2A ruling from SCOTUS

Stogies said:
Big decision, not only did they strike down the NYC law they also clarified that all laws regarding 2A have to comply with the constitution. You can't just babble "public safety" and restrict something anymore.
Click to expand...
Up in MI I was at a local city meeting one year planning for a festival. They were trying to declare the whole downtown area where the festival was planned to be a sensitive are. Yeah, I went off on them during the public comments section. I asked them that if i'm legally able to carry every other day of the year on those streets, what possible compelling public interest would there be for stopping me from doing it during the festival. I think I dropped in something about people with concealed carry licenses being statistically safer than the police they were having patrol. It didn't go over all that well.

Next guy got up and talked about how many ordinances the city was violating already, like allowing people to have beer on the streets, etc, and started reminding them that the state had preemption over gun laws, and nothing they said about guns would be legal... again, they were not pleased.
 
NCFubar said:
What’s going to be interesting is how this plays out with the other “may issue” states like Commiefornia and New Jersey along with the others (hell Hawaii supposedly is the worst) where the Dims are dug in hard on their state’s gun control hold. It should pretty much be the same across the board as New York so grab the popcorn cause it’s about to get real good!
Click to expand...

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard was threatened by a man who stalked her for years and told the FBI he was going to cut her head off. She went to the local authorities and they told her they'd reject a CCW application if she submitted one.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: Me.
DrScaryGuy said:
Up in MI I was at a local city meeting one year planning for a festival. They were trying to declare the whole downtown area where the festival was planned to be a sensitive are. Yeah, I went off on them during the public comments section. I asked them that if i'm legally able to carry every other day of the year on those streets, what possible compelling public interest would there be for stopping me from doing it during the festival. I think I dropped in something about people with concealed carry licenses being statistically safer than the police they were having patrol. It didn't go over all that well.

Next guy got up and talked about how many ordinances the city was violating already, like allowing people to have beer on the streets, etc, and started reminding them that the state had preemption over gun laws, and nothing they said about guns would be legal... again, they were not pleased.
Click to expand...
Yeah I think this Scotus decision could have huge implications down the road.
 
One of the libs at my office honestly believed, after watching CNN, that SCOTUS struck down concealed carry laws natiowide and gave us all constitutional carry. Man, Ida been partying if that happened!
 
Last edited:
I'm waiting for one hundred years of convictions to be vacated. After that I'll wait for the prior restraint of waiting for your permission to exercise a right to be struck down. Then it will be striking down the concept of being required to pay a fee or tax in order to exercise that right to be overturned decades after SCOTUS struck down the Poll Tax under that exact same rationale.

I suppose we'll have to be content with small battles won along the path to the destruction of Western Civilization.
 
Me. said:
I went with a “loophole”. My county requires that you notify them of an address change. Which I did. Fully expecting my permit to be yanked.

I guess I fell through the cracks.


You have to recertify every five years, though. I’m confident that when that day comes, my license will disappear (as I have no intention of attempting to renew).
Click to expand...

if NY law is anything like MA, once one moves out of state the CCW is no longer valid. I doubt NY allows a permit to remain active once their subject relocates to another state. I could be wrong though as ive never read the NY laws.
 
Yeah, when I got my NC Driver's license the lady at the DMV said my "gun permits" and ID cards would be invalidated by Illinois. I knew this, but I was suprised she said so.

Illinois law when I left required me to turn in the cards. I mailed them to the IL State Police. My wife received a nice letter a week later that said they rfeceived the cards and her cards were now revoked. My letter came over a year later. Real efficient over there, aren't they.
 
92G said:
if NY law is anything like MA, once one moves out of state the CCW is no longer valid. I doubt NY allows a permit to remain active once their subject relocates to another state. I could be wrong though as ive never read the NY laws.
Click to expand...
states are often somewhat hazy on partial residency. If you have a friend or family member in-state that you're welcome to stay with, you may be able to file at their address and still be legal.
I have an open invitation to go stay at my parents as much as i need to back in MI. They have 2 spare bedrooms, so ... i can still be a resident there since they don't require any percent of time spent in-state to qualify as a resident.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Me.
92G said:
if NY law is anything like MA, once one moves out of state the CCW is no longer valid. I doubt NY allows a permit to remain active once their subject relocates to another state. I could be wrong though as ive never read the NY laws.
Click to expand...

Ny permits used to be lifetime and only went with a 5yr renewal with the bs law update. Even then I've heard its not being enforced.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Me.
jimmyjames8 said:
AP article on this in today's N&O says all this does for NY is removes the need to show cause when applying for "a license to carry".
Click to expand...
Not true they clarified the standard by which all gun restrictions will need to be handled. There is a decent explanation in here:

thefederalist.com

The Supreme Court's Gun Decision Is A Huge Win For The Constitution

In New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Supreme Court finds that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right.
thefederalist.com thefederalist.com
 
Last edited:
Sadly, I believe the SCOTUS decision will effectively be meaningless. Here’s the CA AG’s advice to those responsible for permits (licenses?) in the state.


Notice the following wording clearly at odds with the fundamental concept that we are “Innocent until proven guilty”. They will invent (continue to invent) enough obstacles and roadblocks that nothing will have changed.

Existing public-carry policies of local law enforcement agencies across the state provide helpful examples of how to apply the “good moral character” requirement. The Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office, for example, currently identifies several potential reasons why a public-carry license may be denied (or revoked), which include “[a]ny arrest in the last 5 years, regardless of the disposition”…
 
Jeppo said:
Sadly, I believe the SCOTUS decision will effectively be meaningless. Here’s the CA AG’s advice to those responsible for permits (licenses?) in the state.


Notice the following wording clearly at odds with the fundamental concept that we are “Innocent until proven guilty”. They will invent (continue to invent) enough obstacles and roadblocks that nothing will have changed.

Existing public-carry policies of local law enforcement agencies across the state provide helpful examples of how to apply the “good moral character” requirement. The Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office, for example, currently identifies several potential reasons why a public-carry license may be denied (or revoked), which include “[a]ny arrest in the last 5 years, regardless of the disposition”…
Click to expand...

Fifth Amendment on Line One.
 
Everytime I asked a LEO a question about a law or ordinance I get a different answer. I have finally come to the conclusion that there is no law on the streets. The only law that means anything is the law in a room full of lawyers who want to take everything you got. I think they call them "courthouses".
 
Last edited:
I think SCOTUS was smart in the way they kind of moved the 2A ruling from the news with the next day release of overturning RvW.
 
It's all over on 6/30 for the October 2021 session of the Supreme Court and decisions will presumably be handed down in the EPA and immigration cases.

However, the Court also needs to clean up existing petitions. The following 2A cases are still before the Court and were "DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/29/2022" so watch for their disposition on the Orders list:
Duncan v. Bonta = California magazine capacity limit
Young v. Hawaii = Hawaii open and concealed carry
Bianchi v. Frosh = Maryland assault weapon ban
NJRPC v. Grewal = New Jersey magazine capacity limit

In addition, the following case related to North Carolina is still pending:
Moore v. Harper = North Carolina redistricting
 
Pretty good letter to the editor.

Ventura County Star
Wed, June 29, 2022 at 3:15 PM


First of all, what does the U.S. Constitution actually say?
Secondly, I assume that a word used in the Constitution in one section has the same meaning or definition when used elsewhere in the Constitution.
The second part of the Second Amendment reads, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
The key word in my argument is the word “people.”
The preamble begins “We the people...” (you and I)
Article I, section 2 states, “The House of Representatives... by the people...” (you and I)
The First and Fourth Amendments state, “... the right of the people...” (you and I)
The Ninth Amendment states, “... retained by the people...” (you and I)
- ADVERTISEMENT -

The 10th Amendment states, “... nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people.” (you and I)
The 17th Amendment states, “... by the people thereof...” (you and I)
I conclude the preamble, article I, section 2, and the first, fourth, ninth, 10th, and the 17th amendments to the U.S. Constitution that the word people refers to you and me and not the federal government, states’ governments, national guard, nor the militia, but to you and me.
The 10th Amendment specifically separates states and people and does not imply states and people mean the same entity. So, the Second Amendment states that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. This decision was just made by the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia remarked that the U.S. Constitution is not a living document, it is a dead document. You don’t interpret it according to popular sentiment.
If you don’t like what the Constitution says, then go to Article V for instructions on amending it.
George Maguire, Ventura
This article originally appeared on Ventura County Star: Letter: 2nd Amendment refers to ‘people’
 
gc70 said:
The following 2A cases are still before the Court and were "DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/29/2022" so watch for their disposition on the Orders list:
Duncan v. Bonta = California magazine capacity limit
Young v. Hawaii = Hawaii open and concealed carry
Bianchi v. Frosh = Maryland assault weapon ban
NJRPC v. Grewal = New Jersey magazine capacity limit
Click to expand...

All four of the above cases were handled on the Orders list by: :) :) :)

Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. ___ (2022).
Click to expand...
 
Jayne said:
All remanded so they get kicked back down to the last court which presumably will look at them in a new light based on the last pro-2A ruling.... which means at least the 9th won't care and will just uphold the limits/bans as before. What a waste of time.
Click to expand...

So much for....

Sixth Amendment​

Sixth Amendment Explained


In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
 
Jayne said:
All remanded so they get kicked back down to the last court which presumably will look at them in a new light based on the last pro-2A ruling.... which means at least the 9th won't care and will just uphold the limits/bans as before. What a waste of time.
Click to expand...

Reversing the lower court's judgement and remanding the case for the lower court to decide under the Supreme Court's instructions is the typical way cases are handled. The ruling portion of NYSRPA v. Bruen:
New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Click to expand...
 

U.S. Supreme Court throws out rulings upholding gun restrictions​

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-supreme-court-orders-lower-150520950.html

Translation:
Dear lower courts, based on the guidelines we laid out in our decision last week, ALL of these bans that you upheld are now unconstitutional, so we're sending them back to you so you can reverse your findings. And if any of them get sent back to us, we're gonna be pissed, so don't let that happen.
Love,
SCOTUS
 
Last edited:
Jayne said:
All remanded so they get kicked back down to the last court which presumably will look at them in a new light based on the last pro-2A ruling.... which means at least the 9th won't care and will just uphold the limits/bans as before. What a waste of time.
Click to expand...
Waste of time? a government to busy to brake anything new is the best government
 
gc70 said:
Reversing the lower court's judgement and remanding the case for the lower court to decide under the Supreme Court's instructions is the typical way cases are handled. The ruling portion of NYSRPA v. Bruen:
Click to expand...

So if the lower court doesn't change their mind then nothing changes and we end up with another challenge. It's not like there is any sort of penalty for being wrong time after time.
 
surrealone said:
And if any of them get sent back to us, we're gonna be pissed, so don't let that happen.
Love,
SCOTUS
Click to expand...

Is there an actual threat there, or will they just receive a sternly worded letter? Saying FU to the higher court could be a good thing depending on who/what you're trying to do with your legal career.
 
Jayne said:
Is there an actual threat there, or will they just receive a sternly worded letter? Saying FU to the higher court could be a good thing depending on who/what you're trying to do with your legal career.
Click to expand...
In my excitement I took a `lil dramatic license, there -- i.e. there's no threat. I would, however, expect an admonishment ... which is how judges tend to express being pissed, hence taking such license. :)
 
Jayne said:
So if the lower court doesn't change their mind then nothing changes and we end up with another challenge. It's not like there is any sort of penalty for being wrong time after time.
Click to expand...

If the Supreme Court thought a lower court verdict was correct under the new instructions in NYSRPA, the petition for certiorari would have been denied and the lower court's verdict would have stood.

By granting certiorari, the Supreme Court is saying the case was considered, the lower court's verdict was in error, and the judgement in the case was vacated (removed). The case is remanded for the lower court to do the grunt work of reaching a new verdict and writing a new ruling based on the Supreme Court's new instructions. One very important part of a remand is that the lower court deals with all of the technical details of a ruling, such as issuing orders, often with precise instructions, to the participants in the case.
 
gc70 said:
the lower court to do the grunt work of reaching a new verdict and writing a new ruling based on the Supreme Court's new instructions.
Click to expand...

Seems like a long way around and gives the lower court a chance to mess with things and screw with the intent of the higher court's ruling.

I trust no one.
 
Fred said:
@cubrock didn't the trials for these cases occur a long time ago, and these are the appeals of the trials' outcome, thus not a sixth amendment violation?
Click to expand...


Yes, they are appeals, but my personal opinion is that the long, drawn out way our legal system handles cases is a violation of the Sixth. That includes the appeals process, but, again, that is my opinion.
 
I just got some spam from FPC, they're pretty happy about this with respect to the AWBs and such. Maybe it's more of a win that I thought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom