NYSRPA v. Bruen Oral Argument

[Kanye Wyoming]

If you catch Clement's comment about the appropriate history for evaluating the right, he admits that the appropriate history for applying the right to the states might be slightly different than the federal government because the 2nd and 14th amendments were ratified at different times. In this case, the general understanding of the right to carry was essentially the same, so there's no real difference. At least that's our argument.

That struck me as one of the most interesting points in the argument.

[Shotgun]

@joshs Any news on an opinion?

[joshs]

@joshs Any news on an opinion?

Not yet. They usually hold the bigger opinions until June.

[5pins]

Apparently, this is the only case from November of last year, that has not been decided on yet, and it sounds like Justice Thomas will probably give the opinion, or possibly ACB. It has something to do with the way each Justice gets to write an opinion for a case each month, and neither one of them has written one for November of last year.

https://twitter.com/@twitter/status/1517152013775122437

[Boom]

Apparently, this is the only case from November of last year, that has not been decided on yet, and it sounds like Justice Thomas will probably give the opinion, or possibly ACB. It has something to do with the way each Justice gets to write an opinion for a case each month, and neither one of them has written one for November of last year.

https://twitter.com/@twitter/status/1517152013775122437

There was also speculation from the folks at SCOTUS Blog that it was held for Thomas due to his hospital stay.



NYSRPA v. Bruen: An Analysis

https://slagfa.substack.com/p/nysrpa...paign=post&s=r

[CleverNickname]

The only thing better than Thomas writing the opinion for NYSRPA would be for Thomas to write the opinions for both NYSRPA and Dobbs.

[5pins]

There was also speculation from the folks at SCOTUS Blog that it was held for Thomas due to his hospital stay.



NYSRPA v. Bruen: An Analysis

https://slagfa.substack.com/p/nysrpa...paign=post&s=r

Perfect!

So long as a citizen is able to pass a background check (the same as if they were purchasing a firearm), then all federal, state, and local firearm restrictions that the government imposes on the citizen, but imposes no such restriction on itself are immediately unconstitutional. This is an elegant way to accomplish five things at once:

[Shotgun]

There was also speculation from the folks at SCOTUS Blog that it was held for Thomas due to his hospital stay.

Don't tease us with that wonderful thought.

[Stephanie B]

Apparently, this is the only case from November of last year, that has not been decided on yet, and it sounds like Justice Thomas will probably give the opinion, or possibly ACB. It has something to do with the way each Justice gets to write an opinion for a case each month, and neither one of them has written one for November of last year.

https://twitter.com/@twitter/status/1517152013775122437

Doesn’tvsay if it’s the majority, concurring or dissenting opinion.

[5pins]

Doesn’tvsay if it’s the majority, concurring or dissenting opinion.

Thomas and ACB have already written a dissenting opinion in City of Austin v. Reagan National Advertising of Austin LLC, so he is not talking about that.

From my understanding, the court hears 9 cases each month and each justice is assigned to write a majority opinion for one of them. Obviously, the justice would have to be in the majority of at least one cases in that month.

All of the cases from November of last year have been decided on except for NYSRPA v Bruen and Thomas and ACB are the only justices that have not written a majority opinion yet.