If SCOTUS is ruling on NYSPA v Bruen it’ll happen this Tuesday or Thursday.

[tn1911]

The Supreme Court’s new gun ruling means virtually no gun regulation is safe

https://www.vox.com/2022/6/23/231802...amendment-guns

New York State Rifle v. Bruen is poorly reasoned. But its implications are potentially catastrophic.

The bottom line is that “dangerous and unusual” weapons such as machine guns, fighter jets, and anti-aircraft missiles will probably remain beyond civilian reach. But vast swaths of American gun laws are now in terrible danger.

The libs at Vox are worried.

[WillBrink]

The Supreme Court’s new gun ruling means virtually no gun regulation is safe

https://www.vox.com/2022/6/23/231802...amendment-guns




The libs at Vox are worried.

In the past, even if in favor of 2A Rights, they were so narrow as to only apply to that narrow decision for the most part. This time they have laid it out in big macro language that applies to all gun laws potentially and is as unambiguous as "SHALL Not Infringe"

This is a massive win for those who actually care about Basic Human Rights.

[utahjeepr]

In the past, even if in favor of 2A Rights, they were so narrow as to only apply to that narrow decision for the most part. This time they have laid it out in big macro language that applies to all gun laws potentially and is as unambiguous as "SHALL Not Infringe"

This is a massive win for those who actually care about Basic Human Rights.

Agreed. I think this decision even makes GCA 68 vulnerable.

[WillBrink]

Agreed. I think this decision even makes GCA 68 vulnerable.

I'm no legal scholar, but seems to me it can be applied to all gun laws some how, and had I been writing the opinion, would have added "gun laws by their nature and intent, are racist and elitist."

[utahjeepr]

I'm no legal scholar, but seems to me it can be applied to all gun laws some how, and had I been writing the opinion, would have added "gun laws by their nature and intent, are racist and elitist."

I think the "sporter clause" of GCA 68 is directly impacted by this ruling. That said my only legal experience is as a defendant.

[tn1911]

Bruen attorneys leave law firm after being told to ditch 2A clients

Yesterday should have been a triumphant day for Paul Clement and Erin Murphy. The pair won a landmark victory at the Supreme Court when justices ruled 6-3 in favor of their clients in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, striking down the state’s unconstitutional “may issue” carry laws. But yesterday the pair also learned that the other partners at Kirkland and Ellis, the law firm where both work, apparently weren’t too happy about the win and told the two attorneys they had a choice to make: ditch their Second Amendment-related clients or leave the firm.

So, as of yesterday, Clement and Murphy are free agents.

https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2...clients-n59719

[Pressingonward]

I read this on another forum, and figured those here, much smarter than I could weigh in on this.

The quote you posted is spot on. I'm not a lawyer, but the SCOTUS opinion is very clear. Throwing out the means/ends analysis for 2A means that if there isn't a strong historic precedent for a restriction (or an analogous restriction) from around the time of the Constitution or the passing of the 14th, then that restriction is unconstitutional.

I wish they hadn't put quite so much weight on historic precedent for interpreting the meaning of the text vs. the plain reading thereof, but it's a HUGE improvement that courts can no longer take the government's "is this restriction intended to do a good thing like prevent gun violence" BS into account.

Thomas also talked in the opinion about how to analyze new technology and similar concerns using an analogy approach - basically saying "is this historic restriction on time or place of bearing arms analogous to this new restriction?" He gives an example of a green hat and a green truck - both are analogous when the category is "things that are green", but only one is a "thing you wear". I look forward to the court proceedings where the category is, "things that are firearms" and the gov has to explain how a silencer (or a rubber washer!) fit into that category without being able to say (lie) the restrictions save countless lives and solve world hunger (that's a joke...)

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

I agree on the use of historical process since it could always be jacked with by a different court membership. The it ain’t a musket BS. But what do you expect from people that can’t wrap their heads around ‘shall not infringe’ and say that we don’t have the right to carry when there is the word ‘bear’. They make their positions and then wrap their law around it.

We are in the right direction, but until you get some actual decisions, it is ‘shroedingers’ decision- it can go both ways. I’m sure some liberal law student is already putting together a killer argument for the basis that Thomas uses is BS, just as Thomas said the ROE was built on BS. IF that law student can get four of their future SCOTUS justices to agree, they will strike down this decision.

Doesn’t take away our right. Which they will find out, quickly. Especially after we have been excercising the right. But the left will say that taking away gun rights was like taking away abortion rights.

[Gabriel556]

Can someone explain how this will affect the bill that got sent to the senate just this week? S. 2938.

[Krazykarl]

Can someone explain how this will affect the bill that got sent to the senate just this week? S. 2938.

If the new law restricts the rights of 18 to 21 year old citizens, it is unconstitutional.