SCOTUS Releases NYSRPA v Bruen Opinion

[SnowBlaZR2]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

6-3 majority opinion delivered by Justice Thomas. Still reading through it, but some bangers that stood out so far.

To be clear, even if a modern-day regulation is not a dead ringer for historical precursors, it still may be analogous enough to pass constitutional muster. For example, courts can use analogies to “longstanding” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings” to determine whether modern regulations are constitutionally permissible.

In Heller and McDonald, we held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. In doing so, we held unconstitutional two laws that prohibited the possession and use of handguns in the home. In the years since, the Courts of Appeals have coalesced around a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”

 

[SnowBlaZR2]

I couldn't be happier that Justice Thomas wrote the opinion.

The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion). We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.

New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

 

[SnowBlaZR2]

Predictably, Justice Breyer kicks off the dissenting opinion with irrelevant statistics.

In 2020, 45,222 Americans were killed by firearms.

And, of course, that's the main platform for their dissent, including misrepresenting statistics.

Worse yet, gun violence appears to be on the rise. By 2020, the number of firearm-related deaths had risen to 45,222, CDC, Fast Facts, or by about 25% since 2015. That means that, in 2020, an average of about 124 people died from gun violence every day. Ibid. As I mentioned above, gun violence has now become the leading cause of death in children and adolescents, surpassing car crashes, which had previously been the leading cause of death in that age group for over 60 years.

Since the start of this year alone (2022), there have already been 277 reported mass shootings—an average of more than one per day.

Luckily, Justice Alito addresses this:

The dissent cites statistics on children and adolescents killed by guns, see post, at 1, 4, but what does this have to do with the question whether an adult who is licensed to possess a handgun may be prohibited from carrying it outside the home?

 

[djevox]

I hope the ridiculous MD carry laws get challenged after the NY ruling.

 

[SnowBlaZR2]

I hope the ridiculous MD carry laws get challenged after the NY ruling.

This is huge and will definitely ripple out to other states. I don't see how any "may issue" states remain standing for long after this decision. Smacking down the use of the "two-step" framework and historical tradition are going to make life hell for clown shows like the Ninth Circuit.

I just love everything about this opinion that I've read and digested so far. I think this is exactly what we needed.

Now, how do we get rid of the NFA.

 

[ferraiolo1]

That law was such ********. And left so much to interpretation.

Imagine how many law abiding CCers would be harassed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SnowBlaZR2]

That law was such ********. And left so much to interpretation.

Imagine how many law abiding CCers would be harassed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Proper cause" is a joke.

Imagine going to vote. Before you are permitted to vote, you have to convince a police officer that you should be allowed to vote. Not only that, but the police officer is entirely devoted to one political party and thinks only cops should be able to vote. To support this, they'll tell you that 20 people ate apples yesterday and 20 people ate oranges, and that's really all they need because they have jacked up state law on their side.

Gun control radicals are the most anti-civil rights and logically inconsistent group I've ever seen.

 

[Bigbags85]

Definitely a huge decision but I don't know what actual impact it will have in NY except MAYBE in NYC where they just ban everyone except ultra rich. All the counties around me you can just write whatever you want and they'll issue it.

 

[SnowBlaZR2]

All the counties around me you can just write whatever you want and they'll issue it.

Without this decision, you're left to hope that remains the case.

 

[Bigbags85]

Without this decision, you're left to hope that remains the case.

Oh yeah this was for sure a huge win, most of our garbage laws (gun or otherwise) are based around NYC so for the court to say F U is big.

 

[Bigbags85]

The gov was already terrified haha.

 

[SnowBlaZR2]

Oh yeah this was for sure a huge win, most of our garbage laws (gun or otherwise) are based around NYC so for the court to say F U is big.

Definitely happy for NY gun owners. This is huge for us all. Well, anyone who supports natural and civil rights, I suppose.

I don't think the future impact of getting rid of the "two-part" framework can be overstated. A state that wishes to push forward or uphold restrictions on the Second Amendment now have the burden of showing it's a constitutionally permitted restriction that was understood to be allowed at the time the Second Amendment was ratified.

I think this is the first domino that knocks down a lot of the blatantly unconstitutional gun legislation already on the books, and puts up a huge wall to prevent more of it.

But, perhaps I'm overly optimistic and underestimating how far anti-gun radicals will go to **** over people they unquestionably hate.

 

[Snekpete]

I am impressed that SnowBlaZR2 took the time to actually read the opinion. When I heard that Roe v Wade might be overturned I was interested in how the court had decided that abortion laws were unconstitutional. I always thought that it was the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause because the law only applied to women. But now that men can have babies and abortions that would seem moot. So I downloaded and read Roe v Wade, all 82 pages. Two thirds of the opinion was a rehash of historical attitudes towards abortion . It was poorly researched and fraught with historical errors and prejudice. But the last 20 or so pages spelled out the compelling reason that abortion laws were unconstitutional; they violated a woman's right to privacy. This is complete nonsense as the right to privacy is infinitely vague and nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. Do I have the right to print counterfeit money in my home? How about rape? Hey, where's my right to privacy?

Now, don't get me wrong! I completely support anyone's right to get a safe, legal abortion. What I do not support is government overreach. The Court cannot write the law. The Court cannot declare alcohol sales unconstitutional, prostitution laws unconstitutional, or abortion laws unconstitutional, and allowing it to do so is very dangerous.

The same is true for the right to keep and bear arms. Yes, lots of folks are killed by guns. But lots of folks are killed by people playing with their phones while driving. Where's the outrage there? Every day I encounter at least one driver drifting over the yellow line heading at me for a head on collision and every time I wonder, will they look up in time? Anyway, the government has no right to infringe on my right to keep and bear arms. Allowing the government unlimited power like that always results in millions and millions of innocent people being murdered. If we, as a society, want to make the possession of firearms illegal, we need to amend the Constitution. Allowing the government that kind of overreach always results in tyranny and mass murder.

In 2020 we allowed the government to suspend the First Amendment. The right of the people to peaceably assemble and go to church was suspended because of a flu outbreak. There is NO mechanism for the Constitution of the United States to be suspended. Not in war, not in peace, not in a flu outbreak. We were weak and foolish to allow the first amendment to be suspended. Here in Maryland we were ALLOWED to canoe but no power boats. In Michigan you could go to Home Depot but you could not buy plant seeds. ARBITRARY and CAPRICIOUS. Governments kill far more people than their citizens, we've known that for hundreds of years.

 

[Switch22]

Good grief!! Can we PLEASE leave politics out of this forum?

 

[Snekpete]

This is the part of the Forum open to politics. You are free to read it, ignore it, like it or hate it.

 

[SnowBlaZR2]

Good grief!! Can we PLEASE leave politics out of this forum?

No.

Please read the forum's rules.

 

[SnowBlaZR2]

I am impressed that SnowBlaZR2 took the time to actually read the opinion. When I heard that Roe v Wade might be overturned I was interested in how the court had decided that abortion laws were unconstitutional. I always thought that it was the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause because the law only applied to women. But now that men can have babies and abortions that would seem moot. So I downloaded and read Roe v Wade, all 82 pages. Two thirds of the opinion was a rehash of historical attitudes towards abortion . It was poorly researched and fraught with historical errors and prejudice. But the last 20 or so pages spelled out the compelling reason that abortion laws were unconstitutional; they violated a woman's right to privacy. This is complete nonsense as the right to privacy is infinitely vague and nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. Do I have the right to print counterfeit money in my home? How about rape? Hey, where's my right to privacy?

Now, don't get me wrong! I completely support anyone's right to get a safe, legal abortion. What I do not support is government overreach. The Court cannot write the law. The Court cannot declare alcohol sales unconstitutional, prostitution laws unconstitutional, or abortion laws unconstitutional, and allowing it to do so is very dangerous.

The same is true for the right to keep and bear arms. Yes, lots of folks are killed by guns. But lots of folks are killed by people playing with their phones while driving. Where's the outrage there? Every day I encounter at least one driver drifting over the yellow line heading at me for a head on collision and every time I wonder, will they look up in time? Anyway, the government has no right to infringe on my right to keep and bear arms. Allowing the government unlimited power like that always results in millions and millions of innocent people being murdered. If we, as a society, want to make the possession of firearms illegal, we need to amend the Constitution. Allowing the government that kind of overreach always results in tyranny and mass murder.

In 2020 we allowed the government to suspend the First Amendment. The right of the people to peaceably assemble and go to church was suspended because of a flu outbreak. There is NO mechanism for the Constitution of the United States to be suspended. Not in war, not in peace, not in a flu outbreak. We were weak and foolish to allow the first amendment to be suspended. Here in Maryland we were ALLOWED to canoe but no power boats. In Michigan you could go to Home Depot but you could not buy plant seeds. ARBITRARY and CAPRICIOUS. Governments kill far more people than their citizens, we've known that for hundreds of years.

I'm very active and involved in gun rights, so it was an easy read for me. Justice Thomas is highly intelligent and well-reasoned, plus I agree with him so that made it even better.

I'm honestly not quite sure what to make of the abortion debate, regarding SCOTUS. I have my personal opinions, but I don't feel particularly invested in them.

 

[djevox]

Good grief!! Can we PLEASE leave politics out of this forum?

It’s allowed in off-topic, so you’re welcome to not click any links to threads that you think are political. That is your right as outlined by the rules, just like our Constitution gives us:

 

[Mountain Whiskey]

Good grief!! Can we PLEASE leave politics out of this forum?

No. Feel free to read a thread about what size tire fits a stock rim. There are plenty of them. They are fine, people want to know. I don't, so I don't read those threads. I don't request folks not to post them though, it would not be fair to them.

Here are some like minded people that may have differing or like opinions of something non truck related to talk about. In my best Creepy Joe whisper, "That's why it is called off topic".

 

[Bavet]

Predictably, Justice Breyer kicks off the dissenting opinion with irrelevant statistics.

And, of course, that's the main platform for their dissent, including misrepresenting statistics.


Luckily, Justice Alito addresses this:

The fact that the dissent doesn't even attempt to frame their opinions in the Constitution is troubling. Now I wonder if all of the liberal justices rule on everything based on personal and public opinion and disregard the constitution all together.