gunpoliticsny
6.5 Creedmoor
Big Tim Sullivan, free speech advocate.
NYSRPA v. Bruen, NY 2A Case Supreme Court case and decision
- Thread starter ManualF150
- Start date
kev74
20×102mm Vulcan
Hahahahh!! The "civil liberty" protectors are opposing civil liberties!!11!! Honk honk!!
Acer-m14
.950 JDJ
can i write a brief to SCOTUS ....
Dear SCOUTS ..
you have ruled that the police have no duty to protect a citizen .. so then the Govt has no duty either .. its to protect the nation
and the State Gov to protect the state from other states ..
you and your past judges failed to use plain language of the law of the 2A in all the cases that you ruled on
we the people are the militia ... shall not infringe ..
Please Correct your wrong doing and admit you were wrong ..
Dear SCOUTS ..
you have ruled that the police have no duty to protect a citizen .. so then the Govt has no duty either .. its to protect the nation
and the State Gov to protect the state from other states ..
you and your past judges failed to use plain language of the law of the 2A in all the cases that you ruled on
we the people are the militia ... shall not infringe ..
Please Correct your wrong doing and admit you were wrong ..
gunpoliticsny
6.5 Creedmoor
FrankenCub
.338 Win Mag
SCOTUS will be peer pressured into caving to the establishment.
How convenient!
www.foxnews.com
Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh tests positive for COVID-19
Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh tested positive for COVID-19, the court announced Friday morning, noting that he's fully vaccinated and showed no symptoms.
www.foxnews.com
Phazer
.338 Win Mag
And.........he'll be fine.How convenient!
Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh tests positive for COVID-19
Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh tested positive for COVID-19, the court announced Friday morning, noting that he's fully vaccinated and showed no symptoms.
They probably don’t want old man Breyer dying off.
kev74
20×102mm Vulcan
They would love for Breyer to die.
Last edited:
Too much uncertainty in the Senate to confirm a lib judge.
kev74
20×102mm Vulcan
The senate hasn't fought one judicial nominee yet. They'd cave on a supreme like they cave on everything else.
The alternative would be to wait 2 years until they loose the majority. But that doesn't make any sense.
Robin
.475 A&M Magnum
Are you positive?
Robin
Thirty-three days from now, the oral argument in NYSRPA v. Bruen will have concluded. At the end of that week, after oral arguments have concluded for all of the cases for the week, the justices will meet in a private conference to vote on how the cases are to be decided and who will be assigned the writing of the majority opinion. As hard as it may be to believe, this is the first, last, and only time the justices will meet to discuss the cases. With the exception of the late Justice Stevens, the Justices do not lobby each other in private to take their position. Justice Stevens said District of Columbia v. Heller was the only time he could remember doing so. He said he lobbied Justices Thomas and Kennedy to incorporate Section III of the Heller opinion.
Justice Kennedy and Stevens are no longer on the Court.
Late last night, I went through every Supreme Court opinion since 2007 that mentioned the Second Amendment, and put this together:
Justice Thomas, in his dissent to Voisine v. US (2016) said prohibitions on concealed carry and the prohibition on carrying arms in sensitive places are narrow and they "neither prohibit nor broadly frustrate any individual from generally exercising his right to bear arms."
"The protections enumerated in the Second Amendment, no less than those enumerated in the First, are not absolute prohibitions against government regulation. Heller, 554 U. S., at 595, 626–627. Traditionally, States have imposed narrow limitations on an individual’s exercise of his right to keep and bear arms, such as prohibiting the carrying of weapons in a concealed manner or in sensitive locations, such as government buildings. Id., at 626–627; see, e.g., State v. Kerner, 181 N. C. 574, 578–579, 107 S. E. 222, 225 (1921). But these narrow restrictions neither prohibit nor broadly frustrate any individual from generally exercising his right to bear arms." -- Justice Thomas
Justice Thomas' citation to Heller at 626-627 is, of course, Section III of the Heller opinion. It is his citation to State v. Kerner which is of interest. Although the Kerner opinion speaks approvingly of the right to openly carry handguns, the opinion also had this to say at 578:
"It is also but a reasonable regulation, and one which has been adopted in some of the states, to require that a pistol shall not be under a certain length, which, if reasonable, will prevent the use of pistols of small size, which are not borne as arms, but which are easily and ordinarily carried concealed."
In my oral argument, I mentioned that a few states had treated handguns that are easily and ordinarily carried concealed as "dangerous and unusual weapons."
I also pointed out in my oral argument that my lawsuit is not limited to handguns, I seek to openly carry long guns as well.
Justice Thomas views prohibitions on concealed carry as being, at worst, a narrow infringement and possibly not an infringement at all.
The only parts of Section III Justice Thomas referred to as "dicta" was this:
"Heller approved, in dicta, laws that prohibit dangerous persons, including felons and the mentally ill, from having arms. 554 U. S., at 626. These laws are not narrow restrictions on the right because they prohibit certain individuals from exercising their Second Amendment rights at all times and in all places. To be constitutional, therefore, a law that broadly frustrates an individual’s right to keep and bear arms must target individuals who are beyond the scope of the “People” protected by the Second Amendment."
Fun fact: Under California law, individuals who fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment cannot be punished for violating California's Open Carry bans. For that matter, they can't be punished for carrying concealed handguns either. They can only be punished for being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm.
Justice Kennedy and Stevens are no longer on the Court.
Late last night, I went through every Supreme Court opinion since 2007 that mentioned the Second Amendment, and put this together:
Justice Thomas, in his dissent to Voisine v. US (2016) said prohibitions on concealed carry and the prohibition on carrying arms in sensitive places are narrow and they "neither prohibit nor broadly frustrate any individual from generally exercising his right to bear arms."
"The protections enumerated in the Second Amendment, no less than those enumerated in the First, are not absolute prohibitions against government regulation. Heller, 554 U. S., at 595, 626–627. Traditionally, States have imposed narrow limitations on an individual’s exercise of his right to keep and bear arms, such as prohibiting the carrying of weapons in a concealed manner or in sensitive locations, such as government buildings. Id., at 626–627; see, e.g., State v. Kerner, 181 N. C. 574, 578–579, 107 S. E. 222, 225 (1921). But these narrow restrictions neither prohibit nor broadly frustrate any individual from generally exercising his right to bear arms." -- Justice Thomas
Justice Thomas' citation to Heller at 626-627 is, of course, Section III of the Heller opinion. It is his citation to State v. Kerner which is of interest. Although the Kerner opinion speaks approvingly of the right to openly carry handguns, the opinion also had this to say at 578:
"It is also but a reasonable regulation, and one which has been adopted in some of the states, to require that a pistol shall not be under a certain length, which, if reasonable, will prevent the use of pistols of small size, which are not borne as arms, but which are easily and ordinarily carried concealed."
In my oral argument, I mentioned that a few states had treated handguns that are easily and ordinarily carried concealed as "dangerous and unusual weapons."
I also pointed out in my oral argument that my lawsuit is not limited to handguns, I seek to openly carry long guns as well.
Justice Thomas views prohibitions on concealed carry as being, at worst, a narrow infringement and possibly not an infringement at all.
The only parts of Section III Justice Thomas referred to as "dicta" was this:
"Heller approved, in dicta, laws that prohibit dangerous persons, including felons and the mentally ill, from having arms. 554 U. S., at 626. These laws are not narrow restrictions on the right because they prohibit certain individuals from exercising their Second Amendment rights at all times and in all places. To be constitutional, therefore, a law that broadly frustrates an individual’s right to keep and bear arms must target individuals who are beyond the scope of the “People” protected by the Second Amendment."
Fun fact: Under California law, individuals who fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment cannot be punished for violating California's Open Carry bans. For that matter, they can't be punished for carrying concealed handguns either. They can only be punished for being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm.
Justice Alito wrote a dissent in which he would have held that the mere possession of a short barrel shotgun by a convicted felon constitutes a violent felony. One of the reasons he gave is because they are concealable.
On the other hand, in 2016 the Supreme Court published a unanimous per curiam (Caetano v. Massachusetts) reversing and remanding a unanimous State of Massachusetts high court opinion upholding a ban on electric stun guns, a stun gun small enough to fit in a purse.
On the other, other hand, the Caetano per curiam did not say that electric stun guns are protected by the Second Amendment. Justice Alito wrote a concurrence (joined by Justice Thomas) where he criticized his fellow justices for not doing so.
The Massachusetts high court opinion in Caetano was reversed for three reasons.
First, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court said that stun guns are not protected because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment's enactment." SCOTUS said, "This is inconsistent with Heller's clear statement that the Second Amendment "extends ... to ... arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding."
Secondly, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court concluded that stun guns are "unusual" because they are "a thoroughly modern invention." SCOTUS said, "By equating "unusual" with "in common use at the time of the Second Amendment's enactment," the court's second explanation is the same as the first; it is inconsistent with Heller for the same reason."
"Finally, the court used "a contemporary lens" and found "nothing in the record to suggest that [stun guns] are readily adaptable to use in the military." 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N.E.3d, at 694. But Heller rejected the proposition "that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected." 554 U.S., at 624-625, 128 S.Ct. 2783.
For these three reasons, the explanation the Massachusetts court offered for upholding the law contradicts this Court's precedent. Consequently, the petition for a writ of certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. The judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion."
Justice Thomas is a die-hard originalist. Justice Alito isn't far behind Justice Thomas in that respect.
Justices Thomas and Alito are also sticklers for adhering to court processes and procedures.
The NYRA lawyers in NYSRPA v. Bruen did not make any argument for concealed carry, let alone an originalist argument that would persuade Justices Thomas and Alito to hold that the denial of the petitioners' applications for concealed carry licenses violated the Second Amendment.
If Justices Thomas and Alito are of the opinion that concealed carry is not a right protected by the Second Amendment then it's hard to see where the five votes are going to come from for the NYSRPA to win.
On the other hand, in 2016 the Supreme Court published a unanimous per curiam (Caetano v. Massachusetts) reversing and remanding a unanimous State of Massachusetts high court opinion upholding a ban on electric stun guns, a stun gun small enough to fit in a purse.
On the other, other hand, the Caetano per curiam did not say that electric stun guns are protected by the Second Amendment. Justice Alito wrote a concurrence (joined by Justice Thomas) where he criticized his fellow justices for not doing so.
The Massachusetts high court opinion in Caetano was reversed for three reasons.
First, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court said that stun guns are not protected because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment's enactment." SCOTUS said, "This is inconsistent with Heller's clear statement that the Second Amendment "extends ... to ... arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding."
Secondly, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court concluded that stun guns are "unusual" because they are "a thoroughly modern invention." SCOTUS said, "By equating "unusual" with "in common use at the time of the Second Amendment's enactment," the court's second explanation is the same as the first; it is inconsistent with Heller for the same reason."
"Finally, the court used "a contemporary lens" and found "nothing in the record to suggest that [stun guns] are readily adaptable to use in the military." 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N.E.3d, at 694. But Heller rejected the proposition "that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected." 554 U.S., at 624-625, 128 S.Ct. 2783.
For these three reasons, the explanation the Massachusetts court offered for upholding the law contradicts this Court's precedent. Consequently, the petition for a writ of certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. The judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion."
Justice Thomas is a die-hard originalist. Justice Alito isn't far behind Justice Thomas in that respect.
Justices Thomas and Alito are also sticklers for adhering to court processes and procedures.
The NYRA lawyers in NYSRPA v. Bruen did not make any argument for concealed carry, let alone an originalist argument that would persuade Justices Thomas and Alito to hold that the denial of the petitioners' applications for concealed carry licenses violated the Second Amendment.
If Justices Thomas and Alito are of the opinion that concealed carry is not a right protected by the Second Amendment then it's hard to see where the five votes are going to come from for the NYSRPA to win.
SCOTUS will keep postponing gun cases until next mass shooting. Then they will just throw them out as they done in the past. People who are holding their breath on this are either too young or too stupid. I no longer give a shit about domestic politics, who wins the elections or who is appointed to the courts. We are screwed either way. At least I will not be played like a fool by self-serving and corrupt.
Bless your Heart!!
Have you noticed that every argument ever made by the concealed carriers in support of their claim that concealed carry is a 2A right does not appear anywhere in the NRA's brief on the merits in NYSRPA v. Bruen?
Robin
.475 A&M Magnum
Dominion Voting Systems has declared Wayne the winner by a land slide, most votes ever tallied by any candidate.
www.foxnews.com
Robin
Wayne LaPierre retains NRA leadership; loyalist Charles Cotton elected president
The National Rifle Association on Saturday said its board of directors reelected controversial CEO Wayne LaPierre.
www.foxnews.com
kev74
20×102mm Vulcan
And its only a coincidence that the cheers of support from the angry mobs sound like "F-Wayne".Dominion Voting Systems has declared Wayne the winner by a land slide, most votes ever tallied by any candidate.
RobinWayne LaPierre retains NRA leadership; loyalist Charles Cotton elected president
The National Rifle Association on Saturday said its board of directors reelected controversial CEO Wayne LaPierre.
The NRA is a shell Corp for WLP’s bank account. Nothing more nothing less.
Acer-m14
.950 JDJ
From the Biden Administration brief:
"New York has long sought to protect public safety by requiring a person to establish “proper cause” to obtain a license to carry a handgun in public. N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00(2)(f). Three features, taken together, establish the constitutionality of that requirement. First, it applies only to the carrying of handguns in public, not to the possession of handguns in the home. Ibid. Second, it applies to handguns, but not to most rifles and shotguns. Id. § 265.00..."
Some states prohibited the carrying of concealable firearms, openly or concealed, because they were concealable. It was the concealment of the weapon that was a danger to the public. It is illogical to argue that people can openly carry rifles and shotguns (not in NYC of course) but must carry handguns concealed, a manner that endangers public safety by their concealment.
And only with a government-issued permission slip, of course.
![giphy[1].gif](https://nygunforum.com/data/attachments/130/130066-d4175a92361c8cd96078655624a4c2d6.jpg "giphy[1].gif")
"New York has long sought to protect public safety by requiring a person to establish “proper cause” to obtain a license to carry a handgun in public. N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00(2)(f). Three features, taken together, establish the constitutionality of that requirement. First, it applies only to the carrying of handguns in public, not to the possession of handguns in the home. Ibid. Second, it applies to handguns, but not to most rifles and shotguns. Id. § 265.00..."
Some states prohibited the carrying of concealable firearms, openly or concealed, because they were concealable. It was the concealment of the weapon that was a danger to the public. It is illogical to argue that people can openly carry rifles and shotguns (not in NYC of course) but must carry handguns concealed, a manner that endangers public safety by their concealment.
And only with a government-issued permission slip, of course.
Acer-m14
.950 JDJ
Bless Your Heart!!!!!
Acer-m14
.950 JDJ
don't they understand there are 3 branches for a fucking reason ..
I think we need "proper cause" to vote or have unpopular opinions too.
Could have ended a lot of this bullshit before it began