Big Win for 2A - SCOTUS Rules In Favor of NY Rifle and Pistol

[Arc Light]

The beauty of Justice Thomas' majority opinion is that it opens the floodgates to challenging all manner of gun control laws. From AW bans, magazine restrictions, red flag laws, and the entire fucking NFA is fair game now. Doesn't mean all will be found to be unconstitutional, but judges that were on the fence will now have a very good reason to side with the plaintiffs.

 

[DocRDS]

Wait a second.

Unless I missed it, is this now an actual written acknowledgment that defeats the 'its only for a militia' argument towards the 2nd?

Literally says it guarantees individual right.

Heller said that. (Like Liberals pay attention to facts)
McDonald made it enforceable on the states (Ibid)
This one removed many of the asshatery of "reasonable" restrictions and said the only restrictions are those historically held (Like restricting firearm carry in Courthouses, Govt Buildings) AND said you keep arms at home, you bear arms in public and carrying guns is a protected individual right of the people.

 

[nn8734]

Wait a second.

Unless I missed it, is this now an actual written acknowledgment that defeats the 'its only for a militia' argument towards the 2nd?

Literally says it guarantees individual right.

Heller affirmed the 2A “right to keep and bear arms….” applies to individuals whether they are militia members or not. This affirms the right to self defense using firearms outside the home as bearing (fire)arms applies everywhere.

 

[gopherslayer]

I would. I want to. But I don't know where else to go. I'm a young guy and I wan to live in a city for the lifestyle. Access to good food, work, social life, the energy of a city. But I also want to be close to race tracks (I'm into motorsports), good roads to drive, snow (I snowboard a lot), mountains, forests, water, good rock climging, etc.

There really aren't a lot of places in the country with that. Unfortunately, SF has those things. It just also has really shitty politics.

I've thought about Colorado or SLC. But I dunno...

Colorado? Really? They’re goal is to be California.

 

[TheOE800]

I would. I want to. But I don't know where else to go. I'm a young guy and I wan to live in a city for the lifestyle. Access to good food, work, social life, the energy of a city. But I also want to be close to race tracks (I'm into motorsports), good roads to drive, snow (I snowboard a lot), mountains, forests, water, good rock climging, etc.

There really aren't a lot of places in the country with that. Unfortunately, SF has those things. It just also has really shitty politics.

I've thought about Colorado or SLC. But I dunno...

Plenty of red states have blue cities just like that.

 

[FourT6and2]

Colorado? Really? They’re goal is to be California.

Right. Which is why I'm not there right now lol. I dunno where to go

 

[TheGerman]

Heller said that. (Like Liberals pay attention to facts)
McDonald made it enforceable on the states (Ibid)
This one removed many of the asshatery of "reasonable" restrictions and said the only restrictions are those historically held (Like restricting firearm carry in Courthouses, Govt Buildings) AND said you keep arms at home, you bear arms in public and carrying guns is a protected individual right of the people.

K guess I got it mixed up. For some reason I thought Heller had included modern rifles into the 2A against the 'it was for muskets' argument.

 

[Srgt. Hulka]

I can hear the court being stacked as we speak.

 

[UKDslayer]

I can hear the court being stacked as we speak.

And packed too. Roe alone will do that though.

 

[Cowpokey]

Ironic how all of the "prominent" pro abortion politicians have stacked their soap boxes saying how this ruling will kill the childrens*...while they are surrounded by armed security 24/7.

*no sarcasm, spelling intentional.

 

[FourT6and2]

Aaaaand here we go...

 

[Mute]

Awesome tag team by the conservatives on the SC. Thomas with the majority opinion. Alito basically saying the dissent is all B.S. Kavanaugh shutting down any prohibitive shall issue requirements and Barret saying recent laws do not make for good text and tradition relevancy determinations. This was an absolutely amazing ruling.

 

[KZP]

Aaaaand here we go...

What will it be? Minimum 7,000 hours training? Weekly permit renewal? $25k license fee? All of the above?

 

[FourT6and2]

What will it be? Minimum 7,000 hours training? Weekly permit renewal? $25k license fee? All of the above?

Yeah, probably. Maybe restrictions around where you can carry. Testing/Training requirements. High fees. Who knows. 10-year waiting period lol...

 

[NiteQwill]

I would. I want to. But I don't know where else to go. I'm a young guy and I wan to live in a city for the lifestyle. Access to good food, work, social life, the energy of a city. But I also want to be close to race tracks (I'm into motorsports), good roads to drive, snow (I snowboard a lot), mountains, forests, water, good rock climging, etc.

There really aren't a lot of places in the country with that. Unfortunately, SF has those things. It just also has really shitty politics.

I've thought about Colorado or SLC. But I dunno...

Not to sound like an asshole (really, I'm not). But all those places exist outside of CA. I won't tell you where I live... But I get all of that plus shall issue, SBRs, suppressors, etc. And I bought land and built a house in what would cost $2mil in CA, for cheap.

Good luck.

 

[TheOE800]

Not to sound like an asshole (really, I'm not). But all those places exist outside of CA. I won't tell you where I live... But I get all of that plus shall issue, SBRs, suppressors, etc. And I bought land and built a house in what would cost $2mil in CA, for cheap.

Good luck.

Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[nn8734]

Some quick youtube analysis from armed scholar:

 

[The D]

Your benevolent overlord is unhappy

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

 

[Cowpokey]

Your benevolent overlord is unhappy

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

FUCK sleepy Joe! That cock gobbling pedo has been surrounded by armed security for decades.

 

[Bigfatcock]

Inquiring minds want to know.

They’re all in Wyoming. @Bender

 

[FourT6and2]

Not to sound like an asshole (really, I'm not). But all those places exist outside of CA. I won't tell you where I live... But I get all of that plus shall issue, SBRs, suppressors, etc. And I bought land and built a house in what would cost $2mil in CA, for cheap.

Good luck.

Where is this magical place?

 

[ubet]

Saw this reposted on m4carbine. It has put it into words that I can not.

“
People are focusing on the wrong part of this ruling. It's actually huge.

• ⁠Syllabus:... Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny.... The Second Amendment “is the very product of an interest balancing by the people,” and it “surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms” for self-defense.

Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context

This is DC v Heller levels or big. This explicitly changes how all 2A cases are to be heard and ruled. You can no longer say "Might save lives, so therefore public interest". Which is how every feature and magazine ban has been upheld.

This is above and beyond "strict scrutiny". This is an absolute bombshell that everyone is missing because they're too focused on the Permits.

Every California law out of the 9th circuit has been upheld on that two-step process. This ruling is SCOTUS explicitly backhanding that down into the trash and saying "No. That's not the standard we told you to use. Cut that shit out." in no uncertain terms.

Practically three things just happened.

Three things:

1. ⁠Basically all your magazine bans, your assault weapon bans, your registries, are going to get reheard under the new directive and most likely struck down because they cannot survive without means-end scrutiny.

• ⁠They are not explicitly struck down by this, but they are going to be extremely hard pressed to withstand the new standard.

1. ⁠All "May Issue" permitting is done, it now must be "Shall issue".
2. ⁠States cannot declare large swathes of areas to be "sensitive areas" and prohibit carrying. They have to shot a historical and traditional pattern of restriction, at the national level.

• ⁠So saying no guns in the legislature, courthouse, polling places, banks is fine. But explicitly called out what that NY cannot declare Manhattan Island a "Sensitive area".

 

[varano14]

Saw this reposted on m4carbine. It has put it into words that I can not.

“
People are focusing on the wrong part of this ruling. It's actually huge.

A part of me also feels this may be the right take on this. As with all things 2A I never get my hopes up. But I certainly agree that this set the bar very high for a law to pass this new one step test.

Strict Scrutiny requires a compelling govt interest and the law to be narrowly tailored. It also (most important) puts the burden on the gov't which means they pretty much always fail when its applied. This one step test is also putting the burden on the gov't which I think is important. The test as I have discerned it is if the plain text of the 2nd covers the conduct then it is presumptively protected (sorta like strict scrutiny) and the only way to justify a law is to use the nations history. This opinion also seems to reject using any recent "history". I agree this seems to be an even higher hurdle the strict scrutiny.

The interesting part will be how this logic is applied to other things, many of which where not in existence at the time the 2nd was written. But at that time there were so few restrictions....

This was a huge opinion for sure.

 

[Soulezoo]

They’re all in Wyoming. @Bender

Wyoming is full. Go to Colorado.

 

[Soulezoo]

The interesting part will be how this logic is applied to other things, many of which where not in existence at the time the 2nd was written. But at that time there were so few restrictions....

This was a huge opinion for sure.

If you read the opinion, they addressed that very thing.

 

[The D]

Wyoming is full. Go to Colorado.

There’s room for at least one more in CO. We can negotiate a good deal on my place so my family can leave and not(maybe) go to WY

 

[varano14]

If you read the opinion, they addressed that very thing.

I have to finish it I got through like the first 40 pages yesterday. I really need to print it out since I hate reading opinions on a screen but don't feel like blowing my printer up.

 

[Dirty D]

The beauty of Justice Thomas' majority opinion is that it opens the floodgates to challenging all manner of gun control laws. From AW bans, magazine restrictions, red flag laws, and the entire fucking NFA is fair game now. Doesn't mean all will be found to be unconstitutional, but judges that were on the fence will now have a very good reason to side with the plaintiffs.

You are correct and this ruling does away with judges applying the intermediate scrutiny standard which lets city, state and federal entities claim a public interest in restricting 2a rights. Now that SCOTUS has declared that intermediate scrutiny can not be applied we are going to see all kinds of laws being declared unconstitutional.

Intermediate scrutiny - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Dirty D]

 

[FourT6and2]

Wyoming is full. Go to Colorado.

lol, I'm not actually from California. I do live here, but it's not like I'm bringing CA politics with me. Also I don't think Wyoming has what I'm currently looking for. Maybe as a place to retire. But not as a guy in his 30s looking for a place to live with race tracks, world-class climbing, world-class snowboarding (sure, there's Jackson Hole), a large city full of young people, and good work prospects in my industry (which is the most important one).

For my job, there's really only NYC, LA, and SF. NYC doesn't have a lot of those other things. And LA is... well it's LA. Unfortunately, SF is one of the better options that I'm aware of. I've got 3 world-class race tracks close by (Laguna Seca, Thunderhill, and Sonoma). World-class climbing (Yosemite). Great skiing/snowboard in Lake Tahoe (6+ resorts). Access to a good 1,000-yard shooting range and BLM land. And the city has a decent, young population (I'm in my 30s). The politics are absolutely horrible, though.

 

[Bigfatcock]

lol, I'm not actually from California. I do live here, but it's not like I'm bringing CA politics with me. Also I don't think Wyoming has what I'm currently looking for. Maybe as a place to retire. But not as a guy in his 30s looking for a place to live with race tracks, world-class climbing, world-class snowboarding (sure, there's Jackson Hole), a large city full of young people, and good work prospects in my industry (which is the most important one).

The South east has exactly none of that, and all states in the south east have 150% income tax.

 

[FourT6and2]

The South east has exactly none of that, and all states in the south east have 150% income tax.

ha! I've lived in Georgia and Florida already. Along with Boston, NYC, Kansas, Michigan, Connecticut, Texas, California, and Japan.

I've thought about maybe SLC. Need to have a visit. There's also the Nevada-side of Lake Tahoe, which is a strong contender.

 

[LeftyJason]

ha! I've lived in Georgia and Florida already. Along with Boston, NYC, Kansas, Michigan, Connecticut, Texas, California, and Japan.

I've thought about maybe SLC. Need to have a visit. There's also the Nevada-side of Lake Tahoe, which is a strong contender.

Utah has state income tax. It sucks.

 

[n2ishun]

ha! I've lived in Georgia and Florida already. Along with Boston, NYC, Kansas, Michigan, Connecticut, Texas, California, and Japan.

I've thought about maybe SLC. Need to have a visit. There's also the Nevada-side of Lake Tahoe, which is a strong contender.

Not kidding.
I was very impressed with the number of crank heads in SLC (meth heads).
The salt lake is ugly, but the surrounding areas are kinda nice *looking* once you get past the crack houses and meth heads.

 

[FourT6and2]

Not kidding.
I was very impressed with the number of crank heads in SLC (meth heads).
The salt lake is ugly, but the surrounding areas are kinda nice *looking* once you get past the crack houses and meth heads.

I've been through the area briefly to snowboard at Park City and Brighton. But never really saw the city/area all that much.

 

[FourT6and2]

Well... it happened.

California Attorney General just released a statement saying the state will honor this Supreme Court ruling and remove the Good Cause portion of CCW applications. However, they will still require proof of Good Moral Character! That includes stuff like: traffic citations, traffic accidents, job terminations/discharges, MANDATORY psychological evaluation at applicant's expense, reference letters, fiduciary responsibility, credit score, civil lawsuit involvement, social media, etc.

So... good luck to the many thousands of applicants who will need to get in line for mandatory psych evaluation with one of the issuing authorities' 3 in-house psychologists. Available on Wednesdays only, from 11am - 3pm. Oh there's 10,000 applicants? We'll schedule you for January of 2034.

 

[sirhrmechanic]

Gun bill lawyers leaving firm after SCOTUS ruling

After securing a win for their clients in the Supreme Court case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, a case whose ruling Thursday effectively made it legal to carry a gun in pu…

www.newsnationnow.com

In case no one has seen the fallout from the NY gun case ruling…

The law firm that won this landmark decision has pulled the plug on any and all 2a cases and will not represent any gun rights groups.

The two attorneys who won the case have left the firm to start their own practice and will maintain their clients’ cases going forward.

It is pretty chilling to see that a law firm which just won a landmark case is effectively saying that we will not support an aspect of the Constitution that we don’t like. And throwing active cases and clients under the bus. While also getting rid of two of their attorneys who won a landmark case.

The initial reports were just that the law firm dropped the cases and the attorneys moved on to stick with their clients. The WSJ story seems to indicate that they were fired. For winning a case with massive implications for constitutional freedoms and rights.

If there is anything that needs investigation, it’s not Jan. 6 and the kangaroo court. But how a major law firm can suddenly decide that it will drop in-progress Conztitutional cases AND fire/remove/usher out the attorneys who win them.

Is someone pressuring law firms to only enforce laws selectively? To turn away clients with valid cases because of political/ideology differences?

This is major stuff here! A win on one hand, but instant evidence of law firms who, instead of celebrating a win, say “oh crap, we can’t be part of defending parts of the Constitution we don’t like.” And cutting off legal representation to valid clients and their legal claims before Americas courts.

Chilling beyond words.

Sirhr

 

[candyx]

Gun bill lawyers leaving firm after SCOTUS ruling

After securing a win for their clients in the Supreme Court case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, a case whose ruling Thursday effectively made it legal to carry a gun in pu…

www.newsnationnow.com

In case no one has seen the fallout from the NY gun case ruling…

The law firm that won this landmark decision has pulled the plug on any and all 2a cases and will not represent any gun rights groups.

The two attorneys who won the case have left the firm to start their own practice and will maintain their clients’ cases going forward.

It is pretty chilling to see that a law firm which just won a landmark case is effectively saying that we will not support an aspect of the Constitution that we don’t like. And throwing active cases and clients under the bus. While also getting rid of two of their attorneys who won a landmark case.

The initial reports were just that the law firm dropped the cases and the attorneys moved on to stick with their clients. The WSJ story seems to indicate that they were fired. For winning a case with massive implications for constitutional freedoms and rights.

If there is anything that needs investigation, it’s not Jan. 6 and the kangaroo court. But how a major law firm can suddenly decide that it will drop in-progress Conztitutional cases AND fire/remove/usher out the attorneys who win them.

Is someone pressuring law firms to only enforce laws selectively? To turn away clients with valid cases because of political/ideology differences?

This is major stuff here! A win on one hand, but instant evidence of law firms who, instead of celebrating a win, say “oh crap, we can’t be part of defending parts of the Constitution we don’t like.” And cutting off legal representation to valid clients and their legal claims before Americas courts.

Chilling beyond words.

Sirhr

That firm must of realized it would lose all it business and sweetheart deals from the machine. Hats off to the two attorneys for doing their duty representing their clients and not tanking the case to appease the corruption.

 

[sirhrmechanic]

That firm must of realized it would lose all it business and sweetheart deals from the machine. Hats off to the two attorneys for doing their duty representing their clients and not tanking the case to appease the corruption.

Yes. But what if they had tanked the case?

And how many cases have been tanked? Or are being tanked. Or will be in the future, because of pressure.

I know… lawyers are scum. But they are also supposed to represent their clients 100 percent all in.

Supposed to.

Now who is going to look at cases and say “is it worth my life savings knowing the law firm I retained may be actively trying to torpedo my case? Or undermine the attorney assigned to me?

Chilling.

Sirhr

 

[Ibex24]

Well... it happened.

California Attorney General just released a statement saying the state will honor this Supreme Court ruling and remove the Good Cause portion of CCW applications. However, they will still require proof of Good Moral Character! That includes stuff like: traffic citations, traffic accidents, job terminations/discharges, MANDATORY psychological evaluation at applicant's expense, reference letters, fiduciary responsibility, credit score, civil lawsuit involvement, social media, etc.

So... good luck to the many thousands of applicants who will need to get in line for mandatory psych evaluation with one of the issuing authorities' 3 in-house psychologists. Available on Wednesdays only, from 11am - 3pm. Oh there's 10,000 applicants? We'll schedule you for January of 2034.

Did you think CA would respond with anything less? NY is about to do the same thing and also designate lots of "sensitive" places as off limits for carrying a gun.

 

[gopherslayer]

Well... it happened.

California Attorney General just released a statement saying the state will honor this Supreme Court ruling and remove the Good Cause portion of CCW applications. However, they will still require proof of Good Moral Character! That includes stuff like: traffic citations, traffic accidents, job terminations/discharges, MANDATORY psychological evaluation at applicant's expense, reference letters, fiduciary responsibility, credit score, civil lawsuit involvement, social media, etc.

So... good luck to the many thousands of applicants who will need to get in line for mandatory psych evaluation with one of the issuing authorities' 3 in-house psychologists. Available on Wednesdays only, from 11am - 3pm. Oh there's 10,000 applicants? We'll schedule you for January of 2034.

It will be another lawsuit. Still too burdensome.

 

[Zoomie]

It's going to get sporty in NY. The pretend governor is already intimating they will do all they can to defy the decision. They've also posted in their FAQ's that the state might take over county licensing process. Right, I'm sure they'll all comply. They've further stated that even though you posess a "premises or sportsmen permit" it is not legal for you to carry concealed. Which is a lie because in most counties where these different licenses are issued, the requirements are exactly the same and the standard is now "shall issue". The only difference is if you're an LEO or retired they let you carry. I suppose they can put new requirements forth, but that means they would have to reissue all licenses. Also any new requirements must not be burdensome and pass the new test SCOTUS has laid out.

Apply for a Firearms License

A firearms license is a state license however it is issued under the authority of county licensing officers.

www.ny.gov

 

[Mute]

Blue states will push back but let them try. This ruling is a strong one. Their pushback may extend the time until things get better but it will also be refined in the courts and this pushback may come back to bite them in the ass when they wind up with even looser standards than if they had just complied.

 

[mvphilly]

Now nY and CA will make the whole state a "sensitive area" pich someone they catch in that area legally carrying and put them through the ringer to make an example of them.

 

[candyx]

Can you apply for a carry permit right now in NY and if they deny it can you sue them for money since they violated your constitutional rights ?

 

[TurboTrout]

Now go after the NFA, that's what the statists would do in our shoes

Also why isn’t every fake ass republican screaming how “gun control” was a democrat idea used to keep blacks in chains, oh yeah because it’s the same fucking club

 

[JR_77]

Now go after the NFA, that's what the statists would do in our shoes

Also why isn’t every fake ass republican screaming how “gun control” was a democrat idea used to keep blacks in chains, oh yeah because it’s the same fucking club

Here ya go…watch the whole video it’s worth it not too long. If not skip to the 1:38 mark of the video if you want to get to your point above.

Very few of these politicians get it however Chip Roy seems to.

 

[AngryKoala]

Big win for 2A until our guns are taken with the red flag laws. I still don't understand how that's not considered illegal.

 

[The D]

It is illegal but the progs don’t care about that, at all. Their goal is power and they don’t care how it’s achieved

 

[AngryKoala]

It is illegal but the progs don’t care about that, at all. Their goal is power and they don’t care how it’s achieved

There hasn't been much talk about what the Pedo just signed (Maybe I missed it). Government incentivised red flag laws..... yea what could go wrong.