Posted: 6/30/2026 12:11:45 PM EDT
| Cert just granted!!! |
|
According to both petitions, the question being addressed is the right to possess and AR-15 platform or similar rifle. From Viramontes: Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles. Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution guarantee the right to possess semiautomatic rifles that are in common use for lawful purposes, including the most popular rifle in the country, the AR-15. |
|
Originally Posted By Aardvark: According to both petitions, the question being addressed is the right to possess and AR-15 platform or similar rifle. From Viramontes: From Grant: No mention about magazines. Originally Posted By Aardvark: According to both petitions, the question being addressed is the right to possess and AR-15 platform or similar rifle. From Viramontes: Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles. Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution guarantee the right to possess semiautomatic rifles that are in common use for lawful purposes, including the most popular rifle in the country, the AR-15. Since most AWBs consider a detachable magazine as an AW feature...it most likely will encompass magazines. Plus this is a hardware/ AWB case...it will ultimately decide on all the accoutrements of a semi auto rifle...magazine included. Probably why the didn't bother to grant cert on Duncan...not necessary. If they can't ban "a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously..." Then they can't ban a magazine that holds over X rounds. No banning features based on how they look or function. |
|
Predicting it now... The SCOTUS will rule the AR-15 is in common use, and must be allowed to be possessed... BUT, The decision will be extremely vague and open ended, and will leave open the state's right to require registration or a permit (dont worry, it will be "shall issue" after jumping through all the hoops), and the state's ability to regulate "configuration" and the ability to ban certain "features" and "accessories" that aren't required to make the weapon function... In NY we will see the state be forced to reopen the assault weapon registry, but in order to register your rifle, everyone will need a permit that will be just as bad as a pistol permit (depending on locality), and it will only allow you to have a neutered NY compliant rifle. And then within a month there will be another dozen laws passed by the legislature in the middle of the night to circumvent it somehow... I really pray I am wrong and it"ll be a huge win for us that sticks it to NY politicians... But after the BS perpetrated by the state legislature following the Bruen decision, I have little faith NY will ever just give up and say "oh well, the SCOTUS said we have to let you have them, so go ahead"... |
|
Originally Posted By NYresq1: Predicting it now... The SCOTUS will rule the AR-15 is in common use, and must be allowed to be possessed... BUT, The decision will be extremely vague and open ended, and will leave open the state's right to require registration or a permit (dont worry, it will be "shall issue" after jumping through all the hoops), and the state's ability to regulate "configuration" and the ability to ban certain "features" and "accessories" that aren't required to make the weapon function... In NY we will see the state be forced to reopen the assault weapon registry, but in order to register your rifle, everyone will need a permit that will be just as bad as a pistol permit (depending on locality), and it will only allow you to have a neutered NY compliant rifle. And then within a month there will be another dozen laws passed by the legislature in the middle of the night to circumvent it somehow... I really pray I am wrong and it"ll be a huge win for us that sticks it to NY politicians... But after the BS perpetrated by the state legislature following the Bruen decision, I have little faith NY will ever just give up and say "oh well, the SCOTUS said we have to let you have them, so go ahead"... This is a hardware case. It will decide if the state can ban guns based on certain parts or configurations or abilities. And Kavanaugh HATES permitting schemes. Obviously so does Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch. They could very well decide that you can't ban guns based on scary parts...or magazine capacity...or have licensing schemes. Especially now that SCOTUS has seen NY and other states thumb their nose at Bruen. Licensing may be on their radar with these AWB cases. Obviously the licensing is an issue...but the other stuff we should have in the bag. |
| Even if this is a "win", NY is going to immediately do an end run around it and pass some emergency licensing/training/tax (fee) for buying and owning them. Doesn't matter if SCOTUS says "no", NY does it anyway. |
Award: 24/365 Most likely to be an appendix.
"Dealing with Congress is like trying to have an adult conversation about the credit card with your alcoholic bi-polar Ukranian import wife."
"Dealing with Congress is like trying to have an adult conversation about the credit card with your alcoholic bi-polar Ukranian import wife."
|
Originally Posted By Dopple: Even if this is a "win", NY is going to immediately do an end run around it and pass some emergency licensing/training/tax (fee) for buying and owning them. Doesn't matter if SCOTUS says "no", NY does it anyway. Well we aren't gonna just give up. Gotta keep pushing back on them...or they will just keep chipping away harder Did we ever think the NYPD would be forced to issue carry permits? And non resident carry permits? No. But here we are. We are chipping away...not them for once. |
|
It could be argued that licensing = ban. Because the gun is defacto banned if you have to go through an expensive, time consuming, restrictive licensing scheme to get one. Right now in NY, pistols are banned. As are all semi auto rifles. The licensing schemes to own those are such that it is a defacto ban. Not to me mention the licensing schemes do NOTHING that an NICS check wouldn't do. |
|
Originally Posted By Bushman_269: Given what they just did with birthright citizenship case I am extremely suspect that the present court will rule correctly on this issue. I am hopeful but dubious. Guys...have any of you read Hermani or Wolford? Barrett kicked ass for us in Wolford. And all the recent 2nd amendment cases have been strongly worded for us. All 5 of the non libtard justices have all said AWBs are unconstitutional. Period. There is no way they granted cert if it wasn't going our way. We just need Thomas and Alito to stay healthy this summer. |
| I am optimistic that we will prevail in this. I am also realistically aware that NYS will still make the lives of gun owners difficult. I have also resigned myself to ignoring much of their bullshit and just live my life like a free man until I can get out of here. |
|
Originally Posted By NYresq1: And then within a month there will be another dozen laws passed by the legislature in the middle of the night to circumvent it somehow... I really pray I am wrong and it"ll be a huge win for us that sticks it to NY politicians... But after the BS perpetrated by the state legislature following the Bruen decision, I have little faith NY will ever just give up and say "oh well, the SCOTUS said we have to let you have them, so go ahead"... Question is when will SCOTUS actually hear the case and when could a ruling actually drop? If a ruling drops at the end of June 2027 (Wednesday, June 23, 2027 would be nice as it is the anniversary of Bruen as well as Thomas's and my birthday), then they would have to call a special session to pass those bills just like they did with the CCIA, so a bit longer. The CCIA appeared to have already been written in anticipation of a loss. |
|
Originally Posted By Aardvark: Probably sooner than a month. If I were to hazard a guess, I would say the Governor or AG have already issued a request to the appropriate agencies to draft response bills based on an expected loss so that they have legislation ready to go 24 hours after the ruling drops. Question is when will SCOTUS actually hear the case and when could a ruling actually drop? If a ruling drops at the end of June 2027 (Wednesday, June 23, 2027 would be nice as it is the anniversary of Bruen as well as Thomas's and my birthday), then they would have to call a special session to pass those bills just like they did with the CCIA, so a bit longer. The CCIA appeared to have already been written in anticipation of a loss. Gun laws infringing the 2A are presumptively unconstitutional. We can sue in a 2A friendly jurisdiction and the judge would be entirely justified issuing a permanent statewide injunction as we would be likely to succeed on the merits. If NYS tries to play fuck fuck games appealing to the Second Circus I think SCOTUS would be receptive to an emergency interlocutory appeal. The Roberts court generally does not like to make waves but if NYS insists on ignoring 4 SCOTUS rulings of "arms that are in common use by Americans cannot be banned" the hammer is coming down. |
If it's horrible, it exists. If it's beautiful, you're imagining it.
|
Over the years I’ve watched our situation here in NYS get worse and worse. First the republicans stabbed us in the back and gave us our first assault weapon ban in 2000. Then in 2013, thanks to the democrats, we got the SAFEACT. As many of you know, the safe act effectively eviscerated our rights as United States citizens. Year after year, case after case, I’ve watched our judicial system cover for these nut job leftist politicians and the unconstitutional laws they pass. Make no mistake, the people who passed these laws HATE us, our way of life, our morals, and they won’t go quietly into the night. God willing “assault weapon” bans are found to be unconstitutional, we have to hope and pray for a very specific ruling, one that is not ambiguous in any shape or form. The crazies up in Albany will take the decision and go line by line, letter by letter, and cherry pick whatever they think they can use to create a similar law. I suspect if we get a positive ruling that ties their hands, we will see registration of all semi autos with a renewal requirement ever year. I am excited to see what the ruling will be, and I’m cautiously optimistic about our chances at a positive outcome! 1981 |
|
Originally Posted By 1981: First the republicans stabbed us in the back and gave us our first assault weapon ban in 2000. Then in 2013, thanks to the democrats, we got the SAFEACT. Needless to say, anytime a Republican tells me they are on my side and support the 2A I am more likely to believe a Democrat who honestly says they do not support 2A rights. |
|
Originally Posted By Aardvark: The SAFE Act was the Republicans too. Andy issued a "message of necessity" and Republican Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos ran with it and the downstate Republicans voted for it. Needless to say, anytime a Republican tells me they are on my side and support the 2A I am more likely to believe a Democrat who honestly says they do not support 2A rights. Originally Posted By Aardvark: Originally Posted By 1981: First the republicans stabbed us in the back and gave us our first assault weapon ban in 2000. Then in 2013, thanks to the democrats, we got the SAFEACT. Needless to say, anytime a Republican tells me they are on my side and support the 2A I am more likely to believe a Democrat who honestly says they do not support 2A rights. I live on Long Island and frequent the local gun forums. Dan Loaquadro was one of the republican turncoats that voted to take our rights. He then stepped down and ran for Suffolk County Superintendent of Highways because he didn't want to commute to Albany anymore. The local Cuckpublicans turned out in force to vote for him. Every time he runs for reelection I hit the forums to remind my fellow gun owners that this is one of the culprits in passing the Safe Act. I beg people to vote for the opposition. I get comments from people saying that they can't vote for a Democrat. Meanwhile they vote for the guy who trampled their rights. It's unbelievable. I say vote the turncoat out of a job and I get stomped on. The amount of bootlicking is mind blowing. |
|
Originally Posted By LamePostCount: I live on Long Island and frequent the local gun forums. Dan Loaquadro was one of the republican turncoats that voted to take our rights. He then stepped down and ran for Suffolk County Superintendent of Highways because he didn't want to commute to Albany anymore. The local Cuckpublicans turned out in force to vote for him. Every time he runs for reelection I hit the forums to remind my fellow gun owners that this is one of the culprits in passing the Safe Act. I beg people to vote for the opposition. I get comments from people saying that they can't vote for a Democrat. Meanwhile they vote for the guy who trampled their rights. It's unbelievable. I say vote the turncoat out of a job and I get stomped on. The amount of bootlicking is mind blowing. Same for maliotakis. I would love to see her primaried. |