap might be very close at hand.

The backlash seems to be centered around abuse of sensitive places (NY gov wants to make subways sensitive places FFS) and other ways to allow public officials the power to arbitrarily deny you a permit to carry.

For an example of the latter, CA is banking on their requirement that an applicant for a permit to carry must provide 3 letters from non-family members that demonstrate "good moral character". They'll deny your application, saying that the letters failed to demonstrate you have good moral character.

But DC is where the rubber is meeting the road. DC has a regulation which says you can't have a "propensity for violence or instability". Of course they have no objective criteria for what constitutes such a propensity.
They recently used that regulation to revoke a carry permit from a man named Whitaker (who is black and has dreadlocks, so he's the perfect plaintiff for our side).

Whitaker sued DC, and then DC did the same thing as NY -- they gave him a permit and said that his case was moot. Whitaker obviously has a spine, because he has pressed his suit, not letting it drop, and that suit has gone all the way through the system already, and is asking SCOTUS to make the final decision. SCOTUS could decide to take that case as soon as next term.

If we get lucky, SCOTUS could take that case and cement what they said in Bruen by telling CA, NY, DC and everyone else where they can shove their arbitrary BS.

 

[etmo]

I am surprised daily with this SCOTUS. I am hoping that they take up the Rhode vs Becerra ammo case.

Not yet possible.
The 9th Circuit is still working on Rhode. The 9th has only known about the Bruen decision for a few days, just like the rest of us, so the 9th will need to reconsider Rhode in the light of the Bruen decision, which will take months, at least.

The proper paperwork to get the 9th to reconsider Rhode, given the Bruen decision, was filed a few days ago (just hours after the Bruen decision was released), so it probably hasn't even been entered into the 9th's calendar yet by the court's clerk.

Some months from now, the 9th will get around to acting like morons WRT Rhode, and totally screw the pooch. Then, and only then, can Rhode ask SCOTUS to take a look.