SCOTUS 2A Victory: NYSRA v Bruen

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • DoubleDuty

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Feb 9, 2019
    2,584
    96
    DFW
    Certainly the states should be able to make it's own laws, as long as it follows the Constitution. Shall not be infringed applies to the states also.
    Yep, no state should be allowed to violate our Constitutional Rights they apply to all 50 States. The State Governments don't like guns, tough we have them to protect us from them.
     

    Sasquatch

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Apr 20, 2020
    4,216
    96
    Magnolia
    Can you breakdown for me how the Bruen decision impacts capacity restrictions?

    Directly, it does not. What it does do though - is cause the circuits to re-examine cases - like the ongoing case challenging California's magazine capacity restrictions. The SCOTUS just sent that case back to the 9th Circus to evaluate the law under the directions in the Bruen decision - that being that courts MUST use Text, History, and Tradition when determining the constitutionality of a law, not just the moderate scrutiny they got away with before. Text says "Shall not be infringed" at the end of the 2A - hopefully that carries weight when the circuits have to re-examine cases, and when old cases get relitigated under the new decision.
     

    etmo

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 25, 2020
    982
    76
    Cedar Creek, Tx
    Can you breakdown for me how the Bruen decision impacts capacity restrictions?


    Only SCOTUS can finally answer this question, but I'll lay out the parts as best I can.

    Sasquatch is right, we now have a new Sheriff in town (Bruen), and Bruen says if you are doing stuff covered by the "plain text" of the 2A, then the only test a court can apply to determine if a law is constitutional is to look to the tradition and history of gun laws around the time the 2A was written.

    The "plain text" of the 2A is about keeping and bearing. So if the law we're challenging deals with keeping and/or bearing, then the only test is the Bruen test. This is important, because SCOTUS would surely agree that not every gun law directly deals with keeping or bearing. This will be the first battleground -- to get SCOTUS to agree that law X is about keeping or bearing in some way.

    The Bruen test is a history/tradition test and it goes like this: If, back in 1793 (or some time reasonably close to the Founding), a number of states (not just one tiny town, it had to be kinda commonplace, we don't know exactly, but let's say at least half the states) had laws like yours, then your law is GTG.

    As an example which goes the other way:

    If fewer than half the states had laws like the one being challenged, or, for example, no states and only the Louisiana Territory had similar laws, well, your law is unconstitutional. The Louisiana Territory wasn't even a state, so its laws weren't subject to the same judicial scrutiny as the laws of a state, and the Louisiana Territory had a French tradition, so not similar to the British tradition from which American traditions descend.

    So those are the dance steps as I understand them. Take your law (in this case, mag capacity), and see if it deals with then keeping or bearing of arms. If so, history/tradition. If not, then the "old way" of tiered scrutiny (which is a whole other big explanation like this one).

    Our side will argue that firearms without ammo are useless, so mag capacity laws deal with keeping / bearing. There is no point to keeping or bearing an empty firearm. If you let a state limit mag capacity, then what's to stop a state from saying zero rounds is the limit? Since an empty firearm is not useful as a firearm, mag capacity does impact keeping/bearing, and there were no mag capacity laws back at the time of the Founding, so the law is clearly unconstitutional.

    Our side will also argue that even under the old tiered scrutiny system, mag capacity laws don't pass intermediate scrutiny, because such a law is not closely related to the government's interest in public safety -- there is no science which supports a conclusion that 10 round mags improve public safety. 10 round mags don't stop killings. Look at the Virginia Tech shooter. We will also argue that handicapped people and the elderly have difficulty reloading, so limited capacity magazines threaten their lives.

    Their side will say mag capacity laws have nothing to do with keeping or bearing, you can keep a gun or carry a gun, just make sure it has whatever little magazine we say is OK. And the 9th already said such a law meets intermediate scrutiny, so they will claim victory.

    Hopefully between Sasquatch's answer and mine, you can get a sense of how this might go, but if you have any more questions, fire away.
     
    Last edited:

    TheDan

    deplorable malconent scofflaw
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Nov 11, 2008
    23,136
    96
    Austin - Rockdale
    Only SCOTUS can finally answer this question, but I'll lay out the parts as best I can.

    Sasquatch is right, we now have a new Sheriff in town (Bruen), and Bruen says if you are doing stuff covered by the "plain text" of the 2A, then the only test a court can apply to determine if a law is constitutional is to look to the tradition and history of gun laws around the time the 2A was written.

    The "plain text" of the 2A is about keeping and bearing. So if the law we're challenging deals with keeping and/or bearing, then the only test is the Bruen test. This is important, because SCOTUS would surely agree that not every gun law directly deals with keeping or bearing. This will be the first battleground -- to get SCOTUS to agree that law X is about keeping or bearing in some way.

    The Bruen test is a history/tradition test and it goes like this: If, back in 1793 (or some time reasonably close to the Founding), a number of states (not just one tiny town, it had to be kinda commonplace, we don't know exactly, but let's say at least a few states) had laws like yours, then your law is GTG.

    As an example which goes the other way:

    If no states had laws like the one being challenged, and only the Louisiana Territory had similar laws, well, your law is unconstitutional. The Louisiana Territory wasn't even a state, so its laws weren't subject to the same judicial scrutiny as the laws of a state, and the Louisiana Territory had a French tradition, so not similar to the British tradition from which American traditions descend.

    So those are the dance steps as I understand them. Take your law (in this case, mag capacity), and see if it deals with then keeping or bearing of arms. If so, history/tradition. If not, then the "old way" of tiered scrutiny (which is a whole other big explanation like this one).

    Our side will argue that firearms without ammo are useless, so mag capacity laws deal with keeping / bearing. There is no point to keeping or bearing an empty firearm. If you let a state limit mag capacity, then what's to stop a state from saying zero rounds is the limit? Since an empty firearm is not useful as a firearm, mag capacity does impact keeping/bearing, and there were no mag capacity laws back at the time of the Founding, so the law is clearly unconstitutional.

    Our side will also argue that even under the old tiered scrutiny system, mag capacity laws don't pass intermediate scrutiny, because such a law is not closely related to the government's interest in public safety -- there is no science which supports a conclusion that 10 round mags improve public safety. 10 round mags don't stop killings. Look at the Virginia Tech shooter. We will also argue that handicapped people and the elderly have difficulty reloading, so limited capacity magazines threaten their lives.

    Their side will say mag capacity laws have nothing to do with keeping or bearing, you can keep a gun or carry a gun, just make sure it has whatever little magazine we say is OK. And the 9th already said such a law meets intermediate scrutiny, so they will claim victory.

    Hopefully between Sasquatch's answer and mine, you can get a sense of how this might go, but if you have any more questions, fire away.
    Good explanation. Thanks!
     

    Otto_Mation

    Low Speed, High Drag
    TGT Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 23, 2020
    196
    46
    West TX
    California can do whatever it wants, after secession. Just so long as they make sure to take Pelosi, Feinstein and Waters with it.
    Here is Archie Bunkers take on California. I think of it every time the craziness of California comes up. He is worried that God is waiting on the Meathead and Gloria to arrive before he kicks off the the big event.

    Archie Bunker's take on California
     
    Last edited:
    Top Bottom