Guns International

SCOTUS 2A Victory: NYSRA v Bruen

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • cbp210

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 7, 2013
    978
    76
    Humble, TX
    ‘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

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 7, 2013
    978
    76
    Humble, TX
    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

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 25, 2020
    1,220
    96
    Cedar Creek, Tx
    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

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 25, 2020
    1,220
    96
    Cedar Creek, Tx
    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.
     

    cbp210

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 7, 2013
    978
    76
    Humble, TX
    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.
    I know that but something tells me that it will end up going to SCOTUS. As you can tell I have no confidence in the 9th.
     

    etmo

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 25, 2020
    1,220
    96
    Cedar Creek, Tx
    I know that but something tells me that it will end up going to SCOTUS. As you can tell I have no confidence in the 9th.

    You can have total confidence in the 9th
    Total confidence they will screw the pooch

    So certainly Rhode will end up asking SCOTUS, but we don't know if SCOTUS will answer. 90% of the time they don't.

    Maybe it's time to talk about the "holes" which are left in our armor after Bruen.

    Bruen says, "...we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. "

    and we all know the 2A's "plain text" is that the right of the people "to keep and bear arms" shall not be infringed. So if the law is infringing on actually keeping or actually bearing, the law has to be supported by proof that similar laws were generally found even in the Framers' era. This is the test now that we have the Bruen decision.

    Therefore, the "holes in our armor" are now limited to laws that don't deal with actually keeping firearms or actually carrying them. It's all the other stuff surrounding that.

    Rhode doesn't deal with keeping or bearing. So Rhode might not be subject to the extremely strict historical test required by Bruen. Rhode is just about whether or not CA can require you to undergo a background check, pay a small fee and wait a short period before you can buy ammo -- let's call it various ammo regulations.

    I won't presume to know how this will turn out, but my feeling is that as long as CA is "shall issue" and their criteria are objective when it comes to allowing you to buy ammo, the law has a decent chance of surviving.

    Bruen made clear that "shall issue" carry permits are OK, as long as the state is objective in their criteria and doesn't get stupid with fees and wait times. So if CA is the same with ammo sales, where you fill out a form online, pay 2 bucks, and wait 3 days for a background check from the FBI, then Rhode has a good chance of surviving a Constitutional challenge.

    If CA has anything in their law which allows some arbitrary judgement call to be made, then I think Rhode will probably be struck down; I don't see how limiting you to a gun with no ammo can possibly pass muster. AFAICT, CA has not fleshed out all the details, so we'll have to see how it goes, so once we clear out unconstitutional laws still on the books that actually effect keeping and bearing, laws like the ones challenged in Rhode are the future battleground -- peripheral junk thrown up to inconvenience and annoy law-abiding citizens.

    In a way, we should be glad. We're no longer fighting for the "basics". The core of the 2A has never been better protected. But there's a long way to go before the 2A is able to sit anywhere besides the back of the bus.
     

    Axxe55

    Retiretgtshit stirrer
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 15, 2019
    47,022
    96
    Lost in East Texas Elhart Texas
    There is also the just write a law and it’s constitutional until ruled otherwise tactic.
    ^^^^This!^^^^

    They can still pass unconstitutional laws all day long, and those laws still stand until someone decides to challenge the merits of whether the law is, or isn't constitutional.

    I fear that the states like New York, California, and others are just going to be more cunning and crafty in how their new laws are written, to see just how far they can push the limits of the SCOTUS ruling.

    Rest assured, this ruling is a huge step in the right direction, but believe that the anti-gunners ain't going to give in so easily. They are pissed beyond any measure of logic at this ruling and are going to do whatever they think they can get away with.
     

    etmo

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 25, 2020
    1,220
    96
    Cedar Creek, Tx
    There is also the just write a law and it’s constitutional until ruled otherwise tactic.

    ^^^^This!^^^^

    They can still pass unconstitutional laws all day long, and those laws still stand until someone decides to challenge the merits of whether the law is, or isn't constitutional.

    True, there is a presumption of constitutionality. However, there are consequences to states passing these laws which will dis-incent them from going full retard.

    First are the financial consequences, which lead to election consequences. While the fringe leftist voters will never care, the moderate taxpayers get upset when they find out that the govt continually wastes their tax money by passing unconstitutional laws, and then when those laws get overturned, their government ends up writing fat checks. Those moderates then vote the other way, and some of those politicians will lose the one thing they care about -- staying in office.

    Eventually, through many lawsuits, the pro-2A crowd will find those few judges who are also pro-2A, and funnel many cases through that judge, all of them if necessary. Look at Judge Roger Benitez in California, they call him "Saint Benitez", because he totally gets the 2A and his decisions reflect that. So now, they can get injunctions on laws relatively quickly -- sometimes more quickly than the legislature can create those laws.

    It's then up to the state to appeal, try to get the injunction overturned, and the fight is on. While the injunction is in place, it's as if the law doesn't exist.

    The second thing is the risk of sweeping decisions in court. This is exactly what NY tried to avoid when they mooted their own case before Bruen happened. DC just tried to do the same thing, whether or not they'll get away with it is TBD.

    Big money donors and high-ranking party officials will often tell locals to take a loss in a case instead of appealing a loss just to keep the damage local. If NY weren't such a pit of vain lunatics, they would have listened to those voices, and not pursued the Bruen case, but they are religious zealots, and kept after it, and now the entire nation will live forever will expanded gun rights. Thanks, NY!

    So I think what we'll see are very carefully considered anti-2A laws. These will not be broad, powerful attempts to disarm the population, they will be shaving nicks, trying to annoy you to death. In places like CA and NY, they will certainly succeed in dissuading many from going down the path of gun ownership. Elections have consequences, and the morons in CA/NY will reap what they have sown, the Constitution can't save idiots from themselves.
     

    Axxe55

    Retiretgtshit stirrer
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 15, 2019
    47,022
    96
    Lost in East Texas Elhart Texas
    True, there is a presumption of constitutionality. However, there are consequences to states passing these laws which will dis-incent them from going full retard.

    First are the financial consequences, which lead to election consequences. While the fringe leftist voters will never care, the moderate taxpayers get upset when they find out that the govt continually wastes their tax money by passing unconstitutional laws, and then when those laws get overturned, their government ends up writing fat checks. Those moderates then vote the other way, and some of those politicians will lose the one thing they care about -- staying in office.

    Eventually, through many lawsuits, the pro-2A crowd will find those few judges who are also pro-2A, and funnel many cases through that judge, all of them if necessary. Look at Judge Roger Benitez in California, they call him "Saint Benitez", because he totally gets the 2A and his decisions reflect that. So now, they can get injunctions on laws relatively quickly -- sometimes more quickly than the legislature can create those laws.

    It's then up to the state to appeal, try to get the injunction overturned, and the fight is on. While the injunction is in place, it's as if the law doesn't exist.

    The second thing is the risk of sweeping decisions in court. This is exactly what NY tried to avoid when they mooted their own case before Bruen happened. DC just tried to do the same thing, whether or not they'll get away with it is TBD.

    Big money donors and high-ranking party officials will often tell locals to take a loss in a case instead of appealing a loss just to keep the damage local. If NY weren't such a pit of vain lunatics, they would have listened to those voices, and not pursued the Bruen case, but they are religious zealots, and kept after it, and now the entire nation will live forever will expanded gun rights. Thanks, NY!

    So I think what we'll see are very carefully considered anti-2A laws. These will not be broad, powerful attempts to disarm the population, they will be shaving nicks, trying to annoy you to death. In places like CA and NY, they will certainly succeed in dissuading many from going down the path of gun ownership. Elections have consequences, and the morons in CA/NY will reap what they have sown, the Constitution can't save idiots from themselves.
    My point is, they are not going to just give in and give up on "gun control" issues. That I believe they are going to get smart and crafty in how they write new legislation regarding gun rights.

    The New York governor is already stating she is going to fight back against the SCOTUS ruling.

     
    Top Bottom