Well, New York has wasted no time whatsoever

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Metal god

My point was asking do they get ahead of all the anti states and you seem to say not there job ? I can’t imagine that was there thought in Bruen . “We are only ruling in this case and not considering how it effects the rest of the states” I feel they ruled the way they did in Bruen because it will set precedent for the rest of the country .

They (the Supreme Court) ruled on Bruen because that was the case before them.

[Metal god]

Are we really going to only speak in the technical sense, and using the logic whatsoever . You say that as if they don’t have choices in what cases are before them but ok I can already see where this is going , you all win .

[Aguila Blanca]

Metal god -- We all know that the Supreme Court doesn't take every case that's submitted to them, and we all know that for many years following McDonald the Supreme Court didn't grant cert to any new 2A cases. And then they took Bruen. So, yes, you are correct that they have choices regarding what comes before them.

I fail to see how that relates to your previous post:

Originally Posted by Metal god

So as you can see, second verse, same as the first type of law . These NY cases are so much further along with one case only being one step from SCOTUS . If and when this reaches SCOTUS the CA case will be moot or at least much of it will be . Silver lining for “me” is I just got my CA ccw and it’s good for two years . Lets hope it’s all worked out before I need to renew ;-) . One thing I could see causing issues to pro carry groups in CA is — the NY case not reaching or being denied by SCOTUS regardless of who appeals . Like if plaintiffs win at the 2nd circuit and the state does not appeal or there appeal is denied.

Which brings up a question that actually relates to this NY case . Lets say the 2nd circuit rules against the state . Now lets say generally the SCOTUS mostly agrees with the 2nd ruling . Do they still take the states appeal knowing there likely decision will stop the rest of the anti carry states or do they deny and let all the other states cases naturally make there way through the courts ?

What -- exactly -- are you asking?

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Metal god

....Which brings up a question that actually relates to this NY case . Lets say the 2nd circuit rules against the state . Now lets say generally the SCOTUS mostly agrees with the 2nd ruling . Do they still take the states appeal knowing there likely decision will stop the rest of the anti carry states or do they deny and let all the other states cases naturally make there way through the courts ?

My crystal ball has proven to be faulty, but .... Based on what SCOTUS did after Heller and McDonald, I suspect they would deny cert to see what other circuits do. If a circuit split develops, then they'll take a case. If not, they'll let it ride. Obviously, whether SCOTUS takes the appeal will make a big difference to people in the 9th (for example).

[Metal god]

Spats , waiting for a split makes perfect sense especially after what they did here in letting the 2nd work this out them selves . I had not thought of it in that way .

What exactly was I asking ? I thought I was pretty clear but in the simplest terms . Do you/we think SCOTUS will be proactive in that they would be willing to take a case even though it’s current status is one they agree with . Meaning there would be no reason to take it other then them thinking the rest of the country needs that same precedent sooner then later .

I think Spats nailed it because although the states have been running amuck . The courts to date don’t seem to be .

[Aguila Blanca]

It's all crystal ball gazing at this point, but my crystal ball says regardless of which way the 2nd Circuit rules on the NY case, there are enough justices on the SCOTUS who care about the 2A and Bruen that they would accept an appeal -- because I think they will want to signal to the rest of the country that Bruen meant what it said. And I think they will want to send that signal sooner rather than later, before one of the pro-2A justices retires or dies, and the liberals get to appoint another anti-gun justice.

[natman]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Internet news today regarding the NY law,

Liberal groups are joining against the NY law due to the requirement to submit social media accounts to the state....

As well they should be. Requiring the state to approve your internet usage is a blatant violation of the First Amendment.

The brief tellingly quotes a Justice Sonia Sotomayor concurrence from a 2012 Supreme Court case called United States v. Jones, in which the Justice stated that “Awareness that the government may be watching chills associational and expressive freedoms. And the government’s unrestrained power to assemble data that reveal private aspects of identity is susceptible to abuse.”

https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/0...edia-accounts/

Consider that New York Attorney General Letitia James has already called the NRA a "terrorist organization". Well, they're hardly going to issue CCW permits to members of a "terrorist organization" are they? So NRA membership could make it impossible to get a permit. Although finding reasons to not issue permits is the state's goal in the first place.

[44 AMP]

As well they should be. Requiring the state to approve your internet usage is a blatant violation of the First Amendment.

A lot of people don't care or get involved until their "personal ox is being gored". Note how, in this case some of the groups objecting to the NY law are not objecting to the gun control part of it, but the requirement to provide internet/social media information. THAT, they care about....

and, a minor point, the state is not "approving internet usage", they are not attempting (at this point in time) to regulate usage or what you can say, they are demanding you provide them with what you have already done so they can "review" it and determine if you are someone they wish to allow issue of a pistol permit to.

As you pointed out, this is entirely arbitrary, entirely up to the state officials, what is, and isn't a disqualification for permit issuance.

Always remember that the authority of any government to say "you may not" is also the authority to say, "you must!"

If the law is allowed to stand, as is, its not outside the realm of possibility that, at some point in the future NOT having a social media presence might be grounds for disqualification!! IT is entirely up to them, not us, if the law stands as is....

Also, aside from the base violation of privacy rights, consider the necessary practical steps that would have to be taken to actually enforce such a policy.

Someone would have to take the time to read literally every single thing you ever posted, and THEN make a judgement on your suitablility. The sheer volume of work, the people needed to review it all, and the cost to do so would be staggering.

And, none of it would have any impact on crime, other than to put vulnerable citizens at risk by denying them a means of self defense, until they state finally gets around to approving their permit application, IF, they ever do....

I read recently that there was a shooting (murder?) in Times Square, despite all the "GUN FREE Zone" signs. That's working well...now isn't it??

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

It's all crystal ball gazing at this point, but my crystal ball says regardless of which way the 2nd Circuit rules on the NY case, there are enough justices on the SCOTUS who care about the 2A and Bruen that they would accept an appeal -- because I think they will want to signal to the rest of the country that Bruen meant what it said. And I think they will want to send that signal sooner rather than later, before one of the pro-2A justices retires or dies, and the liberals get to appoint another anti-gun justice.

I will not be disappointed if it turns out that you are right. Not one bit.

[natman]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

and, a minor point, the state is not "approving internet usage", they are not attempting (at this point in time) to regulate usage or what you can say, they are demanding you provide them with what you have already done so they can "review" it and determine if you are someone they wish to allow issue of a pistol permit to.

I didn't mean to imply that the state is passing approval on internet usage in general. At least not yet. They are, however passing approval on your internet communications in order to exercise your constitutional right to get a CCW permit.

The Supreme Court tells them that they have to be objective in their criteria for granting permits, and they immediately do everything they can to make the process as subjective as possible.

[HKGuns]

Assuming the elections are not fraudulent and they most likely are in areas, you get the government you deserve.

Want to stop idiotic laws? Stop electing idiots and tyrants.

[heyjoe]

[QUOTE HKGuns Assuming the elections are not fraudulent and they most likely are in areas, you get the government you deserve.

Want to stop idiotic laws? Stop electing idiots and tyrants.][/QUOTE]

which has nothing to do with the recent Supreme Court Bruen decision, which established the level of scrutiny that is to be applied to all second amendment cases, regardless of what state is involved and who the elected officials of that state are

[Metal god]

Well we can’t go there but I agree elections have huge consequences to include the 2016 election and why we have the Bruen precedent now . Just think for a second what the SCOTUS would look like now had the 2016 election went differently. No Bruen because they would not have granted cert and if they did we’d likely now have a three step process instead of the two step that was shot down in Bruen . haha

Bruen was so huge even for me in CA . With in 8 months of Bruen I accomplished something in CA I’ve been trying to do for 30+years . That is get my CA CCW permit , I could not come up with a good enough cause that the state was willing to except. After Bruen I received my ccw with in 90 days of applying.

Lets hope all of our futures are so bright we got to wear shades ;-)

[heyjoe]

He was referencing NY State, the thread is about recently enacted New York State laws in response to Bruen not federal laws or elections.

[Aguila Blanca]

And the Associated Press seems to believe that the Bruen decision has caused mass confusion across the land:

https://apnews.com/article/politics-...5309ec0d80a966

My view is that, prior to Bruen, judges were massively misconstruing and misapplying their own made-up "levels of scrutiny" in order to declare blatantly unconstitutional laws as "constitutional." Now that the judges aren't allowed to play with "interest balancing" analyses, the anti-gun liberals are collectively suffering agita.

[44 AMP]

Well, it has caused massive confusion and consternation in the PRESS...so, of course it must also have done so in the courts, right???

[Metal god]

Does anyone have an update , I believe today was the day the 2nd circuit held hearings for those 5 cases . Is there any info on those hearings ?

EDIT
I just found this . I believe all 5 of the top cases are 2nd amendment cases

https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions

[Metal god]

I LOVE NY , because of them I was able to get a CCW in CA . These anti states that are on the war path really are going to make everything better for all of us . I can’t believe they don’t see that and just stop what they are doing until the court may be more favorable to them . I believe our side did that very thing with the original AW ban . Instead of fighting it and setting bad precedent ( for us ) we simply let the sunset provision come and go .

The one thing I think is in there favor is we have to challenge every line in a law rather then the law it self . Meaning right now they pack as many individual bans into one law they can and we then must attack each individual aspect of that law . This will inevitably result in some of there laws sticking which they will use to build on in the future. .

The CA handgun roster was just found to be unconstitutional… well actually only a few parts of it . When first enacted you pretty much just needed to pass a drop test for the firearm to be deemed safe . Over the years they added requirements that all handguns sold in CA must have a loaded chamber indicator, magazine disconnect, micro stamping and the latest one . For every 1 gun added to the roster 3 must come off .

The current case only attacked a few of those points because it started years before Bruen . However since Bruen that case has moved quicker and in our favor . We just got a PI on enforcement of the mag disconnect, loaded chamber indicator and micro stamping. The drop test and 1 and 3 aspects still remain because those were either not specifically challenged or were not in the law at the time this case was filed .

My point to all that is , NY’s scorched earth approach has once again help me out in CA . Right now , I love me some NY