NYSRPA v. Bruen Oral Argument

[RoyGBiv]

Reading the Alito concurring opinion this morning....

I would summarize (my words) Alitos rebuttal to Bryer as follows.... "The arguments you make in your dissent are stupid, you dummy head."

Plenty of things still to worry about... The Antis will be dissecting this for opportunity.

Our holding decides nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun. Nor does it decide anything about the kinds of weapons that people may possess. Nor have we disturbed anything that we said in Heller or McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010), about restrictions that may be imposed on the possession or carrying of guns.

And from Kavanaugh (with Roberts joining)..... p80

Going forward, therefore, the 43 States that employ objective shall-issue licensing regimes for carrying handguns for self-defense may continue to do so. Likewise, the 6 States including New York potentially affected by today’s decision may continue to require licenses for carrying handguns for self-defense so long as those States employ objective licensing requirements like those used by the 43 shall-issue States.

Barretts' concurring opinion primarily highlights what historical practice is, may be, or is not relevant to interpretation of Constitutional Rights... IMO, her opinion is weighty, informative and sets a clear standard for lower courts to follow. 2 pages worth a read, starting on p82.

So today’s decision should not be understood to endorse freewheeling reliance on historical practice from the mid-to-late 19th century to establish the original meaning of the Bill of Rights. On the contrary, the Court is careful to caution “against giving post enactment history more weight than it can rightly bear.”

Bryers dissent starts with a lot of Democrat fear mongering.... setting that aside.... Bryer argues that since there has been no evidentiary hearing proving that "discretion" of license officials has been abused then the Court is out of order on deciding that NY is denying Rights to license applicants. He also argues that the 7 may-issue states are not outliers because they represent a much greater percentage of the population than 7/50ths. He also claims that Heller did not reject means-end scrutiny and claims that Judges, Quoting here.... "understand well how to weigh a law’s objectives (its“ends”) against the methods used to achieve those objectives (its “means”). Judges are far less accustomed to resolving difficult historical questions. Courts are, after all, staffed by lawyers, not historians.".... He goes on to worry about whether courts are adequately staffed to evaluate historical questions on every 2A case. Bryer goes on to give lots of examples of regulating arms from England through 20th Century. If you read Thomas, you've read the rebuttal to all of that....

[LockedBreech]

I was explaining the significance of this case to my fiancee last night, who is generally pro-gun and carries the P365 I got her, but is not ardent or passionate about it like I am, just kinda accepts it as my man hobby and a lifestyle I believe in.

She was totally flabbergasted when I explained the "may issue" systems that existed in many states, that often it boiled down literally to money and political connection. She said something I thought was astute: "No matter how people feel about guns, people should at least agree that constitutional rights shouldn't be determined based on how much money or fame you have."

If the breathless angry panicked media narrative honestly explained that the previous system was "rich, connected people get what they want, poor people get rejected" I feel that there would be a lot more people who said "Wait, the old system was WHAT?!"

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Again, best wishes to Josh and congrats to those who worked on this case. Did you see how the lawyers have quit their law firm over the issue of taking 2A cases?

Of course, the states will try to throw procedural road blocks into the path of the new shall issue systems.

Talking to the choir, the hysteria is ridiculous. Everyone will now have a gun on DA STREETZ. Well, what's the percentage of folks who get permits/licenses - 10% approximately across the country. Most of those don't even carry that much. Their crime rate is an order of magnitude less than the average population or police (no offense).

How are the rampages relevant - the killers usually don't have permits (I know some did, one in NYS years ago did)? The rise in crime related shootings are clearly died to poverty and focused in urban areas that won't be hot beds of permit requests, IMHO.

NYC Mayor wants to declare the subways a sensitive areas - Counter point - who takes the subway, folks with lesser incomes usually. Many of them are minority members so his proposal is just another in the long racist history of gun restrictions. Might be a point to make now. Point out that he wants to restrict minorities even though he as one, gets to carry as ex-cop.

Property restrictions, upping training are legit it seems. In TX, I had to shoot several times for renewals. If such a routine was established in NY - the available ranges are not that many. Near NYC, few. Might be a business opportunity.

Still a good thing despite our tendency to kvetch.

[Clusterfrack]

Moved posts about wishing @joshs a speedy recover to a new GD thread.

[BillSWPA]

It is worth remembering that the Supreme Court prefers to decide no more than they must decide in order to decide the issue before them. This is a good thing. Once the Supreme Court makes a decision, we are stuck with it until a later court overrules it, or until a Constitutional amendment is passed. Judicial restraint is critical to the balance of power.

[rdtompki]

Typical Blue State Roadblock: I lived for 24 years in San Benito County, CA so was fortunate to be able to get a CHL with the following steps: Prints and Background, Personal References, Instruction, Interview, 500 question version of the MMPI, brief interview with a Psychologist ($150). Total cost was probably $500 which I could afford, but many could not. Any of this could be embellished to increase the height of the roadblock.

[randyho]

It is worth remembering that the Supreme Court prefers to decide no more than they must decide in order to decide the issue before them. This is a good thing. Once the Supreme Court makes a decision, we are stuck with it until a later court overrules it, or until a Constitutional amendment is passed. Judicial restraint is critical to the balance of power.

Which is why I was surprised by the sensitive places clarification, which I see as huge.

Meanwhile, Breyer embarrassed himself.

[Shotgun]

NYC Mayor wants to declare the subways a sensitive areas

Using the test of Bruen, we read the text of the amendment and look for analogous restrictions which would inform the 2nd as understood in 1791 and 1868. We know how the text of the 2nd reads and how that is interpreted by Heller, McDonald, and Bruen. Next, we have to look and see if there were any analogous restrictions in 1791 and 1868 for subways. Subways transport people to and from work and about their city as people do whatever it is they want to do. Looking back to 1791 and 1868, what public transportation existed? Those would be ferries, horse drawn street cars, and perhaps railroads. The well known biography of Josey Wales establishes that there were no gun restrictions pertaining to ferries in postbellum America. Similarly, as late as 1901, there were no restrictions on the public carry of handguns in horse drawn street cars either as is easily seen in the documentary about J.B. Books, commonly referred to as The Shootist. Finally, it is common knowledge that there were no restrictions on the carrying of handguns on railroads. And, thankfully so. How else could a peaceful harmonica player ever have defended himself against three armed ruffians at the Cattle Corner train station in Arizona? That event is well known. There being no analogous restrictions to the carrying of handguns on the public transportation available in 1791 and 1868, any effort to preclude such carry in 2021 would be unconstitutional.

@joshs, I am available for briefing the New York subway case when it gets appealed.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Someone can correct me but I recall that public transit in Oregon and Texan cities had bans or attempted such.

[OlongJohnson]

This guy had an interesting interpretation on sensitive places part of the decision.

Using the test of Bruen, we read the text of the amendment and look for analogous restrictions which would inform the 2nd as understood in 1791 and 1868.

Shotgun apparently didn't watch the video.

It is worth remembering that the Supreme Court prefers to decide no more than they must decide in order to decide the issue before them. This is a good thing. Once the Supreme Court makes a decision, we are stuck with it until a later court overrules it, or until a Constitutional amendment is passed. Judicial restraint is critical to the balance of power.

Exactly. Without it, the justices would simply be legislating dictating from the bench.

Typical Blue State Roadblock: I lived for 24 years in San Benito County, CA so was fortunate to be able to get a CHL with the following steps: Prints and Background, Personal References, Instruction, Interview, 500 question version of the MMPI, brief interview with a Psychologist ($150). Total cost was probably $500 which I could afford, but many could not. Any of this could be embellished to increase the height of the roadblock.

It always pisses me off when Sam Harris lays out a quite eloquent case for the right to bear arms, then wants to put it behind a wall as high as the one that must be climbed to obtain a pilot's license (his comparison, specifically). The two things simply aren't similar. When you take off in an airplane, it's coming down. Getting it back into a safe condition without killing yourself and/or a number of other people and generating some really expensive property damage requires a vast amount of knowledge and physical skill. When you pick up a firearm, all you have to do to get it back into a safe condition is set it down. The example he uses of the low-income single mom in a not-so-good neighborhood to point out how fundamental the right is is precisely the person who would be prevented from exercising the right by the regulatory framework he proposes. Elitist douche.

Someone can correct me but I recall that public transit in Oregon and Texan cities had bans or attempted such.

Not that doing so would be OK with me, but in any of the big TX cities, a "sensitive place" limitation on public transit would be far from effectuating the almost complete ban that would result on the NY subway system. An absolutely miniscule number of people ride the bus and train in Houston compared to driving. But again, it goes back to people who are likely to be lower-income, and also to live and work in areas with higher risk of violence, who are inherently vulnerable due to not being protected by their own lockable steel box on their commute.

I have ridden the train in Houston once, and it's by far the closest I've come to a violent experience here. A drunk guy informed me that he had decided not to start a fight with me. The reason he was thinking about starting a fight was simply because I was the biggest guy on the train. But he had decided that I was too big, plus I had backup of a guy who was a bodybuilder. If he had made a different decision, there would have been no option to simply get out of Dodge. I'd have been fighting this guy for his entertainment. So yeah, I don't do the train anymore.