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

[ManualF150]

I recently watched this video from the FPC:

FPC and FPF Urge the United States Supreme Court to Restore the Right to Carry Arms in Public

The brief was authored by FPC’s Director of Constitutional Studies, Joseph Greenlee. It is FPC’s second Supreme Court brief filed in the last week.

www.firearmspolicy.org

NYSRPA v. Bruen

I know other places are talking about this too...

I got thinking, if this actually went through, how would this affect people that already have pistol permits? Would we all be just granted unrestricted?

Unfortunately, I live in an upstate county that is not 2A friendly.

I saw that video and had my hopes kind of jump up a little for us all...

 

[C3D]

I was just thinking of Jennifer Lawrence. You think she might come over and give me a backrub?

One can dream . . .

 

[pshift]

 

[GOPerfect]

While I applaud those that are trying to keep the faith, I am glad that I have given up hope that things will change in a positive way for the 2A.

In the next few months, bad and evil things will be coming in regards to gun Rights.

I will watch and try to gain some positivity from others around me. The Second is on life support; along with the First.

 

[SonOfSun]

The Second is on life support; along with the First.

How is the 1st on life support? The 1st only protects govt. limiting your speech, and I'm not aware of them doing that.

 

[GOPerfect]

How is the 1st on life support? The 1st only protects govt. limiting your speech, and I'm not aware of them doing that.

Then you are not paying attention to the happenings around the US.

I personally have been posting many, many examples here on this forum.

Glad to know you live in a world of ignorance and bliss. Maybe I should be envious of the world/country that you see.

 

[GOPerfect]

How is the 1st on life support? The 1st only protects govt. limiting your speech, and I'm not aware of them doing that.

Here is only one, one of thousands of violations of the First Amendment:\\

On March 30, 2020, officers with the Hillsborough County Police Department in Florida arrested the Rev. Rodney Howard-Browne, who pastors a Pentecostal megachurch, for holding a worship service despite an emergency order ordering people to maintain social distancing and avoid large gatherings in order to combat the coronavirus epidemic.

 

[GOPerfect]

Here is only one, one of thousands of violations of the First Amendment:\\

On March 30, 2020, officers with the Hillsborough County Police Department in Florida arrested the Rev. Rodney Howard-Browne, who pastors a Pentecostal megachurch, for holding a worship service despite an emergency order ordering people to maintain social distancing and avoid large gatherings in order to combat the coronavirus epidemic.

One more example:

Police in Minnesota have violated journalists' constitutional rights as law enforcement officers pepper sprayed, fired rubber bullets at or otherwise attacked, injured or arrested members of the press covering recent protests.

 

[SonOfSun]

Wasn't aware of either of those two things, yeah they both seem like pretty obvious violations of 1A.

 

[Phazer]

Wasn't aware of either of those two things, yeah they both seem like pretty obvious violations of 1A.

Government forcing houses of worship to remain closed for "health concerns" during the pandemic while CostCo, Walmart, and Home Depot are allowed to remain open.

 

[GOPerfect]

Wasn't aware of either of those two things, yeah they both seem like pretty obvious violations of 1A.

I do not wish to hijack this thread, but there are hundreds and hundreds of examples. Easy to find them.

Many on the left, those that support Biden and the Mutt are happy with these violations!

 

[Grimscale]

I got thinking, if this actually went through, how would this affect people that already have pistol permits? Would we all be just granted unrestricted?

Seeing as how the permit process, as upheld in New York, is already in conflict with Supreme Court decisions regarding the Right to buy and possess a pistol in the home, I predict absolutely nothing will change with regard to the permitting process and restrictions after any subsequent S.C. decision is rendered.

 

[spat]

How is the 1st on life support? The 1st only protects govt. limiting your speech, and I'm not aware of them doing that.

When the line between government and corporations gets blurry you enter the realm of facism.

It's getting hard to tell them apart these days.

Some of them are approaching the level of defacto branches of government.

Many of them are violating constitutionally guaranteed rights on a continuous basis.

Is tyranny OK with you as long as the .gov outsources it ?

 

[pjzwtl]

When the line between government and corporations gets blurry you enter the realm of facism.

. This! A lot of cranky spoiled kids and adults running around screaming facism but few know what it really is. Dumbed down hx in action.

 

[nortatoga]

Seeing as how the permit process, as upheld in New York, is already in conflict with Supreme Court decisions regarding the Right to buy and possess a pistol in the home, I predict absolutely nothing will change with regard to the permitting process and restrictions after any subsequent S.C. decision is rendered.

Which case are you citing? If Heller v DC, Heller sued for a premise permit not a carry license.

 

[ProgSpear]

When the line between government and corporations gets blurry you enter the realm of facism.

It's getting hard to tell them apart these days.

Some of them are approaching the level of defacto branches of government.

Many of them are violating constitutionally guaranteed rights on a continuous basis.

Is tyranny OK with you as long as the .gov outsources it ?

Actually, it is the definition of fascism, or corporatism, as defined by Mussolini. When the goals of the state and the corporations merge, the result is fascism, which is why I had difficulty making a distinction between stalinism and fascism, as the methods and results were the same, regardless of the rhetoric used to justify the positions. While an unlikely source, the original speech is contained here:

Private Site

arplan.org

EDT: In retrospect, I think this state of affairs was exactly what Eisenhower warned about in his farewell speech.

 

[Truebeliever]

One more example:

Police in Minnesota have violated journalists' constitutional rights as law enforcement officers pepper sprayed, fired rubber bullets at or otherwise attacked, injured or arrested members of the press covering recent protests.

Bad example. Some some so called journalists are a part of the protests. Some are imbedded with the protests. It’s more of where they are standing then what they are reporting. It wasn’t the targeting of them for their speech or profession. Unlike some of the other restrictions. such as shadow banning on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube of certain speech and not others such as suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story. Or anything against the Covid narrative.

 

[GOPerfect]

Bad example. Some some so called journalists are a part of the protests. Some are imbedded with the protests. It’s more of where they are standing then what they are reporting. It wasn’t the targeting of them for their speech or profession. Unlike some of the other restrictions. such as shadow banning on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube of certain speech and not others such as suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story. Or anything against the Covid narrative.

No, it's a good example. I have zero issue with arresting "pretend" journalists.

I have an issue, a serious issue, when the Police are arresting real journalists that are reporting news.

This did in fact occur. Many times during the riots and protests.

 

[Truebeliever]

Here is only one, one of thousands of violations of the First Amendment:\\

On March 30, 2020, officers with the Hillsborough County Police Department in Florida arrested the Rev. Rodney Howard-Browne, who pastors a Pentecostal megachurch, for holding a worship service despite an emergency order ordering people to maintain social distancing and avoid large gatherings in order to combat the coronavirus epidemic.

This kind of stuff has been addressed by the courts. Cuomo lost. And SCOTUS ruled in favor of freedom of

No, it's a good example. I have zero issue with arresting "pretend" journalists.

I have an issue, a serious issue, when the Police are arresting real journalists that are reporting news.

This did in fact occur. Many times during the riots and protests.

yes it did. The press didn’t move. It’s sometimes impossible to tell which press is just reporting or a part of it especially when they refuse to move. And yes accredited journalists were actively apart of the riots.

 

[GOPerfect]

This kind of stuff has been addressed by the courts. Cuomo lost. And SCOTUS ruled in favor of freedom of

yes it did. The press didn’t move. It’s sometimes impossible to tell which press is just reporting or a part of it especially when they refuse to move. And yes accredited journalists were actively apart of the riots.

The violations if the First amendment have been enormous throughout the past year. The Police have violated their oath, county workers, more government officials and politicians have step on and shit on people's rights during this Covid Bullshit. Once the violations have occurred, it is impossible to get back what was violated!

The press has huge Rights under the 1st, they have been violated in a very bad way.

I can come up with hundreds and hundreds of violations. Disgusting if Americans support these violations. People have Rights and the violations during Covid are disturbing. Disturbing that you seem okay with these actions.

 

[Truebeliever]

The violations if the First amendment have been enormous throughout the past year. The Police have violated their oath, county workers, more government officials and politicians have step on and shit on people's rights during this Covid Bullshit. Once the violations have occurred, it is impossible to get back what was violated!

The press has huge Rights under the 1st, they have been violated in a very bad way.

I can come up with hundreds and hundreds of violations. Disgusting if Americans support these violations. People have Rights and the violations during Covid are disturbing. Disturbing that you seem okay with these actions.

Oh, I can point to many as well. I was pointing out that particular one was a bad example. Reporters who are imbedded in the protest ( some active participants) and get arrested for not listening is different than reporters getting arrested for what they write or being targeted. Sort of like what happened under Obama and how they wiretapped reporters like James Rosen.
There is a reason why the NYC sheriffs department enforced the Covid restrictions instead of the NYPD. The rank and file NYPD officers did not enforce it. I even saw where one NYPD officer called someone making a fuss over the masks a “ Karen “.

 

[ProgSpear]

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Reading this I see nothing that elevates “the press” above the people at large, or their other rights. While it specifically restricts congress making laws, by extension if congress or the executive provide special privileges to certain corporations in order to warp the meaning of the amendment, then the term that used to apply was quibbling, where the same end was achieved by other methods. Flatly, .GOV is populated by lawyers, and their sole purpose in life is to find clever ways to circumvent, subvert or bypass the law.

 

[GOPerfect]

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Reading this I see nothing that elevates “the press” above the people at large, or their other rights. While it specifically restricts congress making laws, by extension if congress or the executive provide special privileges to certain corporations in order to warp the meaning of the amendment, then the term that used to apply was quibbling, where the same end was achieved by other methods. Flatly, .GOV is populated by lawyers, and their sole purpose in life is to find clever ways to circumvent, subvert or bypass the law.

Not according to the thoughts and writings of the Founding Fathers. Words of yesteryear had serious meaning

 

[ProgSpear]

@GOPerfect, if I understand your comment correctly I think we’re in agreement. What I was trying to convey is that clearly written language in both the first, second and other amendments have been bastardized by a long chain of unscrupulous lawyers doing everything they can to find a way to suborn the meaning of plain language, to the point of working the law to find a way for others to do their dirty work. Think section 230. Consider the state of the fourth amendment. The list goes on and on...

 

[Grimscale]

Which case are you citing? If Heller v DC, Heller sued for a premise permit not a carry license.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the Heller decision the Supreme Court ruled that it is a Right to be able to purchase a pistol for defensive use in the home. ie: does not require permitting.

Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but in New York you cannot purchase, or even handle, a pistol without first asking permission of the government, and obtaining a pistol permit. The fact that the permit is listed as a "conceal carry permit" is false as it also restricts the ability to own/posses/purchase a pistol as well.

Thus, the permitting scheme, as rendered by New York, is in conflict with the decision in Heller v. DC.
Yet nothing has changed.

So I predict that another Supreme Court decision that upholds the 2nd Amendment will be similarly ignored by our tyrannical government. in violation of not only Heller, McDonald, and any new decision rendered against the State.

 

[nortatoga]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the Heller decision the Supreme Court ruled that it is a Right to be able to purchase a pistol for defensive use in the home. ie: does not require permitting.

Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but in New York you cannot purchase, or even handle, a pistol without first asking permission of the government, and obtaining a pistol permit. The fact that the permit is listed as a "conceal carry permit" is false as it also restricts the ability to own/posses/purchase a pistol as well.

Thus, the permitting scheme, as rendered by New York, is in conflict with the decision in Heller v. DC.
Yet nothing has changed.

So I predict that another Supreme Court decision that upholds the 2nd Amendment will be similarly ignored by our tyrannical government. in violation of not only Heller, McDonald, and any new decision rendered against the State.

You are wrong about not requiring a permit.

" In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home."

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) | FindLaw

Case opinion for US Supreme Court DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER. Read the Court's full decision on FindLaw.

caselaw.findlaw.com

And another thing that most try to ignore is a SCOTUS case from 1897 Robertson v Baldwin which is mentioned in the Heller opinion.

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press ( article 1) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people [165 U.S. 275, 282] to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;

 

[spat]

You are wrong about not requiring a permit.

" In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home."

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) | FindLaw

Case opinion for US Supreme Court DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER. Read the Court's full decision on FindLaw.

caselaw.findlaw.com

And another thing that most try to ignore is a SCOTUS case from 1897 Robertson v Baldwin which is mentioned in the Heller opinion.

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press ( article 1) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people [165 U.S. 275, 282] to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;

Well, the court ordered DC to issue him a permit because that's all Heller was asking for.

His pleading specifically stated that was the remedy he sought.

They never actually addressed whether the requirement for a permit was constitutional or not.

They *did* basically outlaw "may issue" permit schemes like NY's though.

Also, the 2A specifically protects the right to bear (i.e. carry) arms. While the court may have decided the government may restrict the manner of carriage (i.e. no concealed carry) and it *has* upheld similar "time, place, and manner" restrictions on 1A rights, that is a far cry from the complete prohibition that "no concealed carry, and also no open carry" amounts to.

 

[nortatoga]

Well, the court ordered DC to issue him a permit because that's all Heller was asking for.

His pleading specifically stated that was the remedy he sought.

They never actually addressed whether the requirement for a permit was constitutional or not.

They *did* basically outlaw "may issue" permit schemes like NY's though.

Also, the 2A specifically protects the right to bear (i.e. carry) arms. While the court may have decided the government may restrict the manner of carriage (i.e. no concealed carry) and it *has* upheld similar "time, place, and manner" restrictions on 1A rights, that is a far cry from the complete prohibition that "no concealed carry, and also no open carry" amounts to.

I'm well aware that Heller did not challenge the licensing scheme.

" Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. "

But I was answering a comment from the previous post

" Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the Heller decision the Supreme Court ruled that it is a Right to be able to purchase a pistol for defensive use in the home. ie: does not require permitting. "

 

[C3D]

Shocking, no action on Corlett today at SCOTUS, so we continue to wait to see if they will take it.

 

[ManualF150]

Well it got another dissent: DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/23/2021.

FWIW, this doesn't mean a relist for those that are keeping tabs.

Interestingly enough, the court denied cert for two gun cases today, but held on to this one.