NYSRPA v Bruen

[00tec]

Just dropped.
Strikes down the discretionary portion of NY's carry permit process

[Ramsker]

Wonder if this will potentially have some effect on the shenanigans with bans in Denver parks? Seems like the ruling noted that it was reasonable to limit carrying to "sensitive places" . . . but that you can't just then make everyplace sensitive to effectively ban carrying.

Not that I would expect Denver to care.

"But expanding the category of ?sensitive places? simply to all places of public congregation that are not isolated from law enforcement defines the category of ?sensitive places? far too broadly."

"Put simply, there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a ?sensitive place? simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department."

[sroz]

Just heard David Gergen make about the dumbest statement I have heard against this decision. Paraphrasing here. He stated that when you look at Times Square and consider the large numbers of people packed into the area, and GANGS, etc, allowing citizens to carry firearms is crazy and making the problem worse. If there are gangs nearby, I absolutely want to be armed.

[RblDiver]

I'm curious how this applies to prohibited open-carry. My gut tells me that lower courts at least would say that so long as you can carry in some fashion (CCW), then that's fine, but I have no idea (personally, that doesn't seem to be in line with tradition, the new standard set by this ruling).

[RblDiver]

Ooh, that is a good read. As the poster puts it, "Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion in the New York concealed carry case in which he just got a fat shit all over Stephen Breyer's dissent."

https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1539984804258758656

[Martinjmpr]

I'm curious how this applies to prohibited open-carry. My gut tells me that lower courts at least would say that so long as you can carry in some fashion (CCW), then that's fine, but I have no idea (personally, that doesn't seem to be in line with tradition, the new standard set by this ruling).

I haven't read the ruling but I've read some of the analyses and I think that is a reasonable interpretation.

Being as how Colorado is a "shall issue" state (currently) and there is a provision for issuing CCW permits, a local ban on open carry (especially unlicensed open carry) is likely to be seen as something that is not "excessively burdensome" on the right to carry arms in public.

I learned long ago that the law's favorite word was "reasonable." The NY law was struck down as unreasonable because it was a de-facto ban on the carrying of firearms by anyone who wasn't "connected" or otherwise privileged.

[eddiememphis]

I'm curious how this applies to prohibited open-carry.

I don't think it does, as long as one can obtain a concealed permit without an undue burden.

I haven't read enough yet to understand it. Trying to look at news sites to learn is difficult, since they are covering politician's reactions, not the actual legal ramifications of the ruling.

My limited reading on this seem to indicated this is about issuing of licenses, not location restrictions. There is much about states imposing an undue burden to acquire a license.

It seems to say individuals have the right to carry a firearm for self protection outside the home. It also says that right can be limited as it has been throughout history, although not to extreme limits.

Eugene Volokh has a pretty good article about it.

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/06/23/how-should-courts-evaluate-gun-regulations-after-bruen/#more-8191897

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

[eddiememphis]

Being as how Colorado is a "shall issue" state (currently) and there is a provision for issuing CCW permits, a local ban on open carry (especially unlicensed open carry) is likely to be seen as something that is not "excessively burdensome" on the right to carry arms in public.

Agreed.

From the above linked article-

"Bans on concealed carry but only if open carry is allowed: "The historical evidence from antebellum America does demonstrate that the manner of public carry was subject to reasonable regulation... States could lawfully eliminate one kind of public carry-concealed carry-so long as they left open the option to carry openly." In practice, I expect that today the jurisdictions that currently don't have statutory provisions generally allowing carrying (California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and D.C.) would, when forced to choose, prefer to allow concealed carry rather than open carry. But in theory, I expect that such a jurisdiction could follow the 19th-century model in many states by allowing only open carry. Likewise, I expect that a jurisdiction could ban open carry and allow only concealed carry (as I believe Florida currently does, for instance)."

He is saying carrying is legal. If you ban open, concealed must be allowed. When Edgewater bans concealed, we can have meetings at GB fish and chips wearing six shooters for all to see.

[RblDiver]

One avenue I was wondering about was whether, if you're in a location that bans open carry and requires a CCW license, are they permitted to charge for that? That is, we know that a poll tax is illegal to require to vote, and anyone who said that you had to pay a tax/fee to speak freely would be seen as unconstitutional, so why then should they be allowed to restrict open carry while still charging for a CCW license?

[DDT951]

All.

There is a big take away with regards to magazine limits, MSR limits, etc in the ruling

"Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one 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 a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny."


The entire "intermediate scrutiny" that courts have relied on to justify bans on certain firearms and magazines was shot down.

Look at the broad picture of the ruling!

[Great-Kazoo]

Honestly i was surprised the ruling went this way, with all the b.s SCOTUS is facing, threat wise. . Was very surprised roberts sided with the majority.

[.455_Hunter]

I don't have the legal expertise to know if this decision has any impact on reigning in our new municipal Karens and other recent local stupid.

[DDT951]

I don't have the legal expertise to know if this decision has any impact on reigning in our new municipal Karens and other recent local stupid.

Probably will help strike them down.

Now it would be nice if politicians (like the city council members) who dont repeal illegal laws and pass illegal ones after the SCOTUS has ruled would be charged with civil right violations. Same with police.

The "in common usage" was throughout that ruling.

Basically I dont see how any ruling based on intermediate scrutiny can still stand...

Hopefully lawuits fly.

It would be awesome if cities/counties/states has to pay punative damages on class action suits for violating gun rights. Bankrupt these fiefdoms. May now individual politicians can be named as defendants and they can be driven into bankruptcy if they violate SCOTUS rulings?

[Eric P]

Did not go far enough when comparing to the other rights. Should have struck down fees and permits required to carry open or concealed anywhere that the constitution is valid...

[KAPA]

Did not go far enough when comparing to the other rights. Should have struck down fees and permits required to carry open or concealed anywhere that the constitution is valid...

This x1000.

Never understood why I have to pay to exercise right that allows me to put a weapon in my pocket as opposed to showing everyone what I have on me making myself a target. You want to background check me? Ok, you pay for it.

[00tec]

This x1000.

Never understood why I have to pay to exercise right that allows me to put a weapon in my pocket as opposed to showing everyone what I have on me making myself a target. You want to background check me? Ok, you pay for it.

You pay for it anyway

[eddiememphis]

"May Issue" states will have to become "Shall Issue" states but likely will charge large fees for acquiring and renewing the licenses, along with ongoing classes and certification requirements. Many potential applicants will look at the time and cost requirements and choose not to get a permit.

Also look for many, many more places to be designated sensitive places.

[.455_Hunter]

Also look for many, many more places to be designated sensitive places.

Thomas did state that non-specific locations like "parks" could NOT be declared sensitive. That may have some benefit here. If the municipal Karens want to hide in a "no guns" administration building, I really could care less- I go there maybe once a year for 30 minutes.

[DDT951]

"May Issue" states will have to become "Shall Issue" states but likely will charge large fees for acquiring and renewing the licenses, along with ongoing classes and certification requirements. Many potential applicants will look at the time and cost requirements and choose not to get a permit.

Also look for many, many more places to be designated sensitive places.

The "Sensitive places" was also addressed.


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. Id., at 626. That said, respondents’ attempt to characterize New York’s proper-cause requirement as a “sensitive-place” law lacks merit because there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a “sensitive place” simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department. Pp. 17–22.


This will effectively be the death nail and impetus for challenges to all the silliness in Boulder County.

I could only wish that every city council person and the city governments were sued into bankruptcy now that there is a SCOTUS ruling.

[KAPA]

You pay for it anyway

At least that way, I've got some help. Good point though!

[Martinjmpr]

I don't have the legal expertise to know if this decision has any impact on reigning in our new municipal Karens and other recent local stupid.


Probably will help strike them down.



Very doubtful. Are there any local bans that are 100% bans on carrying of any and all firearms? Only places I'm aware of are schools and government buildings.

A ban on a weapon of "your choice" (i.e. Boulder's "assault weapons" ban) is not likely to be seen as an infringement on 2A rights as you are still allowed to carry and possess other types of firearms.

Courts (and especially SCOTUS) doesn't like to get into the details of public policy - that's properly the role of local and state legislatures and governments.

To use a sports analogy, the Courts' role is to essentially act as the referee and tell one side or another when they've committed a foul against the Constitution, not to dictate every play.

The NY law was struck down because even though it pretended to allow carry of firearms in some circumstances, in practice it was a de facto total ban on the possession and carrying of firearms by anyone who didn't have some "special connections" that pleased the civil masters of NYC.

[.455_Hunter]

After further review of Thomas' verbiage, the area where it MAY provide some assistance is the declaration of vast areas off-limits to carry, like "parks" or "open space", versus specific locations like the "court house". Again, I am not a lawyer...

[Eric P]

This x1000.

Never understood why I have to pay to exercise right that allows me to put a weapon in my pocket as opposed to showing everyone what I have on me making myself a target. You want to background check me? Ok, you pay for it.

Nope. What other right requires a background check or permission from the tyrants? If not imprisoned why are your rights denied?

[MAP]

Very doubtful. Are there any local bans that are 100% bans on carrying of any and all firearms? Only places I'm aware of are schools and government buildings.

A ban on a weapon of "your choice" (i.e. Boulder's "assault weapons" ban) is not likely to be seen as an infringement on 2A rights as you are still allowed to carry and possess other types of firearms.

Courts (and especially SCOTUS) doesn't like to get into the details of public policy - that's properly the role of local and state legislatures and governments.

To use a sports analogy, the Courts' role is to essentially act as the referee and tell one side or another when they've committed a foul against the Constitution, not to dictate every play.

The NY law was struck down because even though it pretended to allow carry of firearms in some circumstances, in practice it was a de facto total ban on the possession and carrying of firearms by anyone who didn't have some "special connections" that pleased the civil masters of NYC.

If you read the standard of review as set forth in the opinion, the boulder AWB has a good chance of getting shot down along with any mag ban.

[KAPA]

Yes, the mag bans. What does it take to relate this to getting rid of any and all magazine capacity restrictions?

[00tec]

Yes, the mag bans. What does it take to relate this to getting rid of any and all magazine capacity restrictions?

Another lawsuit and a few million hours of minimum wage

[FoxtArt]

Ftr, supreme court ruling will.have little practical effect. You can cite to it before the CO Supreme Court, they'll still ignore it, invent new bs logic, so on and so forth acrosd the country. It is what makes America "not so great", there is no real judicial check, no judicial consequence.

[Eric P]

The California magazine ban is in federal courts. So it's a start. Already repealed, then reversed, then... I stopped following

[Martinjmpr]

Yes, the mag bans. What does it take to relate this to getting rid of any and all magazine capacity restrictions?

I would rate the chance of SCOTUS overturning a magazine ban at somewhere between zero and "you're joking, right?"

If it even gets that far, the court is likely to say "as long as you can have a firearm with a functioning magazine, your right to bear arms has not been infringed upon."

I'd bet money on that. ;)

[KAPA]

I would rate the chance of SCOTUS overturning a magazine ban at somewhere between zero and "you're joking, right?"

If it even gets that far, the court is likely to say "as long as you can have a firearm with a functioning magazine, your right to bear arms has not been infringed upon."

I'd bet money on that. ;)

Sounds like saying you are no longer allowed to use a computer
or technology to exercise your freedom of speech. As long as you can yell at people walking down the street your first ammendment is alive and well.

[theGinsue]

Sounds like saying you are no longer allowed to use a computer
or technology to exercise your freedom of speech. As long as you can yell at people walking down the street your first ammendment is alive and well.

*YOU* understand this and *WE* understand this, but I do not have any faith that the courts, up and including the majority conservative SCOTUS, will understand this.

Firearms rights are a sensitive hot topic for the courts. Even if they actually agree with our perspective they're inclined to find a way to leave as much power to the State/state that they can without totally ignoring the Constitution. You can see this in the expanded wording within the Heller and McDonald decisions. It's as if the decisions are a compromise with the liberal justices who still vote against our rights.

[Martinjmpr]

Sounds like saying you are no longer allowed to use a computer
or technology to exercise your freedom of speech. As long as you can yell at people walking down the street your first ammendment is alive and well.

Nope, that's not a good analogy at all.

A magazine restriction does not prevent you from using a firearm. You can still use it, but you can't have as many rounds. The firearm still functions though.

Judicial review (where the courts judge the constitutionality of a government action) works like this: They always START with the presumption that the government action is Constitutional. '

The petitioner then has to make the argument that the action is NOT constitutional and has to support that with a good argument.

Whether the law in question is a good idea, whether it makes sense, whether it is likely to achieve its stated objective - that's not the business of the court as those are all political questions that are better left to the political branches to work out. The court merely decides whether they government has gone "out of bounds" in terms of what they're allowed to do per the Constitution.

To apply your analogy above WRT computers, if the courts said the 2nd amendment only protected your right to own a firearm that was in existence at the time the amendment was ratified, IOW a muzzle loading musket or rifle, then your analogy would make sense. But every Glock, AR, or other semi-auto will work exactly the same with a 10 round mag as it will with a 15 or 30 round mag. Therefore, your right to keep and bear arms has not been infringed and the court is likely to see the issue of magazine limits as being within the regulatory power of the government and subject to political considerations, not legal ones.

[DireWolf]

...Therefore, your right to keep and bear arms has not been infringed and the court is likely to see the issue of magazine limits as being within the regulatory power of the government and subject to political considerations, not legal ones.

Just because we've (collectively) allowed the congnitive decay and systemic linguistic manipulation to progress so far without meaningful correction does not mean that it should go unrecognized...Or unpunished.

Magazine limits (among numerous other things) may not fully curtail the RKBA as enumerated by the 2A, but it damn sure is an infringement under anything even approaching an honest perspective.

Any other interpretation is, at best biased, and at worst flagrantly dishonest and disingenuous.

[DDT951]

Nope, that's not a good analogy at all.

A magazine restriction does not prevent you from using a firearm. You can still use it, but you can't have as many rounds. The firearm still functions though.

Judicial review (where the courts judge the constitutionality of a government action) works like this: They always START with the presumption that the government action is Constitutional. '

The petitioner then has to make the argument that the action is NOT constitutional and has to support that with a good argument.

Whether the law in question is a good idea, whether it makes sense, whether it is likely to achieve its stated objective - that's not the business of the court as those are all political questions that are better left to the political branches to work out. The court merely decides whether they government has gone "out of bounds" in terms of what they're allowed to do per the Constitution.

To apply your analogy above WRT computers, if the courts said the 2nd amendment only protected your right to own a firearm that was in existence at the time the amendment was ratified, IOW a muzzle loading musket or rifle, then your analogy would make sense. But every Glock, AR, or other semi-auto will work exactly the same with a 10 round mag as it will with a 15 or 30 round mag. Therefore, your right to keep and bear arms has not been infringed and the court is likely to see the issue of magazine limits as being within the regulatory power of the government and subject to political considerations, not legal ones.

However, the SCOTUS has been implying that "in common use" means it is legal. Also, this ruling removed intermediate scrutiny.

Those two combined make it much more likely that mag bans will be ruled against.

What about a single round magazine. The gun still functions.

If the courts can't justify a 1-round magazine because the gun still functions, then they cannot justify any other number.

How is 10 (or 15) rounds ok but 11 (or 16) is not?

Is a Glock 19 less deadly than a Glock 17?

[Martinjmpr]

If you read the standard of review as set forth in the opinion, the boulder AWB has a good chance of getting shot down along with any mag ban.

So I just read the full opinion and while I agree that it does apply a stricter standard of review (it does away with the "balancing test" of McDonald) I zeroed in on this part from Page 20:


While we do not now provide an exhaustive survey of the features that render regulations relevantly similar under the Second Amendment, we do think that Heller and McDonald point toward at least two metrics: how and why the regulations burden a law-abiding citizen's right to armed self-defense. As we stated in Heller and repeated in McDonald, "individual self-defense is 'the central component' of the Second Amendment right." McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767 (quoting Heller, 554 U. S., at 599); see also id., at 628 ("the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right"). Therefore, whether modern and historical regulations impose a comparable burden on the right of armed self-defense and whether that burden is comparably justified are "central" considerations when engaging in an analogical inquiry. McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767 (quoting Heller, 554 U. S., at 599).7

The bolded part is why I think the court is unlikely to strike down a magazine ban on 2nd Amendment grounds.

If the magazine ban, for example, limited magazines to one round or two rounds - and particularly if no such magazines actually existed - then I could see the court saying that the legislature is just trying to do an end-run around the 2nd amendment by making a de facto ban on magazine fed firearms, which are of course "in common use" all across the country.

But to fight a magazine ban on 2nd amendment grounds, you'd have to argue that a 10-round or 15-round limit on magazines imposes a substantial burden on your Constitutional right to self defense.

IOW you'd have to explain how a 17 round Glock is capable of providing you your ability to defend yourself, but that same gun with a 10 round magazine is not. Ditto for your AR, etc.

I wouldn't be surprised if the respondents (defendants) in such suits provided studies showing that in most self-defense situations, fewer than 5 rounds are fired. Based on that, it's tough to make the argument that a 10 or 15 round magazine ban burdens your right to self defense to such a degree as to make it unconstitutional.

[Martinjmpr]

For those who want to read it for themselves:

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

[Rucker61]

From the FPC FAQ for Bruen.

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/bruen-faq?fbclid=IwAR2KJMMpjx2bsgZ4UFvqEy2uN8tFEN5N8ccGC MlYREmaoqyVhDu3uTFhKv4

[Martinjmpr]

In practical terms, what this means is essentially nationwide "shall issue" licensing for concealed carry.

[wctriumph]

The Virginia Tech shooter used legal 10 round magazines in his killing spree.
Once we are all limited to lower cash capacity magazines, next will be limiting us to only one magazine so crazy people can’t reload. Perhaps the magazine can only be changed after removing a fixing device with a special tool??
These zealots will keep pushing until all people are slaves to their utopian dreams.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

So I just read the full opinion and while I agree that it does apply a stricter standard of review (it does away with the "balancing test" of McDonald) I zeroed in on this part from Page 20:



The bolded part is why I think the court is unlikely to strike down a magazine ban on 2nd Amendment grounds.

If the magazine ban, for example, limited magazines to one round or two rounds - and particularly if no such magazines actually existed - then I could see the court saying that the legislature is just trying to do an end-run around the 2nd amendment by making a de facto ban on magazine fed firearms, which are of course "in common use" all across the country.

But to fight a magazine ban on 2nd amendment grounds, you'd have to argue that a 10-round or 15-round limit on magazines imposes a substantial burden on your Constitutional right to self defense.

IOW you'd have to explain how a 17 round Glock is capable of providing you your ability to defend yourself, but that same gun with a 10 round magazine is not. Ditto for your AR, etc.

I wouldn't be surprised if the respondents (defendants) in such suits provided studies showing that in most self-defense situations, fewer than 5 rounds are fired. Based on that, it's tough to make the argument that a 10 or 15 round magazine ban burdens your right to self defense to such a degree as to make it unconstitutional.

The arguments they make for the imposing the mag bans INHERENTLY make them vulnerable to the 2A. The mag bans laws are put in place because they restrict the capability of the firearm in the name of public safety. The justification for the law invalidates it under the current rulings. As soon as you start weighing the public benefit as a rationale, you are, as the decision says, one step to far.

You can say that using a hi-cap magazine to shoot someone is illegal, but you can’t say that you can’t have the mag. You can yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater, but you better be sure there is a fire. The ‘thing’ or capability is the right, which can be used wrongly and punished.

Could you end up with higher penalties for using an ‘AW’ and high cap mag- maybe, but you can’t limit the right to them.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

Xxxxxd

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

I would rate the chance of SCOTUS overturning a magazine ban at somewhere between zero and "you're joking, right?"

If it even gets that far, the court is likely to say "as long as you can have a firearm with a functioning magazine, your right to bear arms has not been infringed upon."

I'd bet money on that. ;)

How much?

30 rounders are coming back. Not sure about true high capacity drums and such. But mag bands don?t stand a chance with the current Scotus make up. Sure if they pack the court with some idiots. Or Thomas dies. One step rule now.

[O2HeN2]

California AG doxxes all concealed carry holders because of.... reasons...

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/intimidation-california-ag-posted-the-names-of-all-carry-permit-holders-after-bruen-ruling/

O2

[buffalobo]

California AG doxxes all concealed carry holders because of.... reasons...

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/intimidation-california-ag-posted-the-names-of-all-carry-permit-holders-after-bruen-ruling/

O2I like the fact that unintended consequences of the doxing CCW holders tells criminals who does not have guns or least who might not have guns.

The article puts forth that CCW holders may be targeted by thugs who want to steal said guns(third most populer theft item) but I think average thief would rather attempt to rob the defenseless than CCW holders.

[Martinjmpr]

How much?

30 rounders are coming back. Not sure about true high capacity drums and such. But mag bands don?t stand a chance with the current Scotus make up. Sure if they pack the court with some idiots. Or Thomas dies. One step rule now.

How about $100? I'd take that bet. $100 from me to you if SCOTUS reverses a mag ban on 2A grounds.

If they deny cert (refuse to hear the case) or affirm the law, $100 from you to me.

Deal?

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

How about $100? I'd take that bet. $100 from me to you if SCOTUS reverses a mag ban on 2A grounds.

If they deny cert (refuse to hear the case) or affirm the law, $100 from you to me.

Deal?

Either a Circuit court of SCOTUS will overturn mag bans. I’d think in the next five years, but these things take so much longer than they should.

[Great-Kazoo]

Either a Circuit court of SCOTUS will overturn mag bans. I’d think in the next five years, but these things take so much longer than they should.

Not happening. The CA courts have filed injunctions with every ruling , eliminating the mag restrictions. 5 yrs [ROFL2] by then we'll be lucky to own them, let along any mags. IF the D's continue to push common sense laws. Throw in they're actively trying to remove Thomas from SCOTUS. Who might accidently come down with a case of clintonitis . I put nothing past the d's, at this point in time.

[DDT951]

Martin... your bet is not looking so good.....


https://kdvr.com/news/politics/ap-politics/supreme-court-says-several-gun-cases-deserve-a-new-look/



"One of the cases the justices sent back to a lower court Thursday involved a Hawaii statute similar to New York’s. In that case, a panel of 11 judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled in 2021 that the right to “keep and bear arms” in the Constitution’s Second Amendment “does not guarantee an unfettered, general right to openly carry arms in public for individual self-defense.” But the high court said in its latest gun case that the Constitution protects “an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.” A lower court will now have to revisit the Hawaii ruling.

The high court also told federal appeals courts to revisit cases involving laws in California and New Jersey that limit the number of bullets a gun magazine can hold. A 2018 New Jersey law limits most gun owners to magazines that hold up to 10 rounds of ammunition instead of the 15-round limit in place since 1990. A lower court upheld the law.

California law also bans magazines holding more than 10 bullets. A panel of 11 judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 7-4 last year to uphold California’s ban.

The justices also sent back for further review a case from Maryland that challenged the state’s 2013 ban on 45 kinds of assault weapons. The high court had in 2017 turned away a previous challenge to the law."

[Martinjmpr]

Martin... your bet is not looking so good.....


https://kdvr.com/news/politics/ap-politics/supreme-court-says-several-gun-cases-deserve-a-new-look/



"One of the cases the justices sent back to a lower court Thursday involved a Hawaii statute similar to New York’s. In that case, a panel of 11 judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled in 2021 that the right to “keep and bear arms” in the Constitution’s Second Amendment “does not guarantee an unfettered, general right to openly carry arms in public for individual self-defense.” But the high court said in its latest gun case that the Constitution protects “an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.” A lower court will now have to revisit the Hawaii ruling.

The high court also told federal appeals courts to revisit cases involving laws in California and New Jersey that limit the number of bullets a gun magazine can hold. A 2018 New Jersey law limits most gun owners to magazines that hold up to 10 rounds of ammunition instead of the 15-round limit in place since 1990. A lower court upheld the law.

California law also bans magazines holding more than 10 bullets. A panel of 11 judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 7-4 last year to uphold California’s ban.

The justices also sent back for further review a case from Maryland that challenged the state’s 2013 ban on 45 kinds of assault weapons. The high court had in 2017 turned away a previous challenge to the law."

I'll stick to my guns (see what I did there?) I just don't see SCOTUS invalidating a mag ban on 2A grounds as long as lower capacity magazines are, in fact, available.

If the mag ban restricted anything over, say, 3 rounds and for most firearms, 3 round mags were not available, then I'd say such a ban could be struck down as being a de facto prohibition on firearms ownership. But I don't see SCOTUS overturning a 10 or 15 round mag ban on the grounds that it violates the 2nd Amendment.

Particularly given that the rulings in both Heller and McDonald held that the 2A protects the right to possess firearms for personal self defense. They'd have to hold that restricting magazines to 10 or 15 rounds impairs the right to personal self defense, which I think is a very tough argument to make.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

Martin, you are using the legal mechanisms that the collectivists WANT TO USE, but that SCOTUS has said you CANT use. Now, I agree that it isn’t a straight line and if we didn’t have a majority on SCOTUS (or keep one) that the left would twist it into some kind of reason to ban pretty much anything.

I think the most clarifying thing would be for you to say where this ‘second best’ or ‘good enough’ legal doctrine is coming from?

Thomas’ point in this new ruling is SPECIFICALLY that you don’t get to judge the 2A as different than other basic rights. Would you say that the govt restrict you from using TV for free speech if radio were available, or limit the number of people that could view your TV ads?

The specific judgement is to be made based on the historical understanding of the 2A at the time of its writing applied to now. Since the public had access to ‘modern’ arms with out limitations, that points to that the mag and AWBs won’t hold. Maybe the 9th or nd will try to weasel, but that will end up right back at SCOTUS. Actually, if the left were smart, they would hope to lose at the circuit level and not get SCOTUS to actually weigh in, so that when they control the court, they can bring it back and fight it then.

But we are on for $100 that a circuit or SCOTUS will invalidate the ban on <30 round mags?

[KAPA]

I don't see any readily and easily available 15 round AR mags around here. All I got is 30s and 40s.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

https://youtu.be/iJyzuTS-XQ8

Movement on California?s AWB. The original judge used the same legal reasoning as SCOTUS to shoot down the AWB. As it went up the chain, it was put on hold due to the 9th most likely relying on the 2-step legal analysis that always allows restrictions. Now that the 1-step of history and background is the standard, there is pressure to get the case moving or the original ruling that has been on hold allowed to stand during the rest of the legal process.

It?s not over as the title might imply, but the fat lady is clearing her throat?.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

$50 for a TRO? ��

[Martinjmpr]

$50 for a TRO? ��

I'll pay up if SCOTUS reverses a magazine ban on Second Amendment grounds.

They can do that in two different ways. They can either take a case of a magazine ban and explicitly reverse it using this case as a precedent, or, if a lower court reverses a magazine ban on Second Amendment grounds and the state appeals it to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court refuses to hear the appeal, that's the same thing as the Supreme Court agreeing that the magazine ban is unconstitutional. The difference being, that would only apply in that judicial district (but if another court affirmed the ban it would create a "circuit split" which would likely force SCOTUS to address the issue.)

If either of those things happens, I'll pay up. But you gotta take the bet now Because if the Supreme Court either refuses to overturn the ban on Second Amendment grounds, or a lower court upholds the mag ban, and the Supreme Court doesn't take the case, then you pay up. Deal?

[Edited to clean up Tapatalk errors and to add the comment about circuit splits.]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

Sounds good. They might hold off on taking a mag case until they get two circuits in opposition, but they probably would take the 9th circuit if they vote against. The Colorado case may beat those since the 9th has remanded cases back to trial.