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

maverick52

maverick52

.223 Rem
Messages
1,102
Reaction score
2,152
Location
Knowhere
While I know the big picture is good with the ruling, I feel like overall we took a lot of hits this month. First others are banned. Then the rifle license requirement. Now the new requirements for ccp requiring 15 hours of training and making everywhere a sensitive place….I feel don’t feel like we are winning. Maybe many years down the road all of this will get to the second circuit and they will use Bruen to overturn some stuff. But at this point in time it feels like we have suffered some major setbacks.
 
ArmedCorgi

ArmedCorgi

.475 A&M Magnum
Messages
14,425
Reaction score
22,648
Location
Utahardia
maverick52 said:
While I know the big picture is good with the ruling, I feel like overall we took a lot of hits this month. First others are banned. Then the rifle license requirement. Now the new requirements for ccp requiring 15 hours of training and making everywhere a sensitive place….I feel don’t feel like we are winning. Maybe many years down the road all of this will get to the second circuit and they will use Bruen to overturn some stuff. But at this point in time it feels like we have suffered some major setbacks.
Click to expand...
It sucks that NYS seems to think they are above the law. In some instances it really does seem like they should just secede from the union because they seem to think the bill of rights and the consitution don't apply to them. The beauty of this latest ruling, is that kicking and screaming, nys courts now have to rule differently on the 2A. So while the legislature is free to pass whatever garbage they want to, the courts can no longer oblige the legislature with interest balacing rulings. The shit just won't stick.
 
maverick52

maverick52

.223 Rem
Messages
1,102
Reaction score
2,152
Location
Knowhere
ArmedCorgi said:
It sucks that NYS seems to think they are above the law. In some instances it really does seem like they should just secede from the union because they seem to think the bill of rights and the consitution don't apply to them. The beauty of this latest ruling, is that kicking and screaming, nys courts now have to rule differently on the 2A. So while the legislature is free to pass whatever garbage they want to, the courts can no longer oblige the legislature with interest balacing rulings. The shit just won't stick.
Click to expand...
How soon after they pass their new laws will the second circuit rule?
 
maverick52

maverick52

.223 Rem
Messages
1,102
Reaction score
2,152
Location
Knowhere
ArmedCorgi said:
Unfortunately, cases have to be brought. The judiciary isn't proactive. Someone has to bring suit. The good news is that because of this latest ruling, any case brought shouldn't have to go past the lowest court.
Click to expand...
Right. But scotus remanded the case back to the 2nd circuit. So based on that, they can rule against the new laws coming in?
 
spat

spat

.700 Nitro Express
Messages
26,151
Reaction score
54,357
Location
Formerly Geneseo, NY. Now free in AZ
Gunright said:
Since the character references require references from NYS, that discriminates against new residents to the state. Under May Issue, they can say tough tittles. But under Shall Issue, one would think that a NICS check should suffice (or allowing for out of state references).

All I am pondering here is the fact that unless challenged, nothing is changed.

ETA: If the NRA or NYSRPA were on the ball (not saying that they are), they should be trying to line up a set of these kinds of situations to go after the state.
Click to expand...
Maybe even get some out of state non residents to apply.

Not sure "residency" would be a legitimate requirement either.
 
ArmedCorgi

ArmedCorgi

.475 A&M Magnum
Messages
14,425
Reaction score
22,648
Location
Utahardia
maverick52 said:
So based on that, they can rule against the new laws coming in?
Click to expand...
Based on that they should rule against any new laws that are not in compliance with the 2A. They have basically been mandated to by the highest court in the country. If they don't, it will surely find its way to a highly sympathetic supreme court.
 
dwa12479

dwa12479

.338 Win Mag
Messages
6,302
Reaction score
12,390
Location
Dark Side of the Moon
maverick52 said:
Right. But scotus remanded the case back to the 2nd circuit. So based on that, they can rule against the new laws coming in?
Click to expand...
That essentislly just returns it to them with instructions on how to correct their mistake and why it was wrong. It doesn't give them the opportunity to re-issue the same incorrect ruling.
 
Edwardteach72

Edwardteach72

.475 A&M Magnum
U.S. Military
Messages
14,883
Reaction score
15,065
Location
New York
camper4lyfe said:
I don't have a subscription, so I couldn't see the whole article, but as I quickly scanned, I saw a reference to live fire training. Dear NY, if I, who does not have a permit, can not touch a handgun, how am I supposed to participate in live fire training?

Dumbasses
Click to expand...

Another thread someone copy and pasted the whole article. I'll tag you when I find it
 
gun_slinger_boy

gun_slinger_boy

.338 Win Mag
Messages
5,195
Reaction score
6,767
Location
Pennsyltucky
maverick52 said:
While I know the big picture is good with the ruling, I feel like overall we took a lot of hits this month. First others are banned. Then the rifle license requirement. Now the new requirements for ccp requiring 15 hours of training and making everywhere a sensitive place….I feel don’t feel like we are winning. Maybe many years down the road all of this will get to the second circuit and they will use Bruen to overturn some stuff. But at this point in time it feels like we have suffered some major setbacks.
Click to expand...
That's the NY Stockholm syndrome kicking in. Free states are excited about becoming even more free due to this ruling. I see the potential of this and like what I see on the horizon.
 
Edwardteach72

Edwardteach72

.475 A&M Magnum
U.S. Military
Messages
14,883
Reaction score
15,065
Location
New York
maverick52 said:
While I know the big picture is good with the ruling, I feel like overall we took a lot of hits this month. First others are banned. Then the rifle license requirement. Now the new requirements for ccp requiring 15 hours of training and making everywhere a sensitive place….I feel don’t feel like we are winning. Maybe many years down the road all of this will get to the second circuit and they will use Bruen to overturn some stuff. But at this point in time it feels like we have suffered some major setbacks.
Click to expand...

None of those will past muster using the standard of Text as informed by history.


Also it won't take "many years".. the case originally started in 2018, with the lower courts ruling incorrectly (presumably on a 2 step analysis) it then went to the 2nd circuit in 2020. And now ruled on 2022.

At best all the new laws will be destroyed in the lower courts and not need to go to the 2nd circuit,
 
FP1201

FP1201

.308 Win
Messages
3,200
Reaction score
5,299
Location
Adams, NY
Egret-II

Egret-II

.40 S&W
Messages
199
Reaction score
287
Location
United States
camper4lyfe said:
I don't have a subscription, so I couldn't see the whole article, but as I quickly scanned, I saw a reference to live fire training. Dear NY, if I, who does not have a permit, can not touch a handgun, how am I supposed to participate in live fire training?

Dumbasses
Click to expand...
atc250r said:
Copied and pasted Newsweek article:

Gov. Kathy Hochul and legislative leaders were finalizing an agreement Monday to amend New York’s concealed-weapons permitting process — adding 15-20 hours of training, including live-fire practice, for example — when the State Legislature convenes Thursday.
Lawmakers are planning to return to the State Capitol for an “extraordinary session” to address a U.S. Supreme Court decision last week striking down the state’s century-old concealed-carry law. The court effectively said New York’s criteria for issuing permits was too subjective.
In reaction, the governor and leaders of the Senate and Assembly were planning to change the law in two major ways: Adding some objective requirements, such as a minimum amount of training and a background check, and detailing a list of “sensitive areas,” such as public transit, where concealed weapons would be outlawed.

Some of the terms being discussed include “live-fire training,” which the state doesn’t mandate now for a concealed-weapon permit, a source said. Applicants also might be required to complete an in-person interview with a licensing agent.
Sensitive areas might include transportation hubs, courts, schools, playgrounds, libraries, municipally owned stadiums and any place serving alcohol.

The governor indicated lawmakers want to give private businesses the authority to keep guns off their premises. Sources said businesses would have to affirmatively “opt in” to declare they are allowing guns. The default position would be for businesses to prohibit guns.
“We’re going to have sensitive places identified, where you cannot bring guns. It will not be on subways. It will not be on buses,” Hochul told reporters Monday. “We’re going to have a whole host of places restricted.”
She added: “We’re also looking at increasing the requirements for receiving a pistol permit — enhanced training, safe storage."
The Supreme Court struck down a New York law, on the books since 1913, that placed limits on carrying guns outside the home.
The court said the old state law was too restrictive because it required applicants for a concealed-carry gun permit to show “proper cause” and “good moral character,” which were too vague and subjective.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in a concurring opinion, said New York and six other states impacted by the ruling still “may continue to require licenses for carrying handguns for self-defense so long as those states employ objective licensing requirements” used by 43 other states.
Analysts zeroed in on that passage, saying it provides New York lawmakers a path for action.
“New York can still have a permit law. But will have to do it within the confines of the new … standard,” Robert Spitzer, distinguished service professor emeritus at SUNY Cortland and author of “The Politics of Gun Control,” told Newsday last week.
With Michael Gormley
Click to expand...
 
Grimscale

Grimscale

.338 Win Mag
Messages
6,748
Reaction score
12,827
Location
Rochester
"The governor indicated lawmakers want to give private businesses the authority to keep guns off their premises. Sources said businesses would have to affirmatively “opt in” to declare they are allowing guns. The default position would be for businesses to prohibit guns."

Nope. The default is we can carry wherever. If a business does not want us there they have to say so.
You don't get to defacto-ban carrying all over.

Did she fail remedial english or something?
 
camper4lyfe

camper4lyfe

.308 Win
Messages
4,475
Reaction score
6,704
Location
Avon, NY
Grimscale said:
"The governor indicated lawmakers want to give private businesses the authority to keep guns off their premises. Sources said businesses would have to affirmatively “opt in” to declare they are allowing guns. The default position would be for businesses to prohibit guns."

Nope. The default is we can carry wherever. If a business does not want us there they have to say so.
You don't get to defacto-ban carrying all over.

Did she fail remedial english or something?
Click to expand...
Yes she did, and she also failed Constitution 101
 
LibertyWins

LibertyWins

9mm
Messages
51
Reaction score
98
Location
Rochester
Grimscale said:
"The governor indicated lawmakers want to give private businesses the authority to keep guns off their premises. Sources said businesses would have to affirmatively “opt in” to declare they are allowing guns. The default position would be for businesses to prohibit guns."

Nope. The default is we can carry wherever. If a business does not want us there they have to say so.
You don't get to defacto-ban carrying all over.

Did she fail remedial english or something?
Click to expand...
This puts private businesses in a bad spot and basically forces them into a situation where they're able to be publicly politicized if they choose to allow their customers to carry. It's like the mask mandates and forcing businesses to put the "masks must be worn" sign up. It's ridiculous.

I agree the default should be the opposite, unless a business has a sign specifying.
 
Cavalry

Cavalry

.308 Win
Messages
3,843
Reaction score
6,566
Location
Behind Enemy Lines
MikeyCNY said:
From NYSRPA v BRUEN RELEASED - Right to carry outside the house - AR15.COM

View attachment 164222 View attachment 164223
Click to expand...
Interesting. Giardino is my sheriff, as well as having the unique distinction of also being a former County DA and county judge. I would hope having held all those positions he knows something about law. He is pretty pro 2A and had no problem handing out unrestricted permits while on the bench. Hes not as staunch or as vocal on 2a as our former Sheriff Lorey but I get the impression he is not a shitbag either.
I read his FB post and honestly didnt really get the same message. He said thats the direction its going, let it all settle out, give it a couple weeks and it will be a done deal. I am sure he is deflecting it away from being his decision. Horechul does have the ability and power to remove him.
 
Last edited:
Saltwater60

Saltwater60

.950 JDJ
Messages
31,396
Reaction score
35,127
Location
Western NY
Truebeliever said:
The court challenges to those restricted places will be largely successful. Why? In part because it wasn’t considered sensitive for hundred years unlike schools or courthouses. Places like the NYC subway and many parks had exceptions for permit holders in their rules. Thomas in his opinion set a standard that the rule must meet. What they can do is give businesses the right to say “ no gun zone” and give it the force of law.
Click to expand...
I don’t get the giving business signs the force of law. What if I made a sign that said no one in a green shirt or I’ll have them arrested? I get that’s a little bit ridiculous, but now we’re giving private citizens the option to arrest us for exercising our rights without contact or asking us to leave first?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top