NYSRPA v. Bruen, NY 2A Case Supreme Court case and decision

Blimey

Blimey

.450/400 Nitro Ex
Messages
11,252
Reaction score
16,228
Location
Western NY

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

The case is the first major gun-rights case that the Supreme Court will hear in more than a decade, outside of the moot New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York.[3] It is also the first gun-rights case to be heard by the six-member conservative majority
Click to expand...
Uh, the court is 5:4 at best.

If SCOTUS finds for plaintiff what is outcome? Concealed carry licenses are still legal, but each state has to effectively grant them to law-abiding people, so things like NYC's de facto ban is over?
 
Phauxtoe

Phauxtoe

.338 Win Mag
Messages
7,011
Reaction score
6,547
Location
Rockland
I want to Hope for the best, but i dont believe SCOTUS is directed by the Constitution. They take politics and CASH into decisions More Than Ever.
(When i see 2 million dollar book deals and ethical contrary opinions, it makes me think the Republic is lost!)
 
Blimey

Blimey

.450/400 Nitro Ex
Messages
11,252
Reaction score
16,228
Location
Western NY
Phauxtoe said:
I want to Hope for the best, but i dont believe SCOTUS is directed by the Constitution. They take politics and CASH into decisions More Than Ever.
(When i see 2 million dollar book deals and ethical contrary opinions, it makes me think the Republic is lost!)
Click to expand...
I think they are inspired by the constitution. Like a movie based on a true story.
 
VietnamEraVet

VietnamEraVet

.308 Win
U.S. Military
Messages
3,721
Reaction score
7,621
Location
Ex WNY as of 08/2018. Screw FUAC & FUKH too!
November 3rd huh? I'm betting that the press will be using that to sound the alarm that the world will come to an end unless the libs and SJW's get out and vote.

And then we have the pleasure of waiting until June or July of 2022 for them to issue a decision that NYS and the other 7 or so "may issue" states will simply ignore.

Oh yeah, - almost forgot: I predict that that scumbag turncoat Roberts will stab us in the back and vote with the libs on that decision.
 
Acer-m14

Acer-m14

.950 JDJ
Messages
34,591
Reaction score
36,418
Location
Livingston
FP1201 said:
It'll cost a million dollars to argue this before scotus....do the right thing and make a contribution.
Click to expand...

i will to Ima Survivor Sanctuary at least this Carl bites the hands that feed him LOL .. .. the other Carl won't show up and talk to us ..
 
Steal2B

Steal2B

.700 Nitro Express
Messages
24,491
Reaction score
77,627
Location
Dutchess County
kev74 said:
I can't watch him for 10 minutes. Got a summary?
Click to expand...
NJ is bitching that there are other cases in the pipeline on standard capacity magazine bans so SCOTUS should pass on the suit against them.

NJ says their ban is consistent with Heller because no one needs standard capacity since one can reload or grab another gun

NJ says 5th Amendment "takings without compensation" clause does not apply since standard capacity mags could be sold out of state, permanently butchered to low capacity, or destroyed to be in compliance.
 
CaliforniaOpenCarry

CaliforniaOpenCarry

9mm
Messages
54
Reaction score
34
Location
California
The respondents' brief on the merits is due on September 14th. If the New York attorneys limit their brief on the merits to the question the justices rewrote then justices like Thomas and Alito who have criticized their fellow justices for straying from the question presented to the court are highly unlikely to consider questions not presented to the Court, which is what the NRA lawyers did in their brief on the merits.

Here is a link to the docket. Docket for 20-843
 
ronstar

ronstar

.357 mag
Messages
584
Reaction score
212
Location
Westchester
NYC could try to beat the court to the punch, by allowing the plaintiffs to get gun permits if they can articulate why they need to carry a handgun in public. Simply stating "my neighborhood is dangerous and I want to protect myself" would be enough. NYC may start requiring training classes and liability insurance, as the permit applications pour in.
 
nortatoga

nortatoga

.338 Win Mag
Monthly Donor
Messages
8,158
Reaction score
18,195
Location
Saratoga County
ronstar said:
NYC could try to beat the court to the punch, by allowing the plaintiffs to get gun permits if they can articulate why they need to carry a handgun in public. Simply stating "my neighborhood is dangerous and I want to protect myself" would be enough. NYC may start requiring training classes and liability insurance, as the permit applications pour in.
Click to expand...


This case is against NYS not NYC.
 
cgrutt

cgrutt

.338 Win Mag
NYGF Vendor
Monthly Donor
Messages
8,877
Reaction score
16,721
Location
Interwebz
ronstar said:
NYC could try to beat the court to the punch, by allowing the plaintiffs to get gun permits if they can articulate why they need to carry a handgun in public. Simply stating "my neighborhood is dangerous and I want to protect myself" would be enough. NYC may start requiring training classes and liability insurance, as the permit applications pour in.
Click to expand...
Aside from the fact that requiring citizens to purchase insurance to exercise a right is likely unconstitutional our former disgraced governor made it impossible for law abiding citizens to secure liability insurance for self defense within NYS citing its purpose is against public policy.
 
ronstar

ronstar

.357 mag
Messages
584
Reaction score
212
Location
Westchester
cgrutt said:
Aside from the fact that requiring citizens to purchase insurance to exercise a right is likely unconstitutional our former disgraced governor made it impossible for law abiding citizens to secure liability insurance for self defense within NYS citing its purpose is against public policy.
Click to expand...
Requiring a $200 a year liability insurance is not an unreasonable requirement for concealed-carry. Nor is several hours of close-quarter firearms training. The courts always allow a certain amount of nuances when it comes to civil rights.
 
Phazer

Phazer

.338 Win Mag
Messages
9,172
Reaction score
18,819
Location
Province of Westchester
ronstar said:
Requiring a $200 a year liability insurance is not an unreasonable requirement for concealed-carry. Nor is several hours of close-quarter firearms training. The courts always allow a certain amount of nuances when it comes to civil rights.
Click to expand...
Fine.

Then charge $200 per election cycle in order to vote. Also, require several hours of classroom work to study the issues and offices on the ballot.


(I wish I could stop feeding the trolls. But, they're just so damn cute.)
 
ronstar

ronstar

.357 mag
Messages
584
Reaction score
212
Location
Westchester
Phazer said:
Fine.

Then charge $200 per election cycle in order to vote. Also, require several hours of classroom work to study the issues and offices on the ballot.


(I wish I could stop feeding the trolls. But, they're just so damn cute.)
Click to expand...
Voting doesn't cost money. Liability insurance does. But I would accept CCW liability insurance being tax-deductable and perhaps even refunded if you are below a certain income level.
 
cgrutt

cgrutt

.338 Win Mag
NYGF Vendor
Monthly Donor
Messages
8,877
Reaction score
16,721
Location
Interwebz
ronstar said:
Requiring a $200 a year liability insurance is not an unreasonable requirement for concealed-carry. Nor is several hours of close-quarter firearms training. The courts always allow a certain amount of nuances when it comes to civil rights.
Click to expand...
So says you. Requiring to purchase a product that isn't even available in the state that is requiring it to exercise a fundamental right is a defacto ban, which of course is the intention afterall. Who you looking to protect the law abiding gun owner or the perpetrator who was lawfully shot? Insurance covers accidents not intentional deeds so coverage would likely not be afforded if a gun owner intentionally shot somebody for no lawful reason.
 
CaliforniaOpenCarry

CaliforniaOpenCarry

9mm
Messages
54
Reaction score
34
Location
California
The respondents brief on the merits was incompetent and so it should not surprise anyone to hear that the filing was screwed up as well.

Brief of Kevin P. Bruen, et al. not accepted for filing. (September 15, 2021)

Update, the brief has been resubmitted for filing. We should know by close of business tomorrow whether or not New York screwed up the filing again.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top