Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Member Login

Page / 2
Next Page Arrow Left
Link Posted: 12/23/2020 11:51:31 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By staringback05:
They finally found a suit worthy of putting on?
View Quote


Nicely done. Nicely done indeed!
Link Posted: 12/23/2020 1:34:30 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Hanz:
They had better not muck this one up!
View Quote


This.

The NRA must have needed a good reason to be able to expense their Suits and Ties...so they joined a lawsuit?
Link Posted: 12/23/2020 1:39:15 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By josepha1:
NRA riding the coattails of the NYSPRA case?
View Quote


NYSRPA is an NRA affiliate.
Link Posted: 12/23/2020 3:10:18 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AXE0FWAR:
We're banking on the NRA and the SCOTUS?

This is rock bottom.
View Quote

Link Posted: 12/24/2020 10:49:05 AM EST
Bump for Christmas Eve.
Link Posted: 1/21/2021 10:19:56 PM EST
Just keeping this thread alive until we learn more.
Link Posted: 1/21/2021 10:21:37 PM EST
The wine club found some spare time to waste of gun stuff, probably has nothing to do with the impending collapse.
Link Posted: 1/21/2021 10:24:33 PM EST
Lmao they are totally hosed. This year is just the worst dumpster fire for freedom.
Link Posted: 1/24/2021 7:53:02 PM EST
"We are fighting but we need more money to be able to up a good fight" - NRA / GOPE / RepubliCONs / CONserative Politicians.  
Link Posted: 1/24/2021 8:10:26 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Benefactor:
Just keeping this thread alive until we learn more.
View Quote

There was a flurry of activity last week, but only interesting for lawyers and law nerds.


SC docket

1. NY allowed until 22 Feb to respond
2. Amicus briefs by Firearm Policy Coalition
3. Amicus brief by Missouri, for Arizona,
Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho,
Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio,
Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas,
Utah, and West Virginia.
4. Amicus by law enforcement and state 2a groups.
5. The final amicus by Korte Tree Care, basically the company paid for the legal research and printing fees, so their name goes on it, even though it is about English law rather than the company's policies.

Kharn
Link Posted: 1/27/2021 5:10:00 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Kharn:

There was a flurry of activity last week, but only interesting for lawyers and law nerds.


SC docket

1. NY allowed until 22 Feb to respond
2. Amicus briefs by Firearm Policy Coalition
3. Amicus brief by Missouri, for Arizona,
Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho,
Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio,
Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas,
Utah, and West Virginia.
4. Amicus by law enforcement and state 2a groups.
5. The final amicus by Korte Tree Care, basically the company paid for the legal research and printing fees, so their name goes on it, even though it is about English law rather than the company's policies.

Kharn
View Quote


Thanks for posting this.
Link Posted: 1/27/2021 5:18:48 AM EST
The comments in this thread

Link Posted: 1/27/2021 5:39:21 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AXE0FWAR:


NY is a lost cause.

Even if the traitors in the NRA and SCOTUS ruled in favor, NY would ignore it and carry on like every other day or come up with some convoluted side step that will never be challenged and become the status quo.
View Quote



Hate to say it but this would be the likely outcome.
Link Posted: 1/27/2021 6:16:38 AM EST
Link Posted: 2/9/2021 9:35:36 AM EST
Just another bump to keep this thread alive until...
Link Posted: 2/9/2021 9:37:55 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Kharn:

NYSRPA is the state affiliate of the NRA.

Kharn
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Kharn:
Originally Posted By josepha1:
NRA riding the coattails of the NYSPRA case?

NYSRPA is the state affiliate of the NRA.

Kharn
I was also for some reason thinking that the NRA-ILA is somewhat separate and less shitty than the NRA. Can anyone confirm or deny this?
Link Posted: 2/9/2021 9:47:42 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By CPT_CAVEMAN:
Originally Posted By Extorris:
Originally Posted By xd341:
The Sullivan act is buried in NY like a hungry tick.  The elites love the notion that they can decide who has privileges and who doesn't on a whim.
If the proper cause thing goes away they'll just make a ridiculous requirement someplace else.   Letting the average upstanding citizen carry a gun is not an acceptable outcome in NY. They will find a way to make it difficult.

Some counties already deny someone if they've gotten multiple traffic tickets.


https://31.media.tumblr.com/1f4fe84b6781abd8938d3036f9f532b3/tumblr_n2tkl2HX6Q1svsif6o3_400.gif
So we should take away the right to vote over traffic infractions too?
Link Posted: 2/9/2021 9:49:52 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bullyforyou:


I just don't see the stars aligning on any of these.

I don't think SCOTUS will take it since they really don't take gun cases.

If it looks like they will, NY will quickly change the law so its moot.

If they don't and SCOTUS takes the case, it'll be decided so narrowly it won't make a difference. See heller for example, where everyone likes to insist it's so groundbreaking - cool. What'd it change?

View Quote
Guns aren't 100% illegal in DC anymore (though granted, more work needs to be done.) Also, it opened the door for McDonald and now there is a carry law in Illinois.
Link Posted: 2/9/2021 10:05:09 AM EST
if they add people to the court so they can add liberal judges, that's game over.
Link Posted: 2/9/2021 10:12:45 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By staringback05:
They finally found a suit worthy of putting on?
View Quote


I see what you did there.

Link Posted: 2/23/2021 7:24:17 AM EST
Petitioners challenge the New York law governing
licenses to carry concealed firearms in public. The law
has existed in the same essential form since 1913 and
descends from a long Anglo-American tradition of regulating the carrying of firearms in public. Under New
York’s law, applicants who seek an unrestricted license
to carry a concealed handgun in public must establish
“proper cause.” This flexible standard, which numerous
New York residents have successfully satisfied, generally requires a showing that the applicant has a nonspeculative need for self-defense. Absent such a need,
applicants may receive a “premises” license that allows
them to keep a firearm in their home or place of business, or a “restricted” license that allows them to carry
in public for any other purposes for which they have
shown a non-speculative need—such as hunting, target
shooting, or employment. The individual petitioners
here received restricted licenses.
The petition does not present a question warranting this Court’s review. First, petitioners and several of
their amici are mistaken in claiming a split in authority
on whether the Second Amendment applies outside the
home. Like all of the other courts of appeals that have
considered restrictions on the public carrying of firearms, the Second Circuit proceeded from an understanding that the Second Amendment protects an
individual right to carry firearms outside the home for
self-defense. And like those other courts, the Second
Circuit was guided by this Court’s recognition in
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), that
the Second Amendment right is not unlimited and can
be subject to state regulation consistent with the histor-
ical scope of the right. Contrary to petitioners’ contention, neither the court below nor any other court of
appeals has sustained a blanket prohibition on ordinary, law-abiding persons carrying firearms outside
the home. Instead, several courts of appeals have
sustained state law regimes for licensing the public
carrying of firearms, and one court that invalidated a
blanket prohibition has recognized that New York’s
laws do not amount to such a prohibition.
Second, this case is a poor vehicle for deciding
whether the Second Amendment applies outside the
home: a question that petitioners imply is presented by
this case. Because the court below proceeded on the
understanding that the Second Amendment does so
apply, a ruling in petitioners’ favor would change
neither the result nor the reasoning below. In any
event, petitioners failed to allege facts establishing that
New York’s licensing regime bans the public carrying
of firearms for all but “a small subset of individuals”
(Pet. 8).
Finally, the decision upholding New York’s longstanding and measured licensing law was correct. The
law is consistent with the historical scope of the Second
Amendment and directly advances New York’s compelling interests in public safety and crime prevention.
The petition should therefore be denied.
View Quote

Link Posted: 2/23/2021 7:41:48 AM EST
Other pending decisions in the Ninth Circuit
counsel in favor of allowing the issue to percolate
further. The en banc court has not yet issued its decision in Young, which challenges a Hawai‘i law requiring good cause to carry a firearm openly in public.
Young v. Hawaii, 915 F.3d 681 (9th Cir. 2019) (granting
en banc review). Moreover, pending that decision, a
panel has stayed the proceedings in another case
challenging a similar California law. See Flanagan v.
Becerra, No. 18-55717. These unresolved cases provide
yet another reason to deny review here.
View Quote
Link Posted: 2/23/2021 7:46:16 AM EST
Keep any eye on this case for three reasons.

First is it is likely the long awaited case that will be a solid pro 2A victory. With Barnett replacing RBG, the odds of granting cert is extremely high as is a favorable outcome.

Second, is the only real way they have to stop a 2A victory is packing the SCOTUS. I think that if the court is packed due to this case, things will spiral out of control.

Third, is if cert is denied, then its probably game over. Its a good case, the votes are there, and the former reliance on a swing vote is gone. If its not granted here, I doubt it ever will be.

Its only one of the many metrics to judge where things are going, but its a good one, so pay attention no matter which way it goes. Consider it situational awareness.
Link Posted: 2/23/2021 7:53:57 AM EST
NYSPRA and the NRA need to find a way to pin this on racism.

The government of NYC and NY State wouldn't want to be seen as racist with thier anti civil rights Jim Crow laws, would they?
Link Posted: 2/23/2021 8:00:31 AM EST
They have time to do this with all their vacations on our dime.
Link Posted: 2/23/2021 8:03:26 AM EST
It’s like the whole “apparatus” is surging back now that Trump is gone. (Not just the nra)

Funny how that works.  The band is back together, so let’s all (left&right) get together and make some money boys!
Link Posted: 2/23/2021 8:06:50 AM EST
Here is a link to the PDF document from which my two quotes above were taken.  

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/169604/20210222170827872_20-843_Brief%20in%20Opposition.pdf

After reading all 39 pages, it appears that the Second Amendment and the Constitution of the United States are much less important than the 1911 New York Coroner's Office Report, which "detailed a marked increase in homicides and suicides committed with concealable firearms", which prompted the New York legislature to "craft a licensing scheme that would stem the rise in deaths associated with such weapons."
Link Posted: 2/23/2021 8:43:16 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/23/2021 8:44:54 AM EST by Kharn]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DasGort:
Keep any eye on this case for three reasons.

First is it is likely the long awaited case that will be a solid pro 2A victory. With Barnett replacing RBG, the odds of granting cert is extremely high as is a favorable outcome.

Second, is the only real way they have to stop a 2A victory is packing the SCOTUS. I think that if the court is packed due to this case, things will spiral out of control.

Third, is if cert is denied, then its probably game over. Its a good case, the votes are there, and the former reliance on a swing vote is gone. If its not granted here, I doubt it ever will be.

Its only one of the many metrics to judge where things are going, but its a good one, so pay attention no matter which way it goes. Consider it situational awareness.
View Quote

And an almost identical case under NYSRPA v NYC was granted cert in 2019 and decided in 2020, where six agreed it was rendered moot by NY state changing the law to halt the proceedings in an unsigned per curiam opinion but Thomas,  Alito,  Gorsuch,  and Kavanaugh agreed the lower courts weren't following Heller (meaning, "text, history,  and tradition" as the guiding principles). Kavanaugh concurred in the case being moot, while the other three said it was not moot, thus 6-3 despite being unsigned.  

Now the same lawyer (Paul Clement, the former solicitor general under W, and the man with the most SC wins in history) is taking this case and Ginsburg has been replaced.

Hold onto your butts.

Kharn
Link Posted: 2/23/2021 9:23:02 AM EST
Does Wayne need some new suits
Link Posted: 2/23/2021 9:28:08 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AKCory762:
And the fact they it’s cost almost $200 and took me 15 months to even be allowed to touch a pistol in NY........

How the fuck is that not denying a right.
View Quote



Everyone loves to brag about what a coup Heller was for gun owners.  Just remember what Scalia said ..  the 2nd is a right that can be regulated.  


People need to quit fapping to this idea that the SCOTUS is a friend .   I have said it before and I stand by it,  asking a government court to rule in a fashion that would be counter to the interests of the government is absurd.
Link Posted: 2/23/2021 9:28:12 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Benefactor:
Here is a link to the PDF document from which my two quotes above were taken.  

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/169604/20210222170827872_20-843_Brief%20in%20Opposition.pdf

After reading all 39 pages, it appears that the Second Amendment and the Constitution of the United States are much less important than the 1911 New York Coroner's Office Report, which "detailed a marked increase in homicides and suicides committed with concealable firearms", which prompted the New York legislature to "craft a licensing scheme that would stem the rise in deaths associated with such weapons."
View Quote



To put in context, that's the brief arguing why the SCOTUS should not grant cert. It says the usual nonsense, but its doing exactly what we should expect that side to do. I would not worry too much about what they are saying.
Link Posted: 2/23/2021 9:28:42 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/23/2021 9:29:01 AM EST by fargo007]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By staringback05:
They finally found a suit worthy of putting on?
View Quote


Link Posted: 2/23/2021 9:36:25 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By PhatForrest:
NYSPRA and the NRA need to find a way to pin this on racism.

The government of NYC and NY State wouldn't want to be seen as racist with thier anti civil rights Jim Crow laws, would they?
View Quote

Try this one on for size, NY state defends their law by saying:
In assessing whether an applicant
has a non-speculative need for self-defense, licensing officers must
consider wholly objective factors such as “population density,
composition, and geographical location,” among others.
View Quote


That sounds like the 2021 version of 1913's "no guns for blacks, Hispanics, or Chinese" to me.

Kharn
Link Posted: 2/23/2021 9:37:01 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Kharn:

And an almost identical case under NYSRPA v NYC was granted cert in 2019 and decided in 2020, where six agreed it was rendered moot by NY state changing the law to halt the proceedings in an unsigned per curiam opinion but Thomas,  Alito,  Gorsuch,  and Kavanaugh agreed the lower courts weren't following Heller (meaning, "text, history,  and tradition" as the guiding principles). Kavanaugh concurred in the case being moot, while the other three said it was not moot, thus 6-3 despite being unsigned.  

Now the same lawyer (Paul Clement, the former solicitor general under W, and the man with the most SC wins in history) is taking this case and Ginsburg has been replaced.

Hold onto your butts.

Kharn
View Quote



The NYSRPA case was very different. They were only asking to allow (lol) NYC handgun owners to be permitted to take their handguns outside of NYC. It had nothing to do with CC. New York fought it all the way, and only when SCOTUS granted cert did they change the law and and give NYC handgun owners the privilege of transporting their handguns outside of the city border, in a locked box, to a range, as well as back to their home. Up to cert, they said it was a good law. Go figure.

The new case is about the whole licensing scheme of good cause for CCW. In simple terms, this case is about the "bear" portion of the right to keep and bear arms.

It also will likely address the standard of review and establish that it warrants strict scrutiny. If this standard of review becomes law, it means every gun law in the USA is subject to a new challenge as they were all upheld on a mishmash of lower standards.

Its a pretty significant case and the antis know it. That's why I think this will be the most likely cause of the SCOTUS to be packed, which if that happens, it means the entire faith in our government is completely undercut, it won't be possible to fake it. Combine that with another election fiasco in 2022 and the push for more wokeiness in general, and its going to get interesting. But that's only one possible outcome, it should not even be on the list of possibilities, yet it is.
Link Posted: 2/23/2021 11:18:04 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/23/2021 11:18:58 AM EST by Kharn]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DasGort:



The NYSRPA case was very different. They were only asking to allow (lol) NYC handgun owners to be permitted to take their handguns outside of NYC. It had nothing to do with CC. New York fought it all the way, and only when SCOTUS granted cert did they change the law and and give NYC handgun owners the privilege of transporting their handguns outside of the city border, in a locked box, to a range, as well as back to their home. Up to cert, they said it was a good law. Go figure.

The new case is about the whole licensing scheme of good cause for CCW. In simple terms, this case is about the "bear" portion of the right to keep and bear arms.

It also will likely address the standard of review and establish that it warrants strict scrutiny. If this standard of review becomes law, it means every gun law in the USA is subject to a new challenge as they were all upheld on a mishmash of lower standards.

Its a pretty significant case and the antis know it. That's why I think this will be the most likely cause of the SCOTUS to be packed, which if that happens, it means the entire faith in our government is completely undercut, it won't be possible to fake it. Combine that with another election fiasco in 2022 and the push for more wokeiness in general, and its going to get interesting. But that's only one possible outcome, it should not even be on the list of possibilities, yet it is.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DasGort:
Originally Posted By Kharn:

And an almost identical case under NYSRPA v NYC was granted cert in 2019 and decided in 2020, where six agreed it was rendered moot by NY state changing the law to halt the proceedings in an unsigned per curiam opinion but Thomas,  Alito,  Gorsuch,  and Kavanaugh agreed the lower courts weren't following Heller (meaning, "text, history,  and tradition" as the guiding principles). Kavanaugh concurred in the case being moot, while the other three said it was not moot, thus 6-3 despite being unsigned.  

Now the same lawyer (Paul Clement, the former solicitor general under W, and the man with the most SC wins in history) is taking this case and Ginsburg has been replaced.

Hold onto your butts.

Kharn



The NYSRPA case was very different. They were only asking to allow (lol) NYC handgun owners to be permitted to take their handguns outside of NYC. It had nothing to do with CC. New York fought it all the way, and only when SCOTUS granted cert did they change the law and and give NYC handgun owners the privilege of transporting their handguns outside of the city border, in a locked box, to a range, as well as back to their home. Up to cert, they said it was a good law. Go figure.

The new case is about the whole licensing scheme of good cause for CCW. In simple terms, this case is about the "bear" portion of the right to keep and bear arms.

It also will likely address the standard of review and establish that it warrants strict scrutiny. If this standard of review becomes law, it means every gun law in the USA is subject to a new challenge as they were all upheld on a mishmash of lower standards.

Its a pretty significant case and the antis know it. That's why I think this will be the most likely cause of the SCOTUS to be packed, which if that happens, it means the entire faith in our government is completely undercut, it won't be possible to fake it. Combine that with another election fiasco in 2022 and the push for more wokeiness in general, and its going to get interesting. But that's only one possible outcome, it should not even be on the list of possibilities, yet it is.

Under NYC's licensing scheme and the law at the time, the only way to allow them to leave the city with their firearms was a carry permit, the plaintiffs had premises permits and had been previously denied carry permits. The state changed the permit law to allow premises permits to transport their firearms to a limited set of destinations to moot the case.

This case is people with restricted carry permits saying granting unrestricted carry permits to only a select few is bullshit.

Kharn
Link Posted: 2/23/2021 1:33:42 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Kharn:

Try this one on for size, NY state defends their law by saying:


That sounds like the 2021 version of 1913's "no guns for blacks, Hispanics, or Chinese" to me.

Kharn
View Quote
I thought Sullivan was to prevent those dirty I-talians from having guns?   The Irish ran government and didn't appreciate competition from another organized crime group.
Link Posted: 2/23/2021 7:36:50 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By xd341:
I thought Sullivan was to prevent those dirty I-talians from having guns?   The Irish ran government and didn't appreciate competition from another organized crime group.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By xd341:
Originally Posted By Kharn:

Try this one on for size, NY state defends their law by saying:


That sounds like the 2021 version of 1913's "no guns for blacks, Hispanics, or Chinese" to me.

Kharn
I thought Sullivan was to prevent those dirty I-talians from having guns?   The Irish ran government and didn't appreciate competition from another organized crime group.
The Sullivan Act  was to keep Sullivan's cornices from getting smoked by the citizens they were trying to extort.
Link Posted: 2/23/2021 10:28:42 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DasGort:



The NYSRPA case was very different. They were only asking to allow (lol) NYC handgun owners to be permitted to take their handguns outside of NYC. It had nothing to do with CC. New York fought it all the way, and only when SCOTUS granted cert did they change the law and and give NYC handgun owners the privilege of transporting their handguns outside of the city border, in a locked box, to a range, as well as back to their home. Up to cert, they said it was a good law. Go figure.

The new case is about the whole licensing scheme of good cause for CCW. In simple terms, this case is about the "bear" portion of the right to keep and bear arms.

It also will likely address the standard of review and establish that it warrants strict scrutiny. If this standard of review becomes law, it means every gun law in the USA is subject to a new challenge as they were all upheld on a mishmash of lower standards.

Its a pretty significant case and the antis know it. That's why I think this will be the most likely cause of the SCOTUS to be packed, which if that happens, it means the entire faith in our government is completely undercut, it won't be possible to fake it. Combine that with another election fiasco in 2022 and the push for more wokeiness in general, and its going to get interesting. But that's only one possible outcome, it should not even be on the list of possibilities, yet it is.
View Quote


Yes, if we lose this one the US is done! There will be only one way to go & I hope I never see it!
Page / 2
Next Page Arrow Left
Top Top