« Counting down to NYSRPA | Main | Paul Clement wins SCOTUS case, leaves law firm »
NYSRPA decided!
6-3, Thomas the author, text history and tradition the test. Looks like I called that one on the nose!
UPDATE: the world just changed. From the majority:
"Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual's conduct falls outside the Second Amendment's "unqualified command."
Balancing tests, goodbye.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Eugene Volokh has thoughts regarding the effect of the NYSRPA opinion.
12 Comments | Leave a comment
I have seldom been so happy to be surprised.
The sound of gun grabber heads exploding could be heard all across New Mexico. Now the question remains, how long and how hard will Congress and the remaining eight states fight, ignore, and attempt to outmaneuver the decision. We've already seen 14 years of obfuscation on Heller, including the use of executive orders by our Imperial Presidency.
I tentatively agree. Very impressive majority opinion.
Need to take a close look at the Kavanaugh-Roberts concurrence, though -- think about how it might be abused.
Great news! Happy birthday Clarence Thomas!
David I have in front of me “In search of the Second Amendment “ from 2008 with an autographed amicus brief signed by you “for Jeff Reid on the day of victory for the 2nd Amendment “ Dave Hardy 6/26/08
It’s one of the items I’m most proud of. We are again , so many years later, living through history. Heller, McDonald and now this! Congratulations and thanks for your tireless efforts in support of the RTKBA
best regards,
Jeff Reid
Manchester Connecticut
A good ruling by the best Justice. What a historical moment. June 23, 2022.
A had a good feeling a few days ago, when I heard that Justice Thomas was still due his turn for writing a majority opinion!
How many questions on the 4473 will be affected by the single factor analysis? Are 1st, 4th, 6th and 14th Amendment rights limited or denied to non-US citizens, for example? Or 17 year olds? Or people who are residents of a different state? (I haven’t read the full 300+ page opinion yet, so apologies if those are addressed.)
Judge Alito's concurrence was simply outstanding, and Judge Breyer's dissent was a rambling, poorly thought out mess, tho not nearly so bad as Steven's dissent in Heller.
Hopefully, when they release orders on Monday(?) they will send all the gun cases they have been holding back down with directions to decide them according to the instruction manual provided in this case. Assault weapons, magazines, rosters, red flags without 4A/6A protections . . . all seem in trouble now.
Based on how badly they seem to want gun-control-that-leads-to-civilian-disarmament so they can implement the final solution of their 'utopia', I have a feeling that gun control laws may need to be pried from their cold, dead hands (to borrow a phrase). It ain't over by a long shot.
So: Now what? When can the citizens in the outlying states actually start protecting themselves? Because the existing laws just became unconstitutional.
It will be months or years for instate residents I suspect and years for non/residents. The only concrete change will be states can’t ask why you want the license. All the other right discouraging legal clap trap discouraging exercise of a fundamental right will still exist.
Here is the IANAL question. The court laid out why the NY licensing statute was unconstitutional but did not say what was required to remedy the violation (at least as far as I can see). Instead it vacated the lower court rulings that the statute was constitutional and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for "further proceedings consistent with this opinion".
I seem to remember that when Illinois was forced to go to Shall Issue, the Court of Appeals remanded the cases back to the District Courts but gave the state time to pass and acceptable Shall Issue statute or they would default to Constitutional Carry. I'm not clear whether the District Courts could have determined that the new statutes were also unconstitutional but I assume they could have.
Now my question is will the Court of Appeals and District Court in the Bruen case also have the power to review the BS statutes NYS has rammed through in the past couple of weeks and rule them unconstitutional, based on the findings of Bruen at SCOTUS? Will the plaintiffs have the right to challenge the new statutes at the time of District Court review instead of having to file new law suits?
You did. Based on a quick overview, this decision is decidedly robust. Removing the tiered scrutiny approach to evaluating arms regulations represents a fundamental game-changer.