New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen

Discussion of Firearm Politics & Legislation. This forum is now strictly limited to discussions directly related to firearms.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen

Postby bignflnut » Thu Jun 23, 2022 9:48 am

Gun Owners of America
@GunOwners
Victory for the Second Amendment! “The Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.”
Image
10:38 AM · Jun 23, 2022·Twitter for iPhone


Election Wizard
@ElectionWiz
JUSTICE THOMAS: "Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, and the definition of “bear” naturally encompasses public carry."
10:45 AM · Jun 23, 2022·Twitter Web App


Thomas writes, that the government must show that a gun regulation "is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." He adds that requiring the government to meet such a showing "accords with how we protect other constitutional rights."
10:38 AM · Jun 23, 2022·Twitter Web App
“It’s not that we don’t have enough scoundrels to curse; it’s that we don’t have enough good men to curse them.”–G.K. Chesterton-Illustrated London News, Mar 14, 1908
Republicans.Hate.You.See2020.
"Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams to Mass Militia Oct 11, 1798
bignflnut
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 8051
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Under Naybob Tinfoil Bridge

Re: New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen

Postby pirateguy191 » Thu Jun 23, 2022 10:14 am

Most excellent. Liberals are having a bad day.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." - Ronald Reagan

"When democracy turns to tyranny, the armed citizen still gets to vote." ~ Mike Vanderboegh

NRA member, NRA basic pistol instructor, DBACB
User avatar
pirateguy191
 
Posts: 10955
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 12:06 pm
Location: 44146

Re: New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen

Postby bignflnut » Thu Jun 23, 2022 10:24 am

Page 81 Kav goes out of his way, while concurring, to reiterate Gun Free Zones are in Heller *vomit gif*

3Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022)
K AVANAUGH, J., concurring
Second, as Heller and McDonald established and the
Court today again explains, the Second Amendment “is nei-
ther a regulatory straightjacket nor a regulatory blank
check.” Ante, at 21. Properly interpreted, the Second
Amendment allows a “variety” of gun regulations. Heller,
554 U. S., at 636. As Justice Scalia wrote in his opinion for
the Court in Heller, and J USTICE ALITO reiterated in rele-
vant part in the principal opinion in McDonald:
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second
Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone
through the 19th-century cases, commentators and
courts routinely explained that the right was not a
right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. . . .
[N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt
on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of fire-
arms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding
the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as
schools and government buildings, or laws imposing
conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. [Footnote 26: We identify these presumptively
lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list
does not purport to be exhaustive.]
“We also recognize another important limitation on
the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we
have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected
were those in common use at the time. We think that
limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual
weapons.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 626−627, and n. 26 (ci-
tations and quotation marks omitted); see also McDon-
ald, 561 U. S., at 786 (plurality opinion)
“It’s not that we don’t have enough scoundrels to curse; it’s that we don’t have enough good men to curse them.”–G.K. Chesterton-Illustrated London News, Mar 14, 1908
Republicans.Hate.You.See2020.
"Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams to Mass Militia Oct 11, 1798
bignflnut
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 8051
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Under Naybob Tinfoil Bridge

Re: New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen

Postby docachna » Thu Jun 23, 2022 10:54 am

No doubt the other "may issue" states will distinguish THEIR statutes from New York's statute in Bruen, and it will take extended litigation to get any of the lefty states to fall in line. But it's a great start.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE
docachna
 
Posts: 2131
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2009 9:26 am
Location: Mount Juliet TN

Re: New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen

Postby Klingon00 » Thu Jun 23, 2022 12:09 pm

This is welcome news indeed.

It bothers me that there are SC Justices that will refuse to stand up for the constitution no matter what and others that appear to do so only begrudgingly.
User avatar
Klingon00
 
Posts: 3808
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 11:47 am
Location: Columbus, OH

Re: New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen

Postby pirateguy191 » Thu Jun 23, 2022 12:43 pm

Klingon00 wrote:This is welcome news indeed.

It bothers me that there are SC Justices that will refuse to stand up for the constitution no matter what and others that appear to do so only begrudgingly.


One opinion today was 8-1. Sotomayor was the lone dissenter. I'm not sure she knows what the Constitution is.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." - Ronald Reagan

"When democracy turns to tyranny, the armed citizen still gets to vote." ~ Mike Vanderboegh

NRA member, NRA basic pistol instructor, DBACB
User avatar
pirateguy191
 
Posts: 10955
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 12:06 pm
Location: 44146

Re: New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen

Postby FormerNavy » Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:29 pm

docachna wrote:No doubt the other "may issue" states will distinguish THEIR statutes from New York's statute in Bruen, and it will take extended litigation to get any of the lefty states to fall in line. But it's a great start.


I posted this on SCOTUSblog this morning as I was watching the cases come through..... NY is going to go the way of DC, where they will make it so onerous that they will get sued multiple more times. They will get the smackdown by the lower courts - just as DC did, and eventually settle on something. It will be something less than what most other states have.... but nowhere close to what NY wants.
User avatar
FormerNavy
 
Posts: 2267
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 3:19 pm
Location: Southwest Ohio

Re: New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen

Postby Mr. Glock » Thu Jun 23, 2022 4:52 pm

That right is not a “second-class right,” Thomas wrote. “We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need.”
OFCC Patron, GOA, SAF, YouTube 2A Patreon, NRA Benefactor Life & Hot Stove League Member
User avatar
Mr. Glock
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 8948
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:20 pm
Location: NE Ohio

Re: New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen

Postby Klingon00 » Fri Jun 24, 2022 5:52 pm

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme ... tter_abcnp

In Washington, the Justice Department said, "We respectfully disagree with the Court's conclusion that the Second Amendment forbids New York's reasonable requirement that individuals seeking to carry a concealed handgun must show that they need to do so for self-defense. The Department of Justice remains committed to saving innocent lives by enforcing and defending federal firearms laws, partnering with state, local and tribal authorities and using all legally available tools to tackle the epidemic of gun violence plaguing our communities."


On what precedence or legal grounds does the DOJ have to disagree with the Supreme Court? Is that their job or place?
User avatar
Klingon00
 
Posts: 3808
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 11:47 am
Location: Columbus, OH

Re: New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen

Postby Bruenor » Mon Jun 27, 2022 6:10 am

one of the best parts of the decision are the instructions on how cases are to be evaluated.. Not intermediate scrutiny, not Strict scrutiny, but rather:

The court rejected a two-part test that many lower courts have used to review challenges to gun-control measures. That test looked first at whether a restriction regulates conduct protected by the original scope of the Second Amendment and then, if so, whether the restriction is fine-tuned to advance a significant public interest. Instead, Thomas wrote, if “the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct,” the government has the burden to show that the regulation is consistent with the historical understanding of the Second Amendment.


Reaffirms it is the Bill of rights and not the bill of needs, and that it covers arms in common use for self defense, so a ban on AR's would be difficult after this ruling.
After reviewing nearly seven centuries’ worth of historical sources, beginning in the 1200s and going through the early 1900s, Thomas concluded that although U.S. history has at times placed some “well-defined restrictions” on the right to carry firearms in public, there was no tradition of a broad prohibition on carrying commonly used guns in public for self-defense. And with rare exceptions, Thomas added, there was no historical requirement that law-abiding citizens show the kind of special need for self-defense required by the New York law to carry a gun in public. Indeed, Thomas concluded, there is “no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need.”



Not sure what constitution Biden is reading, but someone may need to send him a copy of the one for the United States.
In a statement released by the White House, President Joe Biden said that he was “deeply disappointed” by Thursday’s ruling, which he described as contrary to “both commonsense and the Constitution.”
Μολὼν λαβέ

"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."

- Thomas Paine

"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem."

- Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
Bruenor
 
Posts: 7257
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 3:03 pm
Location: Geneva, OH

Re: New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen

Postby Brian D. » Mon Jun 27, 2022 6:44 am

Bruenor, I used the "It's a Bill of Rights, not wants or needs" argument last week, twice. Both times in reply to non-gun owners who assured me that 'no one needs to have an AR-15'. Then while their mouths were hanging open, told them they knew virtually nothing on the subject, while I've been around it my entire adult life. Longer, actually. They did their best to change the subject. Both times I bit in and held on like an attack dog on a burglar's butt. Verbally, I mean, not literally. :mrgreen:
Quit worrying, hide your gun well, shut up, and CARRY that handgun!

********************************************************************************
1911 and Browning Hi Power Enthusianado.
Brian D.
 
Posts: 15812
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:42 pm
Location: SW Ohio

Re: New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen

Postby Bruenor » Mon Jun 27, 2022 9:05 am

On the heels of the latest SCOTUS 2A ruling, the CA AG is already looking at how to go about steppin..

Firearms rights should be denied based on moral character and ideological viewpoints.. you are anti-illegal immigration/abortion/animal rights/etc.. application denied.
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/06/26/st ... -licenses/

But the AG's office concludes that the existing statutory requirement "that a public-carry license applicant provide proof of 'good moral character' remains constitutional," and that this requirement isn't limited to disqualifying felons, certain violent misdemeanants, and the like. And in particular the AG's office suggests that people who hold certain ideological viewpoints should be disqualified:

Existing public-carry policies of local law enforcement agencies across the state provide helpful examples of how to apply the "good moral character" requirement. The Sacramento County Sheriff's Office, for example, currently identifies several potential reasons why a public-carry license may be denied (or revoked), which include "[a]ny arrest in the last 5 years, regardless of the disposition" or "[a]ny conviction in the last 7 years." It is reasonable to consider such factors in evaluating an applicant's proof of the requisite moral character to safely carry firearms in public. See, e.g., Bruen (referencing "law-abiding citizens").

Other jurisdictions list the personal characteristics one reasonably expects of candidates for a public-carry license who do not pose a danger to themselves or others. The Riverside County Sheriff's Department's policy, for example, currently provides as follows: "Legal judgments of good moral character can include consideration of honesty, trustworthiness, diligence, reliability, respect for the law, integrity, candor, discretion, observance of fiduciary duty, respect for the rights of others, absence of hatred and racism, fiscal stability, profession-specific criteria such as pledging to honor the constitution and uphold the law, and the absence of criminal conviction." [Emphasis added.]

As to how law enforcement is to figure out such matters, the AG's office has some advice: Among other things,

As a starting point for purposes of investigating an applicant's moral character, many issuing authorities require personal references and/or reference letters. Investigators may personally interview applicants and use the opportunity to gain further insight into the applicant's character. And they may search publicly-available information, including social media accounts, in assessing the applicant's character. [Emphasis added.]


Ah yes scouring your social media so we can deem you an undesirable,.



It's going to be interesting to see what happens to all the cases that were put on hold pending the outcome of NYSRPA vs Bruen,

such as the CA Magazine ban (Duncan v. Bonta), standard capacity magazines are a common use item, can't be banned.

AR15, common use firearm used for self defense, so those state AWB's that are in place should be gonners.. definitely grounds for going after them in court after this current ruling.

Suppressor, common use accessory why is that restricted under the NFA ? that should be removed.

Manufacturing firearms at home ? now that Justice Thomas has clarified how cases are to be evaluated, there's no historical precedent for banning home made firearms so all your 'ghost gun laws .. direct violation of rights.


An interesting aside also is that the Attorneys that won the NYSRPA vs BRUEN case in front of SCOTUS, were asked to either drop their 2A clients or leave the law firm after their victory.
https://archive.ph/Ih1Gr

We are blessed to have represented before the Supreme Court a wide variety of clients, from large corporations and religious orders to criminal defendants and Native American groups. After we prevail before the high court, we generally receive a round of congratulatory messages from law-firm colleagues for a job well done, especially when we have helped our clients vindicate their fundamental constitutional rights.

This time around, we received a very different message from our law firm. Having just secured a landmark decision vindicating our clients’ constitutional Second Amendment rights in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, we were presented with a stark choice—withdraw from representing them or withdraw from the firm. There was only one choice: We couldn’t abandon our clients simply because their positions are unpopular in some circles.


This isn’t the first time we have left a firm to stick by a client. What makes this circumstance different is that the firm approved our representation of these clients years ago, and dropping them would cost the clients years of institutional memory. More remarkable still, in one of the cases we were asked to drop, we prevailed in the Supreme Court on Thursday. Those who object to the representation are thus taking issue with the Constitution as interpreted by a majority of the high court.


Our decision, then, has little to do with the issues in this case and everything to do with the underlying principle. We would make the same choice for any of our clients.


Quite the message for any lawyers interested in defending the 2A in court, the possibility of being not being able to secure a high paying job with the big law firms.


Hopefully this is a decision that keeps on giving for years to come.
Μολὼν λαβέ

"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."

- Thomas Paine

"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem."

- Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
Bruenor
 
Posts: 7257
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 3:03 pm
Location: Geneva, OH

Re: New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen

Postby kcclark » Mon Jun 27, 2022 10:34 pm

Bruenor wrote:
The Sacramento County Sheriff's Office, for example, currently identifies several potential reasons why a public-carry license may be denied (or revoked), which include "[a]ny arrest in the last 5 years, regardless of the disposition"




I get the feeling that being arrested for rioting during the BLM marches of 2020 would be overlooked. Nothing to see here. :roll:
kcclark
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 1179
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 1:16 pm
Location: Central Ohio


Return to National Firearm Politics & Legislation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests