Quoted:
They addressed this stating that unless the government could prove that an expansion of sensitive areas is justified, then any further expansion is unconstitutional. They even called out population density as NOT being justification.

Quoted:
I'm about 1/3 of the way through the decision. Thomas is talking about Heller, a lot. I'm getting shades of Scalia from this, like they had a plan and Thomas is finishing the job his friend started. Maybe it's the beer, but did anyone else notice this?

it’s a generous man who gives everyone else a gift on his birthday.

Quoted:
Aside from the actual win itself, I liked Alito's opinion the best.  Basically a, "What the fuck are you even talking about, Breyer?"

New York: "[Oneida County’s Assistant Pistol Licensing Officer Dan Sullivan] says all of the current sporting licenses in the county will automatically become unrestricted."

Quoted:


It was broad in striking down "may issue" and definitively stating the right to carry arms in public, but I am disappointed the ruling affirmed the legality of licensing schemes.  That must be attacked and decimated in lawsuits ASAP.  

SCOTUS has already ruled the gov cannot license an enumerated right, such as free speech or worship, and must likewise eviscerate purchase permits, FOID cards, CCW licenses, etc.

Quoted:


I'd be willing to be that Thomas, more or less, demanded to write this decision.

Quoted:

/media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/hes_right_you_know-328.jpg

Rob being elected governor would be the best things that’s happened to NYS in over a century

Quoted:
Everybody asking a zillion questions to the tune of, "does this mean X or y," unless it explicitly answers your question than the answer is we'll see through further litigation.

I live in Upstate, NY. I already had an unrestricted carry permit. My permit however was not valid in NYC under the Sullivan Act. Meanwhile, a carry permit for NYC was valid statewide. This disparity existed for a century. Can I now carry in NYC? The answer should be YES, however, as I don't believe they specifically addressed that in the ruling, I'm going with NO. But the ruling is the basis to challenge the Sullivan Act under equal protection and disparate treatment of residents of the same state. A NYC permit is still a state permit, just issued by NYPD instead of a Supreme Court judge.

Now here is where it gets interesting. Can NYC deny me a permit if I applied. I'd argue no as I no longer need to justify a need for a permit. NYC might say I do not have a residence, so the question of possession within and outside my home is irrelevant. Again, it will likely take another court case.

Great decision, but I wish they could have taken it further to address sub-jurisdictions within a state that impose restrictions that exceed state requirements. Hell I wish they just said constitutional carry was a thing, and it applied anywhere in the nation regardless of residence. But I digress.

Quoted:
Attorney here. Read entire thing. I'm already familiar with constitutional firearms law. Tried to hit the highlights here:

NYSRPA v Bruen, 06/23/2022

-6-3 along party lines, authored by Thomas. Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett each filed their own concurrences.

-Intro points out the distinction of shall-issue “objective criteria” and may-issue “special need/discretionary” licensing to carry

Part I: Factual and Procedural Background

-Part I A describes NY licensing laws and discusses shall issue/may issue distinction in other states. All may issues have been upheld by Courts of Appeals except DCs
-Part I B describes underlying case facts, that is, the Plaintiffs were denied LTC for self defense
-Part I C describes Defendants and procedural history, COA affirmed case dismissal based on prior Kachalsky case that held NY’s may issue was “substantially related to the achievement of an important governmental interest” (i.e. intermediate scrutiny)

Part II: Review of 2A law

-Part II Intro recognizes COAs have “coalesced around a ‘two-step’ framework combining history with means-end scrutiny. SCOTUS declines that approach and follows Heller, instead adopting a national historical tradition test and the “unqualified command” of the 2A
-Part II A discusses the 2-step test: 1) Is the regulated conduct within the historical scope of the right then 2) if so, analyze if the law comes to the core of the 2a and how severe it is (aka, does it infringe the right). Then if it does infringe, apply a scrutiny (varies by court, strict or intermediate).
-Part II B Intro says the 2-step test is 1 step too many. Says Step 1 is consistent with Heller history analysis, but scrutiny analysis is not supported.
-Part II B 1: Reviews Heller which found 2A guarantees individual right to keep and bear and performed historical analysis for the scope of the right. Reiterates limits, i.e. dangerous and unusual.
-Part II B 2: Notes Heller and McDonald expressly rejected interest balancing (aka scrutiny tests), reiterates the 2A standard is When the 2A plain text covers individual conduct, the conduct is presumptively protected, and a government regulation must then justify regulation by analyzing historical tradition.
-Part II C: Compares 2A to 1A, similar analysis, compares to 6A, establishment clause. Footnote notes that judges can rely on party presentation in adversarial system
Notes that courts employing scrutiny often defer to legislature, which is inappropriate in this context
-Part II D: Discusses how historical analysis will work,, i.e. analogizing, e.g. if a modern problem existed in the past and was not addressed by the modern laws at issue, will not be consistent with 2A; notes won’t always be so easy to perform historical analysis due to “unprecedented societal concerns or dramatic technological changes”; notes 2A applies to modern arms too
oAs example, assumes “sensitive places” doctrine is settled/constitutional (e.g. schools, polling places)

Part III: Application of 2A law to case

-Part III A: 2A generally protects carrying handguns publicly for self-defense
-Part III B: But what about discretionary prohibition on carry? Discusses how to perform historical analysis; pre-constitution laws that are longheld matter more than one-off/obsolete laws, and post-constitution laws inconsistent with original meaning cannot overcome the text; notes 2A applies to NY state due to 14A, but has same scope as applied to FedGov, which is pegged to public understanding at time of of BoR adoption in 1791;
oNotes historically right was subject to well-defined restrictions on intent of carry, manner of carry, and exceptional circumstances, but not broad restriction. NY failed to meet burden justifying prohibition.
-Part III B 1: English common law is not 100% adopted in America, must be looked at in context at time of constitution adoption; reviews Defendant historical arguments (Statute of Northampton);
-Part III B 2: Continues reviewing Defendant historical arguments; even if handguns were “dangerous and unusual” during colonial period, they are unquestionably in common use today; carrying with intent to terrify vs carrying in general, concealed vs open carry, pocket pistols;
-Part III B 3: post-ratification historical review; terror vs peaceable carry, concealed vs open; overall view was carry could not be prohibited; surety statute discussion; none of the laws surveyed approach NY’s restrictive law
-Part III B 4: reviews the time of the 14A adoption, notes that SCOTUS Chief Justice recognized right to carry anywhere if black people were citizens (Dred Scott case); describes subsequent abuses and attempts to prevent black people from having guns, but black people used guns for self defense; reviews reconstruction era laws
-Part III B 5: Late 19th century is less relevant when it contradicts earlier evidence; will not base 2A interpretation on law in single state or city or temporary territorial laws that contradicts overwhelming weight; some restrictions were upheld if army revolvers exempted
oConclusion of analysis: NY did not meet its burden, history does not support general carry prohibition or special need demonstration

Part IV: Conclusion

-2A is not a 2nd class right, other amendments don’t have special need requirements, therefore, NY proper cause requirement violates 2A. Reverse

Alito Concurrence:

Concurred in order to respond to some dissent comments.
“Much of the dissent seems designed to obscure the spe¬cific question that the Court has decided”
The dissent cites irrelevant statistics about guns
The dissent is one-sided
Like that dissent in Heller, the real thrust of today’s dissent is that guns are bad and that States and local jurisdictions should be free to restrict them essentially as they see fit.3 That argument was rejected in Heller, and while the dissent protests that it is not rearguing Heller, it proceeds to do just that. See post, at 25–28.

Kavanaugh Concurrence:

Underscores 2 points:
1)Bruen case does not affect shall-issue licensing regimes.  Seems to suggest shall-issue licensing is constitutional.
2)Reiterates Heller/McDonald

Barrett Concurrence:

Discusses unresolved methodological points: 1) manner of considering postratification practice, 2) interpretation during ratification or reconstruction

Dissent (Breyer):

Wants evidentiary record on the proper cause standard in practice (this was from MTD dismissal)
Cites several statistics regarding gun violence/harm
Some historical analysis, basically says it is confusing, so should not rely exclusively on it.

Quoted:
This has to be the best I’ve felt under the Biden regime. It was a great result and gives freedom loving Americans a path forward to fight.

Quoted:

Agreed.

Basically, this has been the "long game approach" by the court:

Heller in 2008 affirmed the 2nd Amendment was an individual right. Big win overall, but it was mostly a building block to start on.

McDonald in 2010 was another big win because it incorporated the 2nd Amendment to the states. Again, its value in the immediate sense was limited, but it was vitally important nonetheless.

Bruen in 2022 is yet another big win, maybe bigger and broader in scope than the previous two decisions in that it basically affirms the right to carry firearms outside the home and on one's person, but it also goes further by setting a new, very tough standard for laws that infringe upon the right(s) contained in the 2nd Amendment, a standard that should be appropriate given the wording of the 2nd, but one that nobody was expecting to get. Well, we got it.

In my opinion, these three decisions are the firm foundation for 2nd Amendment (and the Bill of Rights as a whole), but the dagger that kills the monster that is gun control hasn't happened  yet, and it better happen soon, given Thomas' age and other considerations. The court as it is currently constructed is tailor made for such a decision, and we really need that next one to drive the dagger in.

I'm not sure if we could get semi-auto and magazine protection in the same decision, but if we did, that would do it. If it was one or the other, I'm not sure which is more important or has the easiest path. Other people more knowledgeable than me would be able to figure that out.

Quoted:
While reading through the courts decision, there are some amazing gems in it.

Found in SCOTUS brief
Fortunately, the Founders created a Constitution and a Second Amendment “intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.”
McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 415 (1819)


I even found some comical items.

To begin, respondents and their amici point to several medieval English regulations from as early as 1285 that they say indicate a longstanding tradition of restricting the public carry of firearms. See 13 Edw. 1, 102. The most prominent is the 1328 Statute of Northampton (or Statute), passed shortly after Edward II was deposed by force of arms and his son, Edward III, took the throne of a kingdom where “tendency to turmoil and rebellion was everywhere appar- ent throughout the realm.”

The Statute’s apparent focus on armor and, perhaps, weapons like launcegays makes sense given that armor and lances were generally worn or carried only when one in- tended to engage in lawful combat or as most early violations of the Statute show to breach the peace.

So, New York is looking to ban me from going to see the king with body armor and carrying a 10 foot long lance!

Quoted:
While reading through the courts decision, there are some amazing gems in it.

Found in SCOTUS brief
Fortunately, the Founders created a Constitution and a Second Amendment "intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs."
McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 415 (1819)


I even found some comical items.

To begin, respondents and their amici point to several medieval English regulations from as early as 1285 that they say indicate a longstanding tradition of restricting the public carry of firearms. See 13 Edw. 1, 102. The most prominent is the 1328 Statute of Northampton (or Statute), passed shortly after Edward II was deposed by force of arms and his son, Edward III, took the throne of a kingdom where "tendency to turmoil and rebellion was everywhere appar- ent throughout the realm."

The Statute's apparent focus on armor and, perhaps, weapons like launcegays makes sense given that armor and lances were generally worn or carried only when one in- tended to engage in lawful combat or as most early violations of the Statute show to breach the peace.

So, New York is looking to ban me from going to see the king with body armor and carrying a 10 foot long lance!

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/db/46/db/db46db08989c69304702c0c92de2fa0d.jpg

Quoted:


I was a little concerned when I read how the opinion dealt with the Statute of Northampton.

The opinion basically discounts on the statute on two grounds:
1)  That the statute as enforced really is about going armed to the terror of the people.  This is the same thing we dealt with for open carry:  open carry is legal, brandishing/intimidating/causing a terror to a "reasonable person" is not generally legal.  The left argues that any presence of guns is terrifying but I think we can work past this one.
2)  That the statute was really about banning the arms and armor of armored knights (mail and long lances) meant for war.  The opinion emphasized that small sidearm type weapons like daggers were widely carried and used.  If we reason by modern analogy, I think one could easily make the comparison that while pistols carried as sidearms for personal defense are protected, long guns (and potentially carrying them while kitted up) are not protected.  The modern analogue to a knight's lance is probably a rifle (although one could try to make the argument that the "true" analogue to a lance is a heavy individually carried weapon like an anti-tank weapon).

Its a good opinion overall for us but there is some grey space there that could be problematic in the future.

Quoted:


I was a little concerned when I read how the opinion dealt with the Statute of Northampton.

The opinion basically discounts on the statute on two grounds:
1)  That the statute as enforced really is about going armed to the terror of the people.  This is the same thing we dealt with for open carry:  open carry is legal, brandishing/intimidating/causing a terror to a "reasonable person" is not generally legal.  The left argues that any presence of guns is terrifying but I think we can work past this one.
2)  That the statute was really about banning the arms and armor of armored knights (mail and long lances) meant for war.  The opinion emphasized that small sidearm type weapons like daggers were widely carried and used.  If we reason by modern analogy, I think one could easily make the comparison that while pistols carried as sidearms for personal defense are protected, long guns (and potentially carrying them while kitted up) are not protected.  The modern analogue to a knight's lance is probably a rifle (although one could try to make the argument that the "true" analogue to a lance is a heavy individually carried weapon like an anti-tank weapon).

Its a good opinion overall for us but there is some grey space there that could be problematic in the future.

Quoted:


GOOD MAN.

Posting again for those that aren't tired of winning.
https://secure.anedot.com/firearmspolicycoalition/shadow_systems?sc=joingaw

This is just a sample of what ready to go in the 9th:

Rhode v. Becerra (Ammo Sales only through FFL) - Stayed Pending Duncun (9th Circuit)
Duncan V Bonta - (10+ Magazine ban) - Distributed for Conference and petitioned to be held until NYSRPA.

Miller v. Bonta (Assault Weapon Ban): Held for Rupp (9th Circuit)
Rupp v Becerra (Assault Weapon Ban): Held for NYSRPA

Quoted:


It begs the question - How useful was a lance as a defensive weapon when someone was walking around carrying the fucking thing?

Quoted:
Seems so rare to get an actual win of any kind at this level, this is a happy day.   Hopefully this plays out the way it should over the coming months, but I expect unconstitutional shenanigans by blue states will occur nonetheless.

Quoted:

here's an appellate law earthquake: On the day Paul Clement won major gun case, his law firm Kirkland & Ellis said it would "no longer represent clients with respect to matters involving the 2n Amendment" Paul is leaving along with Erin Murphy, a star litigator in her own right

Ariane de Vogue  (@Arianedevogue) June 23, 2022

Quoted:

But the ruling did specifically say it invalidated Sullivan.

Quoted:
Let's all take a moment to count our blessings that the extremist Merrick Garland is not a member of the Supreme Court.

Quoted:
Let's all take a moment to count our blessings that the extremist Merrick Garland is not a member of the Supreme Court.

Quoted:

I believe this ruling will be way beyond ccw.  In California, we cannot have a gun in our car, even locked, unless going to a range etc…

Would be great for this bs to go away.

Quoted:
Thank you President Trump, Speaker McConnell (even if you are a spineless goon otherwise), and Ruth Bader Ginsburg (for being too damned proud to give up when you could have).

Same goes for the just-breaking news on Roe. God be praised!

Quoted:
Before everyone gets callouses from Dutch Ruddering each other.  Let this sink in.  

Quoted:
Before everyone gets callouses from Dutch Ruddering each other.  Let this sink in.  

These feral socialists aren't going to give in, in the least bit.  Currently under NYS law a permit has to be issued or denied within 6 months and if denied it must be for cause related to the specific applicant.  They can't just say "sorry we are super backed up."  Like communism, it looks good on paper, but in practice in many counties the wait can be 18 months to two years.  Why, because the licensing officers (mostly Judges, but in the downstate area technocrats of the Police Departments) know that the applicant's only recourse is to sue the licensing officer in an Article 78 proceeding, which they know most people don't have the money to do.  Many attorneys in NY charge 4-8 grand as a retainer fee for an Article 78 and that isn't an all in amount, just the money needed to get the ball rolling.  Furthermore, even if you spend the money to file your Article 78, Judges, who make up the majority of the "licensing officers" in NYS are immune for their official acts via absolute immunity.  Which means, even if you were to be successful, you can't recover money damages from them.  The feral anti-gun Dems know this and know you aren't going to be able to recover.  

As a recap, great ruling by SCOTUS, not so sure NYS will GAF and for the lesser state actors (employees of the Police Departments in downstate NY who issue permits) even if they are successfully sued for violating a person's 2A rights, they generally don't care as they almost always are indemnified by their municipal employers and the money isn't coming out of their pockets.  

IMO, NYSRPA should be sensitive to the general F around the waves of new applicants in NY will get and be prepared to join these plaintiffs in class action lawsuits on a per county basis until they bankrupt individual counties via successful 1983 actions.  Maybe then (in 4 or more years of 1983 litigation per suit) other municipalities will start to follow the law the SCOTUS handed down yesterday.