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

VietnamEraVet

VietnamEraVet

.308 Win
U.S. Military
Messages
4,223
Reaction score
8,913
Location
Ex WNY as of 08/2018. Screw FUAC & FUKH too!
Mosinitis said:
Big Fucking Yawn. Nothing will change. NOTHING!!!!
Click to expand...
Well, I have certainly been wrong before, and I am too broke to bet you even a wooden nickel at the moment, but I am actually a bit optimistic that SCOTUS WILL rule in our favor, albeit that the traitorous Chief Justice Roberts will side with the libs.

I predict that they rule to strike down "may issue" schemes, and there will be massive screaming of liberals from Hawaii to the East Coast, and many points in between, with warnings that the sky will fall as a result.

If that happens, I will be jumping into my hot tub, and celebrating appropriately. No, make that wildly celebrating, - and loudly!
 
Last edited:
Phazer

Phazer

.450/400 Nitro Ex
Messages
9,794
Reaction score
20,805
Location
Province of Westchester
VietnamEraVet said:
Well, I have certainly been wrong before, and I am too broke to bet you even a wooden nickel at the moment, but I am actually a bit optimistic that SCOTUS WILL rule in our favor, albeit that the traitorous Chief Justice Roberts will side with the libs.

I predict that they rule to strike down "may issue" schemes, and there will be massive screaming of liberals from Hawaii to the East Coast, and many points in between, with warnings that the sky will fall as a result.

If that happens, I will be jumping into my hot tub, and celebrating appropriately. No, make that wildly celebrating, - and loudly!
Click to expand...
If SCOTUS strikes down the "may issue" option, could a state be in compliance by uniformly simply denying carry permits to everyone? That would also be equal treatment under the law. Wouldn't it? The liberal states could create a "no issue" option.
 
kev74

kev74

20×102mm Vulcan
Messages
49,998
Reaction score
158,181
Location
Orange Co.
Phazer said:
If SCOTUS strikes down the "may issue" option, could a state be in compliance by uniformly simply denying carry permits to everyone? That would also be equal treatment under the law. Wouldn't it? The liberal states could create a "no issue" option.
Click to expand...
That would violate the Heller decision.
 
Mosinitis

Mosinitis

.338 Win Mag
Messages
8,390
Reaction score
7,805
Location
NY state
VietnamEraVet said:
Well, I have certainly been wrong before, and I am too broke to bet you even a wooden nickel at the moment, but I am actually a bit optimistic that SCOTUS WILL rule in our favor, albeit that the traitorous Chief Justice Roberts will side with the libs.

I predict that they rule to strike down "may issue" schemes, and there will be massive screaming of liberals from Hawaii to the East Coast, and many points in between, with warnings that the sky will fall as a result.

If that happens, I will be jumping into my hot tub, and celebrating appropriately. No, make that wildly celebrating, - and loudly!
Click to expand...

The reason nothing of substance will happen is because they can keep people interested and cheering on without giving them anything in return, as evident in this thread. This is how Conservative playbook works. If people turned their back and ignored Republican/Conservative parasitic system, maybe they would have to do more than empty promises. We can do whatever we need to do without them. Without our votes they can suck dick.
 
1075tech

1075tech

.338 Win Mag
Messages
7,135
Reaction score
17,396
Location
Escaped NY
Phazer said:
If SCOTUS strikes down the "may issue" option, could a state be in compliance by uniformly simply denying carry permits to everyone? That would also be equal treatment under the law. Wouldn't it? The liberal states could create a "no issue" option.
Click to expand...
I suppose they could be like almost every other state and let you have a handgun after completing the 4473. You just won't be allowed to legally take it out of your house
 
Acer-m14

Acer-m14

20×102mm Vulcan
Messages
35,882
Reaction score
38,440
Location
Livingston
the 3rd is going to be interesting for the oral arguments ..

Armed Scholar and Guns & Gadgets from you tube are going to live stream it ...
 
Acer-m14

Acer-m14

20×102mm Vulcan
Messages
35,882
Reaction score
38,440
Location
Livingston
VietnamEraVet said:
Well, I have certainly been wrong before, and I am too broke to bet you even a wooden nickel at the moment, but I am actually a bit optimistic that SCOTUS WILL rule in our favor, albeit that the traitorous Chief Justice Roberts will side with the libs.

I predict that they rule to strike down "may issue" schemes, and there will be massive screaming of liberals from Hawaii to the East Coast, and many points in between, with warnings that the sky will fall as a result.

If that happens, I will be jumping into my hot tub, and celebrating appropriately. No, make that wildly celebrating, - and loudly!
Click to expand...

Please do not shoot the hot tub LOL ..
 
BerettaGuy

BerettaGuy

.308 Win
Messages
4,006
Reaction score
7,336
Location
Cuomo may be gone but his Gun Squad remains.
Phazer said:
If SCOTUS strikes down the "may issue" option, could a state be in compliance by uniformly simply denying carry permits to everyone? That would also be equal treatment under the law. Wouldn't it? The liberal states could create a "no issue" option.
Click to expand...
If the "may issue" is struck down then we in NY should be like other states. You walk in, fill out a form, go through a 4473 check, plop down your 5 bucks, walk out with a Permit to Carry.

No wait time. That is shall issue.

That's the way it is done in many states. That is not an infringement.

Other states don't have what NY has. A no-issue option to CCW is not the same as a no-issue option to forbid possession, purchase or even touching like we have it in NY.
 
BerettaGuy

BerettaGuy

.308 Win
Messages
4,006
Reaction score
7,336
Location
Cuomo may be gone but his Gun Squad remains.
Acer-m14 said:
bearingarms.com

Former Sotomayor Clerk Thinks SCOTUS Has Tipped Its Hand In Carry Case

bearingarms.com bearingarms.com
Click to expand...
Gun owners in New York can apply for either a “restricted” carry license that allows them to transport their firearms to go target shooting or hunting or an “unrestricted” permit that allows for the permit holder to carry for self-defense. Since when? You apply for a Carry Permit. The decision on restrictions is arbitrarily made by the issuing Judge's caprice.


The problem with Tang’s analysis is that it fails to recognize a fundamental flaw in New York’s carry laws: the general public is not seen as having a right to bear arms. Instead, in order to obtain a carry permit, an applicant must demonstrate that they have some need to carry a gun in self-defense that places them above the average citizen. New York’s law is a blanket prohibition on the carrying of firearms, with a few carveouts for those deemed by the issuing authorities to have demonstrated good cause.

Then there’s the arbitrary and subjective nature of New York’s permitting scheme. When I spoke to Robert Nash about his experience applying for a permit, he disclosed that in his home county there are five or six judges assigned at random to handle carry permit applications. Several of those judges accept a general right to bear arms in self-defense as enough of a reason to approve permits, but others rarely if ever sign off on an application; even if, in the case of Robert Nash, the applicant mentions rising crime in their community. Tang speaks of the Second Amendment rights of “those who face real and particularized dangers,” but it’s a right of the People we’re talking about, not just people in high-crime neighborhoods.

I still don't think they are presenting the NY Sullivan Act in the proper context.
 
Grimscale

Grimscale

.338 Win Mag
Messages
7,861
Reaction score
15,356
Location
Rochester
BerettaGuy said:
That is not an infringement.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is.
It's called a "poll tax", as well as having to beg the State to exercise a Right is completely contradictory to the idea of "Rights".

Just because it isn't an egregious infringement does not change the fact that it IS an infringement.


What do you think will happen if a Republican State starts charging $5 to get a permit to vote?
 
BerettaGuy

BerettaGuy

.308 Win
Messages
4,006
Reaction score
7,336
Location
Cuomo may be gone but his Gun Squad remains.
Grimscale said:
Yes, it is.
It's called a "poll tax", as well as having to beg the State to exercise a Right is completely contradictory to the idea of "Rights".

Just because it isn't an egregious infringement does not change the fact that it IS an infringement.


What do you think will happen if a Republican State starts charging $5 to get a permit to vote?
Click to expand...
All I'm saying is you can not own without a permit to carry in NY. Many other states let you buy buy buy but if you want to carry you need a permit. We are infringed in NY right now!
 
cgrutt

cgrutt

.338 Win Mag
NYGF Vendor
Monthly Donor
Messages
8,996
Reaction score
17,043
Location
Interwebz
camper4lyfe said:
Can you give us an RDCV for those of us that don't have a sub to the usa today?
Click to expand...
No subscription but would venture to think Libs grasping at straws to have you believe the 2A means anything but what it says in plain English...
 
Celt

Celt

.450/400 Nitro Ex
Messages
9,703
Reaction score
20,067
Location
Westchester
spat said:
The real problem with the 2A (and all state versions) is a lack of teeth.

What's the penalty for a government official who violates it ?

If it's anything less than a lengthy prison sentence, then RKBA supporters are playing an endless game of whack a mole.


Imagine if the penalty for stealing was just that you had to give the stuff back.


*everyone* participating in a violation of the RKBA, from the clerk who drafts the law, to the legislator who votes for it, to the officer who enforces it, should be locked up.

"just following orders" cannot be allowed to be a defense just like "ignorance is no excuse"
Click to expand...
Agree 100%. When the legislators and executive pass laws that are found to be unconstitutional, they should be on the hook for all costs associated with the violation of Rights. Meaning anybody that was arrested and/or incarcerated for unconstitutional laws and all of the costs and damage associated with it should be their responsibility. They should be able to be sued in civil court personally.

There are many ways in which politicians could be deterred from passing unconstitutional laws. When it's left up to a citizen to try and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars go against the government using taxpayer dollars, the system is rigged against the citizen. Your analogy of whack-a-mole is exactly right. I always like to say the left just keeps throwing s*** against the wall because even if most of it falls some of it will stick.
 
S&W Fan

S&W Fan

.475 A&M Magnum
Messages
14,754
Reaction score
22,020
Location
Somewhere in the sands of time
Phazer

Phazer

.450/400 Nitro Ex
Messages
9,794
Reaction score
20,805
Location
Province of Westchester
S&W Fan said:
Sorry , try this link.
www.yahoo.com

Can New Yorkers carry guns? A 700 year-old law may inform Supreme Court's Second Amendment decision

To analyze a New York regulation on when guns may be carried in public, the Supreme Court may look back in history -- way back to 1328.
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com
Click to expand...
The article author presents a dishonest interpretation based on a warped concept of "originalism":

After all, they note, the New York law itself isn't new. It's been on the books since 1913.​
​
"History makes very clear that the states’ ability to regulate outside the home is both well recognized and broad in scope," said Eric Tirschwell, executive director of Everytown Law, which filed a brief supporting New York's proper cause requirement. "If the justices who believe in originalism apply that methodology here we think it’s an easy case."​
​
"New York’s law," he said, "is supported by centuries of history."​

Originalism pertains to the intent of the writers of the U.S. Constitution and its amendments. There is no need to go back hundreds of years before the founding of the nation. There are notes regarding debates about the amendments. That is all the historical research that is required.
 
Phazer

Phazer

.450/400 Nitro Ex
Messages
9,794
Reaction score
20,805
Location
Province of Westchester
byron

byron

.308 Win
Messages
3,626
Reaction score
14,168
Location
prattsburgh ny
Why in hell would they be looking at some law from 700 years in another country they left there to escape their bullshit laws. this is America suppose to be the land of the free we don't follow other countries law especially from 700 years ago before the US was in existence

That has drawn both sides of the case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, into an intense battle over a statute from 1328 that some historians say informed the Framers' views of when people may carry their guns in public. The Statute of Northampton regulated the carrying of "arms" in public places
 
DrBleachCocktail

DrBleachCocktail

.44 mag
Messages
914
Reaction score
867
Location
Long Island, NY
byron said:
Why in hell would they be looking at some law from 700 years in another country they left there to escape their bullshit laws. this is America suppose to be the land of the free we don't follow other countries law especially from 700 years ago before the US was in existence

That has drawn both sides of the case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, into an intense battle over a statute from 1328 that some historians say informed the Framers' views of when people may carry their guns in public. The Statute of Northampton regulated the carrying of "arms" in public places
Click to expand...
Because the lords who runs NY has traded Freedom for Security. If you guys haven’t realized the very same people we fought against for freedom is the same who is running our NY government TYRANTS!
 
DrBleachCocktail

DrBleachCocktail

.44 mag
Messages
914
Reaction score
867
Location
Long Island, NY
BerettaGuy said:
I friggin knew it. The Brief and question were poorly written. They didn't go into the "Regulatory Scheme" in NY. The lawyer doesn't seem to know that you can't have a handgun without applying for a Concealed Carry license.
Click to expand...
How about you can’t even touch a pistol without for a license. Imagine this same rule apply for voting, you can’t vote without a poll tax.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top