- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
NYSRPA v. Bruen and the dismantling of 2A "two-step" framework.
Posted on 6/23/22 at 8:49 pm
Posted on 6/23/22 at 8:49 pm
I think the main thing that has surprised even the most optimistic of 2A supporters in this decision, was just how far Justice Thomas went in his opinion. "May issue" aside (there will be plenty of road blocks to permissive concealed carry in the few states that had this permitting scheme, there's going to be years of fighting left to do) the biggest and most important take away is the removal of the "two-step" framework and intermediate scrutiny so many lower courts have used to uphold various challenges to laws that restricts 2A rights. One of the most recent and potentially easiest to have reversed is the 9th Circuits en banc review of Duncan v. Bonta that challenged California's high-capacity magazine ban. D v. B was originally ruled unconstitutional by a 3-member panel before it was appealed to the full court. To quote the relevant part of the 9th Circuit opinion, emphasis mine:
There are over a dozen cases that will be refiled in the coming years and I can't wait for the tears of gun-control advocates to flow...
quote:
The court applied a two-step framework to review the Second Amendment challenge, asking first whether the challenged law affects conduct protected by the Second Amendment, and if so, what level of scrutiny to apply. The court noted that ten sister circuits have adopted a substantially similar two-step test. The court assumed, without deciding, that California’s law implicates the Second Amendment, and joining its sister circuits that have unanimously applied intermediate scrutiny to other laws banning or restricting large-capacity magazines, determined that intermediate scrutiny applied because the ban imposed only a minimal burden on the core Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
There are over a dozen cases that will be refiled in the coming years and I can't wait for the tears of gun-control advocates to flow...
4
Posted on 6/23/22 at 9:16 pm to Clames
CNN had a conniption fit over the case. What they focused on was the fact that intermediate scrutiny got tossed.
CNN nervous one new ruling
Looks like Thomas did us a real solid.
CNN nervous one new ruling
quote:
Up for grabs is not just public carry laws like the New York regime before the court. Virtually any other type of gun regulation, including age-based regulations, restrictions on certain types of firearms and limits on high-capacity magazines, will now be viewed by courts in a harsher light.
Looks like Thomas did us a real solid.
This post was edited on 6/23/22 at 9:17 pm
Posted on 6/23/22 at 9:18 pm to Kino74
100% this should be the main takeaway from the case.
Posted on 6/23/22 at 9:23 pm to Kino74
And which probably strangles some of the current “gun bill” in the crib.
Posted on 6/23/22 at 10:02 pm to Clames
I was hoping for Strict Scrutiny outright.
This blows strict scrutiny out of the water. How about zero scrutiny.
They would have to find historic examples of similar limitations IF it is a second amendment outlier.
The burden is on the government and boy what a burden.
This blows strict scrutiny out of the water. How about zero scrutiny.
They would have to find historic examples of similar limitations IF it is a second amendment outlier.
The burden is on the government and boy what a burden.
Posted on 6/23/22 at 10:08 pm to Kino74
I’d say he did us more then a solid. Almost seems like a man that Biden pissed off somehow?
Posted on 6/23/22 at 10:10 pm to teke184
quote:
And which probably strangles some of the current “gun bill” in the crib.
This is what I was getting at earlier. In the opinion Thomas stated that ordinary law abiding citizens had the right to bear arms and that NY was denying that right to individuals by leaving it in the hands of licensing officials to arbitrarily decide who was able to exercise their constitutionally protected right. NY went a step further requiring individuals to show a need for the firearm as well.. what he is saying in the opinion is going to have massive ramifications across the board in regards to owning a firearm. Red flag laws for example can’t coexist with this opinion because the states can’t arbitrarily use a medical professional’s opinion as a pretext to confiscate the firearms of someone who has broken no laws.
Posted on 6/23/22 at 10:14 pm to Clames
I will be reading this tomorrow.
Posted on 6/23/22 at 10:18 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
quote:
This is what I was getting at earlier. In the opinion Thomas stated that ordinary law abiding citizens had the right to bear arms and that NY was denying that right to individuals by leaving it in the hands of licensing officials to arbitrarily decide who was able to exercise their constitutionally protected right. NY went a step further requiring individuals to show a need for the firearm as well.. what he is saying in the opinion is going to have massive ramifications across the board in regards to owning a firearm. Red flag laws for example can’t coexist with this opinion because the states can’t arbitrarily use a medical professional’s opinion as a pretext to confiscate the firearms of someone who has broken no laws.
Which is why I believe the democrats are so pissed. They know this opinion nullifies their red flag laws in this gun control law that just passed in the senate. It's just a matter of the issue coming to the SCOTUS. And, I think the SCOTUS will be making a decision on this soon.
This post was edited on 6/23/22 at 10:23 pm
Posted on 6/23/22 at 10:21 pm to Clames
quote:
The court applied a two-step framework to review the Second Amendment challenge, asking first whether the challenged law affects conduct protected by the Second Amendment, and if so, what level of scrutiny to apply. The court noted that ten sister circuits have adopted a substantially similar two-step test. The court assumed, without deciding, that California’s law implicates the Second Amendment, and joining its sister circuits that have unanimously applied intermediate scrutiny to other laws banning or restricting large-capacity magazines, determined that intermediate scrutiny applied because the ban imposed only a minimal burden on the core Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
Just the language used in this infuriates me. How do you possibly get to the second step here when your mandate must be “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?” How is in not immediately seen as judicial activism and tyranny for them to say “yeah, it’s an infringement, but how much of an infringement?”
If I’m understanding the quoted statement, to me the judges should be censured or impeached for violating their oath of office.
Posted on 6/23/22 at 10:34 pm to troyt37
quote:
If I’m understanding the quoted statement, to me the judges should be censured or impeached for violating their oath of office.
like 10/14 circuits utilized the two step procedure after Heller/McDonald.
That's what the circuit courts do, look for a way to circumvent the supreme court opinions
or at least take them to the outer limits when ambiguity exists This post was edited on 6/23/22 at 10:35 pm
Posted on 6/23/22 at 11:41 pm to MrXYZ
quote:Just a little bit
Almost seems like a man that Biden pissed off somehow?
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News