New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen

[AlongCameJones]

Gun Owners of America, I'm a life member, is helping with the battle in SCOTUS there now for gun rights. Amicus brief filings, whatever the devil that means in lawyerspeak, but I digress.

The "right of the PEOPLE to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed."

What part don't people understand about the BEAR part? BEAR means to carry on or about one's person, period. There is nothing explicitly in the 2nd A allowing for any govt. entity to limit, tax as a privilege or restrict handgun carry in public, open or concealed.

The "shall not be infringed." clause explicitly prohibits such gun restrictions on the other hand. It's plain English. It's not legal rocket science.

Requiring a citizen to pay money to local law enforcement and take paid training classes for exercising a Constitutional right (not a privilege) also is a gross violation of the 2nd A. I would like to see SCOTUS rule against state/local jurisdiction CCW license requirements altogether.

It does not say, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms with demonstrated good cause shall not be infringed."

No GOOD CAUSE clause is enumerated in the 2nd A.

Another thing, just because there has been a long-standing tradition and history of anti-2nd-A gun control doesn't make it right for it to continue. The Constitution has been violated for a very long time. SCOTUS judges are sworn to this very same Constitution. It's their Constitutional duty to uphold this Constitution and enforce it to the letter. It's their sworn duty to stop this long-standing tradition and history Constitutional violations once and for all.

Just because most drivers may have at one time or another broken speed laws for many years, does the long-standing popular practice of speeding still make it right to continue to do so?

I'm glad to say GOA is going to bat for us in SCOTUS as they did in Heller and McDonald.

[doofus47]

It would tickle me no end if NY lost this case. It might not change much substantially in that state, but a really pro-2a decision might keep my state from getting stupid ideas.

[Aguila Blanca]

Purely as a guess, I'm going to go out on a very skinny and precarious limb and predict that the SCOTUS is going to rule that New York's "may issue" system is unconstitutional.

And that, IMHO, will be HUGE! That will also impact California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and (I think) New Jersey.

[BornFighting88]

I agree, AB, that it will be huge. I joined SAF and CCRKBA (one in the same really). They send out the “Point Blank” monthly newsletter and they are on top of this case like white on rice. I am thinking the SCOTUS in it’s current majority Conservative make-up will rule as you predicted.

I would love for my freedom-loving brothers and sisters in New Jersey to be able to freely practice a right again.

[TruthTellers]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

Purely as a guess, I'm going to go out on a very skinny and precarious limb and predict that the SCOTUS is going to rule that New York's "may issue" system is unconstitutional.

And that, IMHO, will be HUGE! That will also impact California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and (I think) New Jersey.

I agree and it will only affect may issue states which. while small in number, is not small in population; many millions of people are having their right to bare arms infringed because the state gov't deems it dangerous or otherwise inconvenient.

Consider states that have large cities and shall issue systems (better yet the rivers of blood in the streets inducing permitless systems) like Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, etc. and how there is not an explosion of violence as a result. If the may issue states are forced to become shall issue states will there be more defensive shootings? Yes, because when you veritably outright ban carrying few people will be doing it who aren't criminals, thus you won't have people shooting in defense as much as before.

IDK, I guess the May issue states and their Democrat government would prefer people to be victimized than empowered to defend themselves, that it's better for women to be raped and murdered and her attacker allowed to escape mostly unscathed.

Hey, gotta fill up the prisons with slave labor somehow and introducing guns is a major deterrence to criminal activity. If fewer people commit crimes out of fear of death, how is the government going to get its slaves in the prisons?

Given how few gun cases have reached the court and the major one that includes the "reasonable restrictions" language was Heller, we have to consider how a state giving no reason for denial of a CCW is considered even remotely reasonable.

You can argue not passing a 25 yard range test with a certain score is reasonable (you can't shoot safely or accurately, permit denied!) but not even giving someone the chance to demonstrate that proficiency with firearms in order to get the permit to carry a weapon is as unconstitutional as it gets.

That said, I have zero faith in Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.

[zukiphile]

I am in the midst of listening to oral argument in my car.

Sotomayor argues the facts with Clement, arguing that the NY restriction is effectively just a sensitive places restriction. Breyer seems stuck on guns being dangerous and so subject to regulation.

Kavanaugh asked Paul Clement why he would accept any level of scrutiny for evaluating infringements of the right since Heller doesn't set forth a scrutiny structure for review. Barrett asks whether 1st Am. analytical structures should apply.

[44 AMP]

I expect the Court to rule on a very narrow point of the law, specific to the case before them. That's what the High Court does. The rest of the country will then take their interpretation of that ruling as covering the broad range of everything remotely connected to the subject as what the High Court ruled.

Which, of course, it is not.

Until there actually IS a ruling, all the speculation is just passing the time, and wasting bandwidth on the forum.

[AlongCameJones]

I'm not speculating. I'm stating what I wish for. I wish for SCOTUS to defend the Constitution to the letter as it was sworn to do. Ruling favorably toward New York in this case would go against my wishes. It is communistic and anti-American to rule against gun rights.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by AlongCameJones

....I'm stating what I wish for....

Except your wishes don't necessarily have anything to do with what the law is or how the case will be decided. And the point of having a solid understanding of reality, including what the law really is, is to better be able to make choices that further one's interests while avoiding to the extent possible the snares and tripwires that life lays for us.

Law, including constitutions, statutes, regulations, and decisions of courts of appeal, is a tool used by courts to decide the cases and controversies brought to them for resolution. While you may argue what the law is that is applicable to your case, it's up to the court, in the exercise of its judicial function to decide what law actually does apply and how it applies to the facts to decide the outcome. As the Supreme Court ruled back in 1803 (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 2 L. Ed. 60, 1 Cranch 137 (1803), 1 Cranch at 177), "...It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is....."

The opinions of courts on matters of law affect the lives and property of real people in the real world. Your opinions on such matters and $2.00 will get you a cup of coffee.

Originally Posted by AlongCameJones

...I wish for SCOTUS to defend the Constitution to the letter as it was sworn to do....

Actually, you're wishing that SCOTUS will adopt your understanding of what the Constitution means and how it applies. But not everyone will agree with you about what the Constitution means and how it applies. Indeed, what our Constitution says and how it applies has been a matter for dispute almost as soon as the ink was dry. Hylton v. United States in 1796 appears to be the first major litigation involving a question of the interpretation and application of the Constitution.


in the Constitution the Founding Fathers gave the authority to decide such matters to the federal courts (Constitution of the United States, Article III, Sections 1 and 2):

Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish....​

Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;...

Judicial power is: "...the power “of a court to decide and pronounce a judgment and carry it into effect between persons and parties who bring a case before it for decision.” It is “the right to determine actual controversies arising between diverse litigants, duly instituted in courts...." Many of the Founding Fathers were lawyers and well understood what the exercise of judicial power meant and entailed. In fact, of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, 25 were lawyers: and of the 55 framers of the Constitution, 32 were lawyers.

As the U. S. Supreme Court said over 200 years ago in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), at 177: "...It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is....."

[AlongCameJones]

Still, there's no harm in wishing and praying. I vote in public elections too. The People's vote may affect who is appointed to SCOTUS.