NY Rifle & Pistol v Bruen

NY was forbidding both Concealed and Open Carry of guns, which pushed this case. The 2A won, and eliminate "May Issue". NY (and 6 other States) were forbidding both Concealed and Open Carry of pistols (for self-defense), which is what pushed this case to the Supremes. Constitution/2A won and requires that states allow people to carry guns for self-defense. (No more "May Issue" rules that leftist states use to suppress people's liberties. Also, revisions to Heller to increase 2A rights. ℹ️ Info           ~ Aristotle Sabouni Created: 2022-06-23

🗒️ Note:

There are three ways to carry a weapon: Open Carry - a visible gun CCW - Concealed and Carry Weapons License (a) "Shall Issue" States respected the Constitution, and said that the state had to show just cause to deny someone their right to carry concealed, assuming they met basic licensing requirements. (b) "May Issue" States said that the user had to prove to the state some "need" to carry (self defense alone was not valid), before they would be allowed a gun. And as practically applied, the politically connected, elites, or those that donated to the Sherrif's campaign could get it. Nobody else could.

Ruling: New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Facts

• New York was restricting people rights to buy guns, own guns, and carry guns. Which was in complete violation of the 2A and "Shall not be infringed". They outlawed open carry, then required CCW licenses, then put impossible standards for anyone to practically carry, while the elites were protected by Federal/State or Private security with guns.

• When New York overstepped and got caught just ignoring the spirit of prior rulings, they tried to back off, and withdraw temporarily the restrictions, out of fear of exactly this kind of ruling. (They knew they were wrong, and violating their rights, or they wouldn't have withdrawn, and would have defended their position better.

• Licensing, at best, is taking your rights away, and leasing them back to your for a price. At worst it's a scam of hurdles to obstruct your rights. The Supremes recognized the vile unconstitutionality of, "May Issue" states denying people's rights, and they got slapped so hard that California (and other "May Issue" states) are rubbing their faces. This practically means that "Shall Issue" is the norm. States must show just cause for denying someone's rights to bear arms. No more guilty until proven innocent, or bribed onto a preferred list.

• The ruling was 6:3, with the 3 leftist Justices doing their best impression of anti-Constitutional oligarchs, making excuses for why the 2A doesn't mean what it says. And that protecting the Constitution and "People" was an intrusion on state powers. (More below).

• Thomas wrote the majority and revised/extended the prior Heller decision as well.
  • Basically, Heller said that the right of individuals to bear arms was not contingent on being in a militia, and that Justices should look to (a) history AND (b) balance it with public interest.
  • This explained that since that ruling was too hard for leftist judges (they were using lame excuses to ban the publics right to bear arms), he was going to offer a lot more clarity. And defined:
  • (a) what history you could consider - just valid constitution times, before the progressive eras, and you could throw out things that were (i) just in U.S. territories (ii) obviously unconstitutional (iii) stuff that was only short term for the wild west and applied to very few people.
  • (b) He also went on to take away the "public interest", since that was being used incompetently and irresponsibly by the left. What mattered here was original intent, and the revisionist and progressives could go fuck themselves. (My interpretation).

• Breyey, Sotomayor, Kagan wrote a whiney rebuttal that was all the far left's bad and unproven gun control excuses, wrapped in one. But what about the shootings? What about mass murders? What about people's feelings? It demonstrated that these justices don't understand that their job is to enforce the law as written, not to be Social Justice Warrriors trying to create policy/legislation. Leave to the legislators their job of passing laws or amending the constitution.

• The left's side of the court was so retarded, that Justice Alito felt the need to rebutt their arguments, and call them on the dumb-fuckery -- explaining what their job actually is, and reminding them that (a) their arguments are wrong (b) ignoring mitigating factors (c) fucking irrelevant, since the law is the law, and it's up to the Legislator to change the law, not 3 simpering cunts on the court.

Thomas (Majority)

Thomas writing the opinion for the majority was brutally direct, ❝ The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense." ❞ ~ Justice Thomas ℹ️ Speaking for the majority  Heller basically said that the 2A was "for the people" and not contingent upon service in any militia. So of course the public should have access to common weapons. It took a "two-part" approach that said while the 2A was "shall not be infringed", there could be reasonable regulations if weapons were uncommon. And that the judgement of judges should be based on (a) history (b) balanced with public interest. NY Rifle, basically says we're not doing that again. Leftist judges were infringing regularly on the rights of gun owners by "simply posit[ing] that the regulation promotes an important interest". So this was strictly conditional on originalism: what did the Constitution say and intend when written -- they could only rely on history. "The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.” Then it goes on to define "what History" to prevent the activist side of the court finding the worst law and using it as a baseline. And details the following (to prevent judicial overreach): We have already recognized in Heller at least one way in which the Second Amendment’s historically fixed meaning applies to new circumstances: Its reference to “arms” does not apply “only [to] those arms in existence in the 18th century.” Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” The right to "bear arms" didn't mean in your home, it meant in public. Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms. As we explained in Heller, the “textual elements” of the Second Amendment’s operative clause— “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”—“guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”... confining the right to “bear” arms to the home would make little sense given that self-defense is “the central component of the [Second Amendment] right itself.” The guidance on history, is use Constitionally relevant history, not Magna Carta, not 20th century progressivism.... we reiterated that evidence of “how the Second Amendment was interpreted from immediately after its ratification through the end of the 19th century” represented a “critical tool of constitutional interpretation.” Thomas points out that Gun Control was a vile tool used to prevent blacks from having their civil rights (right to protect themselves and their homes). Thomas points out a few restrictions in the wild west (Az, Nm) or American Teritories (not states) were not particularly valid examples, because so few people lived under those laws, and only for short periods of time. Thomas excludes bad rulings like when the Kansas Supreme Court upheld a complete ban on public carry enacted by the city of Salina in 1901 based on the rationale that the Second Amendment protects only “the right to bear arms as a member of the state militia, or some other military organization provided for by law.” Salina v. Blaksley, 72 Kan. 230, 232, 83 P. 619, 620 (1905). That was clearly erroneous. See Heller, 554 U. S., at 592.

Breyer, Sotomator, Kagan (Minority)

The minority (Breyer, Sotomator, Kagan) was a whiney little rebuttal implying that activism should trump the law. They basically complained using false (leftist) numbers on murder rates, implied that gun control helps (it doesn't), lies of omission (left out mentions of DGU's and failures of gun control laws), and just basically implied that states rights should override the Constitutionally protected 2A. Which they'd never argue in any other case. But the left side of the court is dishonest hypocrites. They whine, "...the Court wrongly limits its analysis to focus nearly exclusively on history. [the ruling] refuses to consider the government interests that justify a challenged gun regulation, regardless of how compelling those interests may be.".... Because it's irrelevant to the constitution. The public interests don't matter -- what matters is the law. (The fact that they're wrong on what the public interest is, or that they should be able to decide that, is fundamentally more wrong). Your fucking job is to read the Constitution as it was intended, and if the people don't like it? Fix it through the legislature. Not for whiney judges to get their feelings butt-hurt, and circumvent the law of the land. There was no intelligent life demonstrated in this opinion, and it could have been written by a DNC/Marxist PR firm. Not by anyone with Constitutional Legal experience.

Alito (Rebutt to Minority)

Alito comes in and defines that this ruling is only about the fact that the State must be "Shall Issue" and not that they're regulating what kind of guns are restricted, etc. This is that you can carry, not what. Then he goes on to absolutely hammer the leftist Minority, and destroy their lame argument about feelings. He points out the negative consequences of gun control, the positive benefits of gun liberty, discussing DGU's (Defensive Gun Uses), and without saying it quite as bluntly as this, tells the whiney cunts on the left side of the court to shut up and do their jobs. The fact that he feels he needs to do this, tells you how ignorant and arrogant the left side of the court is, to try to preach about feelings or policy should trump civil rights and the law. No, leftist need for an agenda does NOT trump the constitution. Peddle that shit in Marxist Grievance Studies classes, but not from the court. Alitos Points "Much of the dissent seems designed to obscure the specific question that the Court has decided, and therefore it may be helpful to provide a succinct summary of what wehave actually held. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), the Court concluded that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense. Heller found that the Amendment codified a preexisting right and that this right was regarded at the time of the Amendment’s adoption as rooted in “‘the natural right of resistance and self-preservation.’” Id., at 594. “[T]he inherent right of self-defense,” Heller explained, is “central to the Second Amendment right.” Id., at 628. Although Heller concerned the possession of a handgun in the home, the key point that we decided was that “the people,” not just members of the “militia,” have the right to use a firearm to defend themselves. And because many people face a serious risk of lethal violence when they venture outside their homes, the Second Amendment was understood at the time of adoption to apply under those circumstances. ...today’s decision therefore holds that a State may not enforce a law, like New York’s Sullivan Law, that effectively prevents its law-abiding residents from carrying a gun for this purpose. That is all we decide. 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. In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see what legitimate purpose can possibly be served by most of the dissent’s lengthy introductory section. Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years? Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator. What is the relevance of statistics about the use of guns to commit suicide? Does the dissent think that a lot of people who possess guns in their homes will be stopped or deterred from shooting themselves if they cannot lawfully take them outside? The dissent cites statistics about the use of guns in domestic disputes, but it does not explain why these statistics are relevant to the question presented in this case. How many of the cases involving the use of a gun in a domestic dispute occur outside the home, and how many are prevented by laws like New York’s? The dissent cites statistics on children and adolescents killed by guns, but what does this have to do with the question whether an adult who is licensed to possess a handgun may be prohibited from carrying it outside the home? Our decision, as noted, does not expand the categories of people who may lawfully possess a gun, and federal law generally forbids the possession of a handgun by a person who is under the age of 18, 18 U. S. C. §§922(x)(2)–(5), and bars the sale of a handgun to anyone under the age of 21, §§922(b)(1), (c)(1). The dissent cites the large number of guns in private hands—nearly 400 million—but it does not explain what this statistic has to do with the question whether a person who already has the right to keep a gun in the home for self-defense is likely to be deterred from acquiring a gun by the knowledge that the gun cannot be carried outside the home. And while the dissent seemingly thinks that the ubiquity of guns and our country’s high level of gun violence provide reasons for sustaining the New York law, the dissent appears not to understand that it is these very facts that cause law-abiding citizens to feel the need to carry a gun for self-defense. No one apparently knows how many of the 400 million privately held guns are in the hands of criminals, but there can be little doubt that many muggers and rapists are armed and are undeterred by the Sullivan Law. Each year, the New York City Police Department (NYPD) confiscates thousands of guns, and it is fair to assume that the number of guns seized is a fraction of the total number held unlawfully. The police cannot disarm every person who acquires a gun for use in criminal activity; nor can they provide bodyguard protection for the State’s nearly 20 million residents or the 8.8 million people who live in New York City. Some of these people live in high-crime neighborhoods. Some must traverse dark and dangerous streets in order to reach their homes after work or other evening activities. Some are members of groups whose members feel especially vulnerable. And some of these people reasonably believe that unless they can brandish or, if necessary, use a handgun in the case of attack, they may be murdered, raped, or suffer some other serious injury. Ordinary citizens frequently use firearms to protect themselves from criminal attack. According to survey data, defensive firearm use occurs up to 2.5 million times per year. I reiterate: All that we decide in this case is that the Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding people to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense and that the Sullivan Law, which makes that virtually impossible for most New Yorkers, is unconstitutional.

Reactions

Because the left doesn't know when to shut up, or read, or understand what civics is. They tantrummed with many bad examples. Like:

• Keith Olberman today: we should just ignore the Supreme Court Laws.... Yeah, that's not an option you idiot.

• Joe Biden (the Fake President of the United States) got up there and said, "This ruling contradicts both common sense and the Constitution, and should deeply trouble us all." No, it doesn't. And since when do Presidents try to override the Supreme Court? That's a treasonous and impeachable derreliction of duty, far worse than J6 or anything Trump did.

• The Biden DOJ (Merick Garland) issued a press release saying they don't agree with the Supreme Court, and will just enforce the federal and state laws that they like. What kind of banana republic do they think we're running? That's treason/insurrection right there. Your duty is to "uphold the Constitution" as interpreted by the Supreme Court, not as what some leftist imagines it is.

“We respectfully disagree with the Court’s conclusion that the Second Amendment forbids New York’s reasonable requirement that individuals seeking to carry a concealed handgun must show that they need to do so for self-defense. The Department of Justice remains committed to saving innocent lives by enforcing and defending federal firearms laws, partnering with state, local, and tribal authorities, and using all legally available tools to tackle the epidemic of gun violence plaguing our communities.” ~ DOJ (a) NY didn't have reasonable requirements, they weren't issuing any CCW's unless you were politically connected. (b) The DOJ doesn't get to ignore the Supreme Court. Pretending it does sets up more of a constitutional crisis than anything Trump did. We need hearings on the DOJ, and impeachment + criminal punishments for anyone that supported this statement. (c) "The Department of Justice remains committed to saving innocent lives" - we have zero evidence that restricting gun rights helps more than hurts, and tons of evidence to the contrary... but none of that matters WRT to the Constitution -- the federal law above all the others, morons (d) "defending federal firearms laws, partnering with state, local, and tribal authorities" -- they don't get to ignore the Constitution. Legal Supremacy morons.... I can't believe the head of the DOJ was once on track to be a supreme court justice. We dodged a bullet. Fire Merick Garland. He should never be allowed to hold a federal office again for calling for a coup. (Which this functionally does). He's violating his oath of office, to defend the constitution by releasing this.

• Anti-American/anti-Civil Rights law firm, fired the two partners that won the case. They just started their own firm, rather than abandon clients they already committed to.

---

🔗 More

Supreme Court The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is a great institution that Democrats have tried to destroy.

Gun Laws The basics about Guns Laws; minimum requirements for having an informed opinion on gun control.

🗒️ Notes

• Full name: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Kevin P. Bruen, in His Official Capacity as Superintendent of New York State Police, et al.
• Priorly this case was referred to as v. Keith M. Corlett, but the Superintendent changed during the process.

🔗 Links

• [SCOTUS Opinion]
• [SCOTUS Docket]

---

• https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-strikes-down-new-york-law-on-concealed-weapons-11655995248
• https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-restrictive-new-york-gun-licensing-law/
• https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/victoria-taft/2022/06/23/the-key-ways-justice-thomas-vanquished-gun-grabbers-in-his-bruen-decision-n1607542
• https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2022/06/23/alito-takes-a-blow-torch-to-liberal-justices-opinion-on-latest-gun-case-n2609218

Tags: SCOTUS  Gun Laws