Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Big SCOTUS win in NYSRPA

The NRA/CRPA filed a petion for cert at SCOTUS on the Cali mag ban.

It specifically contains the "two step" language that Thomas used so often in todays decision.

With the 6-3 ruling today it seems very likely SCOTUS will grand cert and hear the case next session.

Quickest way to implement in Demonrat States is elect pro-gun Sheriffs.

JHC- My brother from another mother. For years I was berated by most RKBA advocates saying how Heller being flawed and weak.

You would be wrong and NRA drove this suit, New York State Rifle and Pistol Asso is the state level NRA affiliate.

Same as with the CA mag ban suit. The California Rifle and Pistol Asso is the state level NRA affiliate in CA.

We can all hate on Wayne and his wardrobe but the NRA got this win today.

Illinois is as blue a state as anyone could wish for or regret. They came to heel at the decision of the U.S. 7th Circuit COA. Even I thought Chicago would never bow to the decision.

I was wrong.

The Chicago Police superintendent who proclaimed that they would "shoot first and check concealed carry permits later" Has been indicted for other crimes.

America is systematically rolling back 140 or more years of bad gun laws. And as a reminder that things change, remember that most of these bad gun laws came about through the efforts of well intentioned conservatives.

I think Scalia was tactical in his limitations. He knew that as you moved down this logical path that this would occur. Tactically he needed to say this to get Heller joined by the moderates.

I agree. The thing is that the leftist justices never moderate when they get to write opinions. Look at the same sex marriage cases...Kennedy didn't qualify a damn thing, he didn't say "oh, but you can't marry a same sex canine" or something like that, which could have been read to open the door to rulings that minimized the new right to same sex marriages. Conservative justices should be just as unequivocal, but never have been.

Read a few pages on there and after reading the illogical "feelings based" responses I had to quit.

Can these dumb phouck libtards even read and if so can they comprehend? Most of them are acting like SCOTUS gave a green light for ANYONE to carry a gun whenever/wherever. They truly are devoid of any critical thinking skill at all.

Goes hand in hand with the possible abortion change.....

Nope, it is a big win. Remember in McDonald, the Court incorporated the 2nd against the States via the 14th. Thomas reiterates that in this ruling, it is in fact a civil right, and the 2nd is borne against the States now as well as the Feds.

Never had any doubt it was compromise being an avid 4 decade court watcher.

"I would like to point out to the Supreme Court justices, that the only weapons at that time were muskets. I'm prepared to go back to muskets."-KATHY HOCHUL

Hey Kathy, I'm prepared to go back to women not being allowed to vote.

Remsen--thanks! I live in New Jersey, we have very restrictive gun laws and Concealed Carry laws similar to NYC, I'm assuming we will have to sue like NY Rifle and Pistol did to get equal treatment or will this ruling automatically apply to New Jersey? Thanks.

When I saw my brother's caller ID on my cell phone a little while ago (he's a lawyer and recently retired judge in NYS) I answered with, "I already heard."

Ask the stupid bitch if the First Amendment applies to broadcast media and the internet.

Technically, the ruling only applied to NY's law, so I suspect there will have to be further challenges in any state that refuses to abide by the general standards set out in this opinion (e.g., how to review the laws for compliance with the Second Amendment). Red states, to the extent they don't already have compliant laws, will likely act on their own without court intervention. States like CA, NJ, etc. will have to be sued and forced to comply.

My guess is that the scumbags affiliated with Brady, Everytown, et al., will try to revise existing laws to facially comply with this opinion while creating new hurdles to gun rights that weren't explicitly rejected in this case. For example, they might go to shall issue in CA but then add in onerous fees, insurance requirements, state registration of any gun that you want to carry, etc.

So, if the court reins in the administrative state with the West Virginia case, these two cases could have an enormous effect on the 2nd Amendment. A favorable ruling in that case couple with this case could make arbitrary regulatory decisions of the ATF go away.

Looks to me the court said. If you are going to protest in justices neighborhoods, you ain’t seen nothing yet.
Or as my old daddy used to say when I was whining about something. Shut up or I will give you something to cry about.
Hasbeen

Justice Thomas quite clearly rejected the deference which the federal court’s had shown toward legislative dominance by noting that the Second Amendment’s very existence negated the tendency of any court to defer to legislative discretion, or indiscretion, in regulating the rights protected by the Second Amendment.

The Court’s opinion also noted, and rejected, the “two-part” analysis that many federal courts had adopted since Heller and McDonald to continue to validate state and federal restrictions on the rights of citizens as protected by the Second Amendment. In outright rejecting that popular “two-part” deferential analysis that had evolved, the Justice Thomas wrote:

“Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework 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 applying means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Instead, the government must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.

In sum, the Courts of Appeals’ second step is inconsistent with Heller’s historical approach and its rejection of means-end scrutiny. We reiterate that the standard for applying the Second Amendment is as follows: When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.” Konigsberg, 366 U. S., at 50, n. 10.”

I'm against that. Women should be allowed to vote. As long as they're property owners.