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

Vapor

Vapor

.308 Win
Messages
4,891
Reaction score
9,022
Location
Susky county PA
I don't think this will do much honestly. While it certainly wasn't a loss, it's also not a win.


It pretty much if anything, is a fundamentally very small change.


The scrutiny line is the only glint of hope.
 
L

livingston

20×102mm Vulcan
Messages
53,602
Reaction score
145,771
Location
livingston county
theconservativetreehouse.com

Supreme Court Rejects New York Special Need Limitation on Carrying a Firearm, Affirms Inherent Right to Carry - The Last Refuge

In a 6-3 ruling [pdf HERE] the Supreme Court has ruled that New York state cannot require an individual to prove a “special need” in order to carry a firearm for self-protection. The ruling, likely to have ramifications for other gun restricting states, affirms the constitutional right of an...
theconservativetreehouse.com theconservativetreehouse.com
A bit of a run down on the decision ..

CommoChief
June 23, 2022 5:25 pm


Reply to Spooky
This decision encompass and specifically addresses the shenanigans of the circuits. It lays out in detail why the reasoning underlying the shenanigans was wrong; no two step process to evade Heller and specifically informs the lower CTs that strict scrutiny is the only acceptable level of scrutiny to apply.

This is interesting...from the comments section
California Joe
June 23, 2022 5:35 pm


Reply to Spooky
Actually the decision was very strong and covered a lot of territory by eliminating the two step legal concept. Only STRICT SCRUTINY is allowed in 2nd Amendment Constitutional cases now!
 
Darth

Darth

Bunny In Chief
Messages
19,690
Reaction score
25,039
Location
MoCo
I'm just a wee Criminal Justice major, so can someone explain something to me?

We were taught that the SCOTUS was the supreme law of the land. How in the world does "kicking it back down" work?

"Well Colonel, it sounds good, but did you run it by the 2LT for final approval?"

?
 
L

livingston

20×102mm Vulcan
Messages
53,602
Reaction score
145,771
Location
livingston county
www.scotusblog.com

In 6-3 ruling, court strikes down New York’s concealed-carry law

This article was updated on June 23 at 4:06 p.m. The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a New York handgun-licensing law that required New Yorkers who want to carry a handgun in public to show a s…
www.scotusblog.com www.scotusblog.com

OPINION ANALYSIS​

In 6-3 ruling, court strikes down New York’s concealed-carry law​


Thomas rebuffed New York’s effort to justify its proper-cause requirement as an effort to regulate guns in “sensitive places” – specifically, crowded urban areas, like Manhattan, where people are likely to gather. Thomas agreed that, as a historical matter, there have long been laws restricting guns in places like courthouses and polling places. Moreover, he continued, restrictions that apply to the modern versions of “sensitive places” may also pass constitutional muster. Although Thomas left open exactly what might qualify as a “sensitive place,” he made clear that urban areas do not meet that definition. The state’s “argument would in effect exempt cities from the Second Amendment and would eviscerate the general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense,” Thomas concluded.

In a concurring opinion joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Brett Kavanaugh sought to portray the scope of Thursday’s decision as limited. The ruling will not bar states from imposing any licensing requirements, Kavanaugh contended. There are 43 states, he noted, that use licensing schemes that include requirements such as background checks, firearms training, a check of mental health records, and fingerprinting. Such schemes are objective, Kavanaugh explained, rather than granting “open-ended discretion to licensing officials” and requiring “a showing of some special need apart from self-defense.”

Indeed, he continued, the Second Amendment “allows a ‘variety’ of gun regulations.”
 
RooftopKorean

RooftopKorean

6.5 Creedmoor
First Responder
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
5,093
Location
Downstate / Lake Ariel, PA
There will be no traction or definitive case law set until a few dozen people are put through the ringer in an attempt to get their unrestricted permits.

It will be the burden of we the people to prove that there is/was malicious intent by the state/city to create an exhausting, time consuming and strenuous process to get said permit/license.

SCOTUS should have been more defined in how the process should be and made it a national standard, although this could definitely be a double edged sword. Again, something I feel would hurt the 2A community. To wield a blunt or more surgical weapon? There is no middle ground other than following the 2A to the letter of the law with no NFA or things like the SAFE act.
 
B

Briwesk85

.40 S&W
Messages
128
Reaction score
178
Location
Orange County
I’m confused by this ruling. So much I’m reading on Twitter is “now NYers can conceal carry out in public”.
Haven’t we been able to? This ruling will still require a NYer to get a pistol permit, and people with pistol permits were able to conceal carry already if their permit said unrestricted. Am I missing something?
Will this now allow us unrestricted carry permit holders to carry in NYC?
 
ArmedCorgi

ArmedCorgi

.475 A&M Magnum
Messages
14,420
Reaction score
22,629
Location
Utahardia
Briwesk85 said:
I’m confused by this ruling. So much I’m reading on Twitter is “now NYers can conceal carry out in public”.
Haven’t we been able to? This ruling will still require a NYer to get a pistol permit, and people with pistol permits were able to conceal carry already if their permit said unrestricted. Am I missing something?
Will this now allow us unrestricted carry permit holders to carry in NYC?
Click to expand...
Step one: don't read twitter.
Step two: read the court's opinion.
Step three: profit.
 
M

ManualF150

.308 Win
Messages
4,836
Reaction score
8,835
Location
Cayuga
ArmedCorgi said:
Step one: don't read twitter.
Step two: read the court's opinion.
Step three: profit.
Click to expand...
Got me thinking... how many people will misread that and have a valid restricted PP, and go out and start carrying and then get hit up by the popo... good way to get otherwise law abiding citizens.

Not good.
 
SomeSoldier

SomeSoldier

.450/400 Nitro Ex
U.S. Military
Messages
10,452
Reaction score
20,204
Location
Florida
RooftopKorean said:
There will be no traction or definitive case law set until a few dozen people are put through the ringer in an attempt to get their unrestricted permits.

It will be the burden of we the people to prove that there is/was malicious intent by the state/city to create an exhausting, time consuming and strenuous process to get said permit/license.

SCOTUS should have been more defined in how the process should be and made it a national standard, although this could definitely be a double edged sword. Again, something I feel would hurt the 2A community. To wield a blunt or more surgical weapon? There is no middle ground other than following the 2A to the letter of the law with no NFA or things like the SAFE act.
Click to expand...

The SCOTUS in my opinion still fucked this up.

Shall not be infringed. Anything that slows or stops you from obtaining a way to defend yourself is an infringement.
 
B

BuffNiag

6.5 Creedmoor
Messages
1,992
Reaction score
3,055
Location
NY
Briwesk85 said:
I’m confused by this ruling. So much I’m reading on Twitter is “now NYers can conceal carry out in public”.
Haven’t we been able to? This ruling will still require a NYer to get a pistol permit, and people with pistol permits were able to conceal carry already if their permit said unrestricted. Am I missing something?
Will this now allow us unrestricted carry permit holders to carry in NYC?
Click to expand...

I watched this earlier and it’s clear Hochul doesn’t even understand current NY laws.

 
Steal2B

Steal2B

.700 Nitro Express
Messages
28,453
Reaction score
87,437
Location
Dutchess County
Vapor said:
I don't think this will do much honestly. While it certainly wasn't a loss, it's also not a win.


It pretty much if anything, is a fundamentally very small change.


The scrutiny line is the only glint of hope.
Click to expand...
My dollar is betting that the assholes in Albany are looking to this judgement as motivation to further shave back, restrict, and infringe on the peasants' 2A rights in New York ... out of spite.
 
camper4lyfe

camper4lyfe

.308 Win
Messages
4,648
Reaction score
7,041
Location
Avon, NY
Vapor said:
I don't think this will do much honestly. While it certainly wasn't a loss, it's also not a win.


It pretty much if anything, is a fundamentally very small change.


The scrutiny line is the only glint of hope.
Click to expand...
In the end, the hopes of a ruling on scrutiny was what everyone was hoping for. Obviously this ruling helps those in scum lord cities that have ridiculous “cause” requirements, but the biggest takeaway is the scrutiny. That in itself lends to the rehashing of MANY lawsuits that were lost because of the use of the incorrect scrutiny level.
 
camper4lyfe

camper4lyfe

.308 Win
Messages
4,648
Reaction score
7,041
Location
Avon, NY
Briwesk85 said:
I’m confused by this ruling. So much I’m reading on Twitter is “now NYers can conceal carry out in public”.
Haven’t we been able to? This ruling will still require a NYer to get a pistol permit, and people with pistol permits were able to conceal carry already if their permit said unrestricted. Am I missing something?
Will this now allow us unrestricted carry permit holders to carry in NYC?
Click to expand...
All the talking heads are losing it and saying “now everyone will be able to have a gun in public.”

it’s fear mongering, pure and simple. Nowhere did it say that permits are wrong. The decision only rules that the requirement for “a good enough reason” was unconstitutional. Permits can still be required.
 
M

ManualF150

.308 Win
Messages
4,836
Reaction score
8,835
Location
Cayuga
Darth said:
IT's not now, nor has it ever been illegal to CCW with a "restricted" CCW.
Click to expand...
FRB said:
Yeppers, just a simple, I am on my way to.....
Click to expand...
As much as I agree with that and what not, anti-2a cops, judges, and pistol licensing officers don't see it that way.

If one had a restricted PP, it would be asinine to test that theory out. I certainly don't condone it, but I certainly don't recommend it. Kind of like do it at your own risk.

I know of a few friends that have restricted permits that when they got their restricted permit said "What good is it if I can defend myself?". I do have a friend that is planning on to selling their pistol and voluntarily give up with restricted license because its not worth it. Up to them, but that is from all this bull crap that has been going on. I told them they are stupid for even thinking that. Be glad you got that far......

It shouldn't be that way. Shitty, but it's the truth.
 
M

ManualF150

.308 Win
Messages
4,836
Reaction score
8,835
Location
Cayuga
livingston said:
This could send things down the path we don't want. . I can see anyone that has a restricted permit will become void and one must apply for a full carry permit. , We can see a limit on mag size ...Perhaps in the city areas... I an sure they are scheming tonight...
Click to expand...
I sure in the hell hope not. But would I put it past them? Nope.

These people in office are sickos and care for nothing but themselves and their agenda.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top