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

[BoringGuy45]

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

For the moment, probably very little. Providing funding for school security and improving background check systems are the main focuses of the bill from what I understand. The part about red flag laws probably couldn't be challenged under the 2nd Amendment, as it's only a provision to fund states that want to enact certain red flag laws. Those laws, however, will no doubt come under scrutiny as to whether or not they're consistent with the 2nd, 4th, and 14th Amendments.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

I think the under 21 thing is just about more scrutiny when you do a background check? Like more money for the states to put in juvenile offender data? Wait till they figure out the racial disparity on that. As far as I can tell this doesn’t affect me in Colorado at all. Pretty much everything they’re asking for we have that and worse already. I never even knew of the boyfriend loophole. My wife seem to know a lot about it for some reason. But is the net is a lot more money for mental health and better scrutiny on crazy kids that’s good. Not saying I’m happy with his passing at all.

Maybe I’m just too giddy from all the rest of the big wins this week.

[TomMcC]

California is speaking with forked tongue. They are going to set the standard for a permit as requiring "good moral character". Nothing subjective about that at all.

[Diamondback]

California is speaking with forked tongue. They are going to set the standard for a permit as requiring "good moral character". Nothing subjective about that at all.

Which they extend to include political ideology...
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/06/26...arry-licenses/

AG memo: "Existing public-carry policies of local law enforcement agencies across the state provide helpful examples of how to apply the "good moral character" requirement. The Sacramento County Sheriff's Office, for example, currently identifies several potential reasons why a public-carry license may be denied (or revoked), which include "[a]ny arrest in the last 5 years, regardless of the disposition" or "[a]ny conviction in the last 7 years." It is reasonable to consider such factors in evaluating an applicant's proof of the requisite moral character to safely carry firearms in public. See, e.g., Bruen (referencing "law-abiding citizens").

Other jurisdictions list the personal characteristics one reasonably expects of candidates for a public-carry license who do not pose a danger to themselves or others. The Riverside County Sheriff's Department's policy, for example, currently provides as follows: "Legal judgments of good moral character can include consideration of honesty, trustworthiness, diligence, reliability, respect for the law, integrity, candor, discretion, observance of fiduciary duty, respect for the rights of others, absence of hatred and racism, fiscal stability, profession-specific criteria such as pledging to honor the constitution and uphold the law, and the absence of criminal conviction." [Emphasis added.]"

Hey Bonta, prove you're not a child molester in addition to a POS.

[sjc3081]

Law of Self Defense podcast has a great summary
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcas...=1000567761612

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

Which they extend to include political ideology...
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/06/26...arry-licenses/

AG memo: "Existing public-carry policies of local law enforcement agencies across the state provide helpful examples of how to apply the "good moral character" requirement. The Sacramento County Sheriff's Office, for example, currently identifies several potential reasons why a public-carry license may be denied (or revoked), which include "[a]ny arrest in the last 5 years, regardless of the disposition" or "[a]ny conviction in the last 7 years." It is reasonable to consider such factors in evaluating an applicant's proof of the requisite moral character to safely carry firearms in public. See, e.g., Bruen (referencing "law-abiding citizens").

Other jurisdictions list the personal characteristics one reasonably expects of candidates for a public-carry license who do not pose a danger to themselves or others. The Riverside County Sheriff's Department's policy, for example, currently provides as follows: "Legal judgments of good moral character can include consideration of honesty, trustworthiness, diligence, reliability, respect for the law, integrity, candor, discretion, observance of fiduciary duty, respect for the rights of others, absence of hatred and racism, fiscal stability, profession-specific criteria such as pledging to honor the constitution and uphold the law, and the absence of criminal conviction." [Emphasis added.]"

Hey Bonta, prove you're not a child molester in addition to a POS.

Ironically, they are going to disarm dems the most…. Watch them extend it to ‘associates and housemates’, which again will disqualify dems more than others…

[themonk]

Law of Self Defense podcast has a great summary
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcas...=1000567761612

[tn1911]

SCOTUS sends cases down to be reconsidered in light of NYSRPA v Bruen

Magazine Ban (3rd Circuit): ASSN. OF NJ RIFLE, ET AL. V. BRUCK, ATT'Y GEN. OF NJ, ET AL.

Magazine Ban (9th Circuit): DUNCAN, VIRGINIA, ET AL. V. BONTA, ATT'Y GEN. OF CA

Assault weapon ban (4th Circuit): BIANCHI, DOMINIC, ET AL. V. FROSH, ATT'Y GEN. OF MD, ET AL.

UPDATE: Added Circuit Court info and....

Young v Hawaii (9th Circuit)
Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. ___ (2022).

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

Well, I'd rather them have just decide them, but like children, they have scolded them for their false God of two-part test and are now going to see if they have learned it.

So, Thomas came up with this standard of what was commonly thought of the 2A right when it was written and update it to today. Frankly, I think that is overly complex and onerous. I wish he had just said 'strict scrutiny' just like for all our other BOR rights. The historical context is going to eventually come back to bite us since it leaves enough wriggle room, or some future court will say that this was the wrong context to see the right- just like this court did with ROE and CASEY- but I digress and put a cloud on what SHOULD be a very big victory.

Either the 9th and 2nd eat their own dicks and rule correctly and strike down the AWB and mag bans, OR they screw it up and don't do that, which will bring them right back to SCOTUS for them to say Bzzzt, wrong answer. I just hope that Thomas is still there to force the right answer, because you know if he gets replaced by a DEM appointee, that Roberts will buddy-fudge us somehow.

Anyone have any thoughts on when those circuits would re-hear and re-decide? This could take years.

[themonk]

It will happen very quick.