Celt
.338 Win Mag
Thats not an answer, thats a deflection. Why do you consider me not human?
NYSRPA v. Bruen, NY 2A Case Supreme Court case and decision
- Thread starter ManualF150
- Start date
Phazer
.338 Win Mag
Done....and done!
I know it's a late reply, but I haven't been online much lately...
Was the Bill of Rights Meant to Apply to the States? | Tenth Amendment Center
Most people have never read the preamble to the Bill of Rights. In fact, a lot of people don’t even know it includes one.tenthamendmentcenter.com
Was the Bill of Rights originally intended to apply to the state governments?
Some people argue that it was. They concoct some interesting arguments based on “rules of construction” or approach it through various philosophies of rights and liberty they attribute to the founders. But there simply exists no founding era evidence that Congress or the state ratifiers intended for the protections included in the Bill of Rights to bind state governments. In fact, doing so would essentially create a federal veto over state laws, a massive expansion of central government authority – the exact opposite of the stated purpose of including a bill of rights.
Most people have never read the preamble to the Bill of Rights. In fact, a lot of people don’t even know it includes one. The preamble makes the purpose of the Bill of Rights very clear.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
The words “its powers” clearly refer back to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was intended to “prevent misconstruction or abuse” of the Constitution’s powers as exercised through “the government” – the federal government. Notice the word government is not plural. The Bill of Rights makes no mention of state governments. In fact, the state ratifying conventions had no intention of restricting their state’s own powers. They already had state constitutions to do that job.
Imagine if somebody from England went before a British court and argued that the Second Amendment gave him the right to own a gun. The judge would laugh him out of the courtroom. The Bill of Rights does not govern in England. Despite the fact that an Englishman has an unalienable right to self-defense, the U.S. Bill of Rights does not prohibit the British government from infringing upon it. England exists as a separate political sphere. A state is no different. Although it has entered a union with the other states as defined by the Constitution, it remains an independent political society, giving up only the powers delegated. Absent specific delegation of power to the federal government authorizing it to police states and force them to abide by itsunderstanding of rights, the power simply does not exist.
Chief Justice John Marshall was an unapologetic advocate for national power, but he explains the limits of the Bill of Rights beautifully in his opinion in Barron v. Baltimore.
Interestingly, when James Madison introduced the Bill of Rights to Congress, he proposed that the equal right of conscience, freedom of the press and the right to a trial by jury should also apply to the states.
Congress explicitly rejected applying those particular amendments to the states, making it abundantly clear that the Bill of Rights was only intended to limit federal power.
Many will agree with this analysis, but argue that the 14th Amendment changed all that and incorporated the protections included in Bill of Rights on state governments.
Stop ignoring History!!
In any event, my short take on it all is this...
The Bill of Rights wasn't necessarily reserved to the Federal Govt but a declaration acknowledging those specifically for the attention they deserved. I'm aware there was much contention during the Constitutional conventions in regard to even putting Rights on paper for the very real fear of what has happened, that then only those Rights be reserved... And here in contemporary times, bastardized!
Again, when you flow backwards in history as to why those who wrote the Constitution arrived where they were and their arguments, there's much validity in removing from Govt the acknowledgement or application of "RIGHTS" at all! ALL RIGHTS should be reserved by the PEOPLE, and the dispensation of said RIGHTS not be a function of Govt! Is amazing today's concept of Freedom, and what exactly Govt is it is supposed to be. Here at least ... Because we did create a unique People/Govt experiment or social compact. Unfortunately, again, bastardized and becoming a major tool for the application of control over the masses (People) for the sole purpose of effectuating it's own powers! A succinct problem...
Anyways...
I agree that it makes no sense for the NRA to provide a financial incentive for its lawyers to lose but it is what it is.
One does not have to be convicted of a crime in order to challenge a law. And it does not take "millions" to take a case to the Supreme Court. My lawsuit cost me much more than I anticipated for several reasons. One, the district court judge would not allow me to electronically file my documents. That, coupled with the fact that the Court would not designate "an attorney to be noticed" until near the end of my lawsuit meant that in addition to the two copies of every document I had to file with the Clerk for the Court I had to print and mail copies to every attorney listed on the docket. The printing and postage the two and a half years I was in the district court was painful.
And, as luck would have it, I also had to pay for printing and overnight postage of all of my briefs, and excerpts of record, and addendum on appeal, because it was not until a year or two after they were filed, did the 9th circuit no longer require multiple printed copies from pro se parties (unless requested). The single-copy desk set of my briefs I brought with me to oral argument cost me over $400 to print.
A party who is allowed to file electronically is not saddled with exorbitant printing and postage costs I had to pay. But even then, had my case in the district court not been dragged out by the judge for two and a half years (I finally had to stand on/by my Second Amended Complaint) it would have cost me around $5,000 in costs for both the district court and court of appeals filings.
Of course, one can always pay more. The legal printing firm I contacted wanted around $4,500 to print and file my briefs on appeal.
The greatest cost if one's cert petition is granted and one loses is one has to pay the other side's printing and filing costs which can run $50,000.
In the 9th circuit court of appeals, the court can tax the cost of the winning side's briefs at up to ten cents a page. That is rare in civil rights cases unless there was already 9th circuit precedent that decided the appeal. But those costs are nominal. If an appeal is frivolous then upon motion by the winning side, the winning side can recoup attorney fees spent on the appeal. In all of the Second Amendment cases that have been decided by the 9th circuit since Heller, and there have been a lot of them, the government attorneys have never collected attorney fees incurred on the appeal.
Now there are complex cases in which the district court costs can run into the tens and even hundreds of thousands of dollars but Second Amendment cases such as mine, and certainly not NYSRPA v. Bruen are those kinds of cases.
The "cost" in NYSRPA v. Bruen was the attorney fees, and they were paid by the NRA.
The greatest obstacle to challenging a law, such as the Sullivan Law, is finding a competent attorney and having the money to pay him. A layman has no chance if he represents himself, and your average Joe does not have the money to hire a competent attorney even if he could find one because competent attorneys are engaged in lawsuits where there is a huge payday waiting for him.
There is no huge payday awaiting an attorney who challenges the Sullivan law. The lawyer gets Loadstar attorney fees, and that's all.
MikeyCNY
6.5 Creedmoor
I haven't posted in this thread at all and just happened to have the time to read the last couple of pages. At first I saw some people aggressively disagreeing with you, but read more to find out why. Found out you were in CA (guess the name was a give-away) and that you're fighting for gun rights and I thought "awesome! he's one of us!".
Then you posted that...
I've erased what I originally put, because I try to stay calm when posting online and not call out anyone in particular. Just know that any goodwill you may have developed is quickly vanishing.
I have spent the past ten years of my life fighting to vindicate the Second Amendment right of Californians and for everyone in the 9th circuit court of appeals should I prevail.
Concealed carriers and concealed carrier wannabees, including the NRA, have fought me every step of the way. They are the enemy. I have no desire to develop goodwill with the enemy.
Fun fact. If the Young v. Hawaii en banc opinion stands either in its entirety or as to concealed carry which will stand regardless because Mr. Young is procedurally barred from challenging anything but the denial of his permit to openly carry a handgun and because the Peruta v. San Diego en banc opinion was not challenged by Mr. Young before the en banc panel then under prior 9th circuit precedent, California's concealed carry licensing statutes will be enjoined leaving the prohibition on concealed carry in place because my lawsuit sought to strike down the licensing laws in its entirety in addition to seeking to enjoin enforcement of California's Open Carry bans.
Getting 100,000+ concealed handguns off the streets of California would be a huge victory, in and of itself.
Robin
.475 A&M Magnum
WTF!?!?!?!?! Whats' your game?
I must be an alien then, a wanna be human people.
We need common ground, not this kind of crap.
Robin
Celt
.338 Win Mag
You are clearly no friend to the 2a.
Phazer
.338 Win Mag
If you mean illegally obtained firearms concealed by criminals, fine.
If you mean legally acquired firearms obtained by trained law-abiding men and women who are 2A-supporting American citizens, then GFY.
FrankenCub
.338 Win Mag
His comments quite simply tells me his mind is in a bubble of British Nobility mindset, maybe his whole genealogy dates back there so is going beyond role-playing. Probably also thinks armed disputes should take place at 10 paces.
FrankenCub
.338 Win Mag
You're pretty special aren't you? You seriously think a CCW ban will take guns out of the hands of hardened criminals? It will only take guns out of the hands of honest citizens. If that's your version of a huge victory, you're a leftist gun grabber.
I don't normally take part in these types of discussions.. but.. well, frankly I'm.. pretty tired of this thread forcing itself into my attention and then, in addressing issues, having to endure any portion of this tirade of absolute nonsense and ridiculous opinions that I'm fairly certain either no one, or almost no one, but @CaliforniaOpenCarry actually has.
Here's the thing. We don't ban for opinions here; at least when they don't come in the form of personal attacks ..etc and so on. Oftentimes I find what some people on here seem to consider 'trolling' is simply not having the popular opinions of the group. That is incorrect. However, I don't think that's the issue here.
Now.. users have been reprimanded verbally in some form or another about personal attacks here. A warning had to be made by one of the site staff about it (not that many posts ago) and this morning one good user was temp banned (by me, but then I lifted it a few hours later and went with a PM semi-warning instead and no ban), Side note: The reason for that (VERY temporary) ban at all was doing it so soon after the public warning was made. That sort of forces a staff response; for reasons I feel should be obvious.
Anyway, all that said, and his absolutely absurd opinions aside, frankly this guy has been pretty much making insults to basically everyone, both in and out of this thread, from the start. The difference, and why it hasn't fully registered as personal attacks, at least in the same way as our traditional standards, is that it's generalized and not directed toward a specific user (at least from what I saw. I didn't read the whole thing), and so they kind of come across as just his opinions.. kind of.
Personally, I don't much care about being insulted... but he's insulting all of you too, and basically the entirety of gun owners also. I think that we'd be hard pressed to even find any other open-carry advocates at all calling (let alone repeatedly, over and over) anyone who conceals a coward, a criminal, not a human, morally bankrupt, a nobody, the enemy, etc and so on and all the other even worse things in here.
So, this is a little bit unconventional in terms of how we do things here and handle bans and such, but it's a somewhat atypical situation and may then warrant atypical action. In any case, this person cannot make his points without constant insults (however generalized) and so this is over. It's a shame because if he could get over himself at all he might have valuable things to add, but.. oh well. Unfortunately, this is one more forum (of many as I understand it) that's done with it.
I don't want to see anything more about issues with this guy in this or other public threads. No "Yay, ding dong the witch is dead" stuff, and if you want to complain about him being sent packing then feel free to send it to me personally. I can't promise I'll respond, but I will read it and I would NEVER ban/whatever anyone based on opinions of me or anything else sent to me in private. I'm not going to close the thread (might be a mistake and I surely reserve the right to change my mind) so the TOPIC can continue.
Sorry for uh.. writing a novel on it.. I do that.. you know this.
Here's the thing. We don't ban for opinions here; at least when they don't come in the form of personal attacks ..etc and so on. Oftentimes I find what some people on here seem to consider 'trolling' is simply not having the popular opinions of the group. That is incorrect. However, I don't think that's the issue here.
Now.. users have been reprimanded verbally in some form or another about personal attacks here. A warning had to be made by one of the site staff about it (not that many posts ago) and this morning one good user was temp banned (by me, but then I lifted it a few hours later and went with a PM semi-warning instead and no ban), Side note: The reason for that (VERY temporary) ban at all was doing it so soon after the public warning was made. That sort of forces a staff response; for reasons I feel should be obvious.
Anyway, all that said, and his absolutely absurd opinions aside, frankly this guy has been pretty much making insults to basically everyone, both in and out of this thread, from the start. The difference, and why it hasn't fully registered as personal attacks, at least in the same way as our traditional standards, is that it's generalized and not directed toward a specific user (at least from what I saw. I didn't read the whole thing), and so they kind of come across as just his opinions.. kind of.
Personally, I don't much care about being insulted... but he's insulting all of you too, and basically the entirety of gun owners also. I think that we'd be hard pressed to even find any other open-carry advocates at all calling (let alone repeatedly, over and over) anyone who conceals a coward, a criminal, not a human, morally bankrupt, a nobody, the enemy, etc and so on and all the other even worse things in here.
So, this is a little bit unconventional in terms of how we do things here and handle bans and such, but it's a somewhat atypical situation and may then warrant atypical action. In any case, this person cannot make his points without constant insults (however generalized) and so this is over. It's a shame because if he could get over himself at all he might have valuable things to add, but.. oh well. Unfortunately, this is one more forum (of many as I understand it) that's done with it.
I don't want to see anything more about issues with this guy in this or other public threads. No "Yay, ding dong the witch is dead" stuff, and if you want to complain about him being sent packing then feel free to send it to me personally. I can't promise I'll respond, but I will read it and I would NEVER ban/whatever anyone based on opinions of me or anything else sent to me in private. I'm not going to close the thread (might be a mistake and I surely reserve the right to change my mind) so the TOPIC can continue.
Sorry for uh.. writing a novel on it.. I do that.. you know this.
Last edited:
This is really total BS!!!!
reason.com
Amnesty International brief against right to bear arms
As the U.S. Supreme Court considers whether to enforce the Second Amendment right to "bear arms" in New York State Rifle...
reason.com
Phazer
.338 Win Mag
Yup.This is really total BS!!!!
Amnesty International brief against right to bear arms
As the U.S. Supreme Court considers whether to enforce the Second Amendment right to "bear arms" in New York State Rifle...
We're gonna get screwed really hard by SCOTUS. We could end up worse off than before this case.
MothMan
.338 Win Mag
I disagree. If this case does not preserve the right of self defense outside of the home than it is going to be the red and purple states that will be worse off.
Celt
.338 Win Mag
I'm going to keep some faith that this goes in our favor.
Maybe not to the extent we would all like but I'm looking at this in the sense that it will take back some ground that we previously lost on gun rights.
Maybe not to the extent we would all like but I'm looking at this in the sense that it will take back some ground that we previously lost on gun rights.
Acer-m14
.950 JDJ
Last Brief Filed In SCOTUS Carry Case Is A Thing Of Beauty
The attorney representing gun owners utterly shreds New York's defense of its carry laws.
bearingarms.com
Clement then turns to the standard of review that should he believes should be used to determine the constitutionality of New York’s Sullivan Act, and once again utterly obliterates the state’s position.
Acer-m14
.950 JDJ
Locked and Loaded: Supreme Court is ready for a showdown on the Second Amendment
The high court has been carefully waiting for just the right case to address states and cities that have sought to limit gun rights.
thehill.com
FrankenCub
.338 Win Mag
Ehh...nothing good will come of this. They'll punt with some bullshit excuse.
gun_slinger_boy
.338 Win Mag
If they were to rule in favor the issuing scheme will still be in place correct? If it remains may issue nothing much will have changed. They can even make it harder to get a permit.
BerettaGuy
.308 Win
You know, the more I think about this,
We had Heller and McDonald but the real problem is, the Appellate courts turn their heads to the Supreme Court and flip them the bird and give rulings that will get them invited to the latest liberal cocktail party.
We had Heller and McDonald but the real problem is, the Appellate courts turn their heads to the Supreme Court and flip them the bird and give rulings that will get them invited to the latest liberal cocktail party.
BerettaGuy
.308 Win
Again, the NY Sullivan laws infringed on any and all "law-abiding" citizens to handle, touch, purchase, own, borrow or bear a handgun and certain long guns. Whether in the home or outside the home they are forbidden unless they apply for and are then granted permission in an arbitrary and capricious mannor a "LICENSE TO CARRY PISTOL". (Pull out your Permit and look at it) Yet, NYSPRA picks the "Restrictions" to litigate. It is like saying We agree that the License Scheme is okay, but the restrictions have to go. So even if they overturn the "restrictions" nothing else changes. Not much of a victory. Just saying. A victory would be that NY becomes a Shall issue vs may issue and no permit needed to purchase a handgun is required. In other words, we become like all the other states. Handguns are treated the same as long guns at gun stores. But then NYSPRA would be out of business wouldn't they.
NC is an almost free state. You have to get a Purchase card from the Sheriff or have a CC permit to buy handguns. There was a bill to remove the Purchase card from existence but the GOV vetoed it.
Good you mention McDonald before that case the States follow their own State constitutions, some of these State do not have RTKABA's and also some that did gave the legislature the power over concealed weapons.
State Constitutional Right to Bear Arms - Gun Control - ProCon.org
45 US states include the right to bear arms in the state constitutions, some for self-defense and the defense of the state. The oldest of the provisions date to 1776 in North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Virginia (though all three have since been revised, the right remains in place). Iowa was the...
gun-control.procon.org
There was a time 49 states required a license to conceal carry..
The History of Concealed Carry in the United States
Despite a long history as a gun culture concealed carry in America is a new phenomenon. In the past two decades this trend has expanded greatly.
www.usacarry.com
Folk's might not be so mad if they did their own research...
camper4lyfe
.308 Win
It really only helps NYC with the whole premise permit deal, but the hopes is that the court defines that 2nd amendment cases should have strict scrutiny applied to them at all times. The strict scrutiny part is what carries the most weight on a national level.
This case should/would help NYC residents upgrade there permise permits to carry, and the rest of the State do away with hunting and taget restrictions. Maybe more....
BerettaGuy
.308 Win
There is no state that does what the NY Sullivan Law does.
NY Sullivan is not a license to CCW it is a friggin license to possess - own - handle - touch.
Not only that you "carry" a complete list of all owned handguns in a registry in your pocket.
If you cannot see the infringement in all of that, then you are native-born and bred New York, gun owner.
Last edited:
BerettaGuy
.308 Win
How long does a CC permit take and how long does a purchase card take. Here in NY it takes anywhere from 30 to 400 days and cost between 200 and 500 dollars to get a permit. If you go to a gun store and want to handle a pistol, they demand to see a permit before they will let you handle it. Whether Dixecrats or Democrats I had no idea North Carolina was that screwed up. I also believe that all gun control is rooted in racism and fear of black men with guns. So it is understandable. Our Sullivan law was passed by an Irish administration mobsters to keep guns out of the hands of Italian mobsters. The rest is history.
BerettaGuy
.308 Win
NY does not mention the RTKAB Arms in their Constitution. But is word for word in their Civil Rights law. so either way any violation of a New Yorker's RTKABA is a violation of a person's civil rights.
As I said NC is almost a free state. It is much better than NY but it could be a lot better.
It took me 8 months in NY back in 2002 to get mine and it was 110 bucks one time fee.
In NC it took me 2 months to get my CC in 2021. Well actually it took 5 months because I had to establish residency, get a NC drivers license and then wait for an appointment. It cost me 110 bucks (50 for the class and 60 for the county) which I will have to renew every 5 years at 60 dollars each time 25 years will cost me 300 dollars).
The pistol purchase card costs 5 bucks and takes about a week but NC is an open carry state so if you just want one and done and are not worried about CC, you are better off with a Purchase Card. You have to do all of this on weekdays during business hours In both states, so convenient (hint of sarcasm).