Massachusetts Cop Forum banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Here comes the Wee-Woo man
Joined
·
85 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
In a major foray into gun rights, the Supreme Court on Monday agreed to take up a lower court ruling that upheld New York's restrictive gun-permit law.
At issue in the case, NY State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. Corlett, is how much the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to carry concealed weapons outside their home for self-defense. The case will likely be argued in the fall.
The court's decision follows mass shootings in recent weeks in Indiana, Georgia, Colorado and California, and a surge in firearms sales, particularly to first-time gun buyers.
While most states permit gun owners to carry their firearms when they go out, New York and seven other states — California, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island — have some restrictions.
In 2008 and 2010, the high court overturned handgun bans in Washington, D.C., and Chicago, respectively, in a pair of landmark cases that redefined gun rights in the United States.
In those cases, a sharply divided court ruled that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is an individual right, not one associated with the militia, as the court had previously implied. Those decisions marked a huge victory for the National Rifle Association and other gun rights organizations.
However, in the past decade, the court has largely avoided gun rights cases. The latest case out of New York state would be the first major firearms ruling since Justice Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation last year, solidifying a 6-3 conservative majority.
In April 2020, the court sent a challenge to a New York City ban on carrying handguns outside the home back to the lower court without ruling, concluding the case was moot because the city had already changed the law.
But in a concurring opinion at that time, Justice Brett Kavanaugh recommended that the justices take up another Second Amendment case soon, suggesting the lower courts might not be properly applying the Supreme Court's earlier gun rights rulings.
 

·
Here comes the Wee-Woo man
Joined
·
85 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
My question is what is the potential effect on Mass gun laws?
 

·
Retired Fed, Active Special
Joined
·
8,679 Posts
My question is what is the potential effect on Mass gun laws?
1. Too early to even tell.
2. Most States and Cities are choosing to ignore Heller and McDonald SCOTUS decisions anyway.
D.C. immediately came out with convoluted and difficult requirements to be able to carry, and it looks like Chicago just plain said "Phutt" to SCOTUS.
3. If you don't have your dream gun in your safe already, it's too late.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CCCSD

·
Here comes the Wee-Woo man
Joined
·
85 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
1. Too early to even tell.
2. Most States and Cities are choosing to ignore Heller and McDonald SCOTUS decisions anyway.
D.C. immediately came out with convoluted and difficult requirements to be able to carry, and it looks like Chicago just plain said "Phutt" to SCOTUS.
3. If you don't have your dream gun in your safe already, it's too late.
well maybe for you mass residents.... :ROFLMAO:
 

·
Retired Fed, Active Special
Joined
·
8,679 Posts
well maybe for you mass residents.... :ROFLMAO:
I got news for you White Pine Man, you and the Live free or die folks aren't far behind us massholes if you don't start fighting now.......
 
  • Like
Reactions: RodneyFarva

·
Here comes the Wee-Woo man
Joined
·
85 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
I got news for you White Pine Man, you and the Live free or die folks aren't far behind us massholes if you don't start fighting now.......
I'd say we've done a pretty good job at preserving our 2nd amendment. Good reference to the state tree!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
275 Posts
1. Too early to even tell.
2. Most States and Cities are choosing to ignore Heller and McDonald SCOTUS decisions anyway.
D.C. immediately came out with convoluted and difficult requirements to be able to carry, and it looks like Chicago just plain said "Phutt" to SCOTUS.
3. If you don't have your dream gun in your safe already, it's too late.
The NYPD also decided to ignore the LEOSA until some out-of-state cops got arrested for carrying in NYC, and they got their asses sued off.
 

·
Here comes the Wee-Woo man
Joined
·
85 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
The NYPD also decided to ignore the LEOSA until some out-of-state cops got arrested for carrying in NYC, and they got their asses sued off.
Honestly I find that totally ridiculous. How the hell can the state just ignore court rulings without any repercussions? Although, with the 2a being the issue that it is, I could see a lot of people in those states taking it to court to get it changed.
 

·
Back Out in the Sticks
Joined
·
312 Posts
1. Too early to even tell.
2. Most States and Cities are choosing to ignore Heller and McDonald SCOTUS decisions anyway.
D.C. immediately came out with convoluted and difficult requirements to be able to carry, and it looks like Chicago just plain said "Phutt" to SCOTUS.
3. If you don't have your dream gun in your safe already, it's too late.
The Heller and McDonald cases unfortunately were extremely narrow: The ruling answered only 2, very simple questions:
1) Does the 2nd Amendment recognize the right for individuals to own firearms, or does it only allow for states to have militias directly under their control rather than federal control? Obviously, it was the former.
2) If individuals ARE guaranteed the right to own firearms, what firearms are specifically protected? The answer was "those in common use", which in both cases, specifically meant handguns.

Unfortunately, because the reading was so narrow, it left a lot of questions unanswered: Does the right to bear arms extend outside one's house? If so, where can that right be restricted, and what stipulations can the government put on the aquisition of carry permits? Does the right to carry a weapon extend automatically across state lines? Or does it only apply to state residents? What weapons are considered to be "in common use" and therefore protected, and which are considered "dangerous and unusual" and subject to regulation?

As far as I know, this case goes beyond guns though. It's a question of whether or not people have the right to use any force whatsoever to defend themselves outside of their home. That is, if you're on the street and somebody tries to rob you, can you fight back, or are you obligated to either run or comply?

Honestly I find that totally ridiculous. How the hell can the state just ignore court rulings without any repercussions? Although, with the 2a being the issue that it is, I could see a lot of people in those states taking it to court to get it changed.
I'd guess that even if blue state governors said that they were just going to ignore the ruling, it's going to be hard to find cops who would be willing to openly and deliberately follow an illegal order and do their bidding...especially in this day and age.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
275 Posts
Honestly I find that totally ridiculous. How the hell can the state just ignore court rulings without any repercussions? Although, with the 2a being the issue that it is, I could see a lot of people in those states taking it to court to get it changed.
They were ignoring Federal law, specifically 18 USC 926B. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution specifies that Federal law trumps state law, it’s so simple that a child could understand it, yet many PD’s (including NYPD) didn’t get the message.

They paid hefty civil judgments because of it.
 

·
Retired Fed, Active Special
Joined
·
8,679 Posts
They were ignoring Federal law, specifically 18 USC 926B. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution specifies that Federal law trumps state law, it’s so simple that a child could understand it, yet many PD’s (including NYPD) didn’t get the message.

They paid hefty civil judgments because of it.
So far EVERY jurisdiction in the U.S. has lost EVERY case in which they were sued for violating 18 USC 926B to include the Pennsylvania (cough, cough) Constable, the reserve and not-on-duty, enlisted Coast Guard "boarding officer" and some corrections officers. There may be one somewhere, but I've been following close.....................
 
  • Like
Reactions: Roy Fehler

·
Registered
Joined
·
650 Posts
And remember, if you read the Keller ruling by Scalia, it shit cans the militia argument. 2a is simple and two parts: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And the militia part is simply a nod to keeping an armed populace to keep a tyrannical government in check. Militias of the day were neighbors with guns to fight off bandits, Indians and tyrannical standing armies - which were expensive and therefore much smaller than a standing army of today.
 

·
Retired Fed, Active Special
Joined
·
8,679 Posts
And remember, if you read the Heller ruling by Scalia, it shit cans the militia argument. 2a is simple and two parts: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And the militia part is simply a nod to keeping an armed populace to keep a tyrannical government in check. Militias of the day were neighbors with guns to fight off bandits, Indians and tyrannical standing armies - which were expensive and therefore much smaller than a standing army of today.
Absolutely 100%
 
  • Like
Reactions: TacEntry
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top