Gun policy analysis thread.

[dneal]

Supreme Court lrefuses to block a new Illinois law banning certain caliber weapons and higher capacity magazines that is scheduled to take effect Jan 1, 2024:

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-c...5ea8720cbb6f4d

Taking no position on the issue while the case proceeds through the lower courts.

Bruen is strict enough that any federal court applying its standards renders the SC's need to visit another case unnecessary. I can't see an upper appellate court doing anything but following the tenets laid out in the decision. The 9th circuit learned its lesson with 4 cases being remanded or vacated, and has been ruling against California restrictions.

The 2nd circuit did uphold New York's restrictions on places one can or can't carry, but overturned the rest of the State's laws. New York implemented all sorts of ridiculous things, like carry applicants having to disclose social media accounts, and making it a felony to carry in public access private property (think dept store) without the property owner's approval.

Some people can't read past the headlines, and limit their media. They then don't understand why they actually know so little, and get upset with others about their own ignorance.

It's like intentional Dunning-Kruger.

[Chuck Naill]

You've gone all in on "TRUMP WILL BE A DICTATOR!!!", but that's not surprising given your limited TDS reinforcing media and echo-chamber.

He said he'll only be one on the first day.

Thank you for revealing that you have no problem with an American president being a dictator for one day.

[dneal]

Did I say that?

I'm laughing at you morons for thinking this will be effective. This is all the same shit we heard in 2016.

How many hoaxes can your media make you fall for?

[Chuck Naill]

Did I say that?

I'm laughing at you morons for thinking this will be effective. This is all the same shit we heard in 2016.

How many hoaxes can your media make you fall for?

Well, yeah, you said, "He said he'll only be one on the first day". Okay, I am a moron because I take you seriously enough to think you mean what you post.

[dneal]

Alternate realities within your echo-chamber, invented by you.

[dneal]

Federal judge blocks California firearms carry law, calling it ‘sweeping, repugnant to the Second Amendment’

https://www.foxnews.com/us/federal-j...?intcmp=tw_fnc

[dneal]

Back on topic:

WashPost: 18- to 20-year-olds can’t be barred from buying handguns, judge rules

Most gun laws won’t stand against Thomas’ test in the Bruen decision.

9th Circuit rules in US v Duarte that non-violent felons may possess firearms.

From the summary:

Reversing the district court’s judgment, the panel vacated Steven Duarte’s conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which makes it a crime for any person to possess a firearm if he has been convicted of an offense punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.

On appeal, Duarte challenged his conviction on Second Amendment grounds, which the panel reviewed de novo rather than for plain error because Duarte had good cause for not raising the claim in the district court when United States v. Vongxay, 594 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2010), foreclosed the argument.

The panel held that under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment as applied to Duarte, a non-violent offender who has served his time in prison and reentered society; and that Vongxay, which did not apply the mode of analysis that Bruen later established and now requires courts to perform, is clearly irreconcilable with Bruen. Applying Bruen’s two-step, text-and-history framework, the panel concluded (1) Duarte’s weapon, a handgun, is an “arm” within the meaning of the Second Amendment’s text, that Duarte’s “proposed course of conduct—carrying [a] handgun[] publicly for self-defense”—falls within the Second Amendment’s plain language, and that Duarte is part of “the people” whom the Second Amendment protects because he is an American citizen; and (2) the Government failed to prove that § 922(g)(1)’s categorical prohibition, as applied to Duarte, “is part of the historic tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the” Second Amendment right.

The opinion is a good read, particularly regarding the history of the 2A.

LINK to the .pdf decision

[Chuck Naill]

I routinely carry a BB gun.

[dneal]

I routinely carry a BB gun.

Thank Scalia and his Heller opinion. Hoo hoo, ha ha...

[Chuck Naill]

I am not an off duty police officer.

[kazoolaw]

I am not an off duty police officer.

Everyone can be thankful for that.

[Chuck Naill]

I can pretend!

[724Seney]

I can pretend!

Candy / Chuck-

Now there's something we can all agree upon.

[Chuck Naill]

Just get back in town, dneal/Seny?

[dneal]

Back on topic...

U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that New York officials violated the First Amendment by coercing insurance and banking companies to no longer do business with the National Rifle Association as punishment for the group’s gun views.

Damn those Trump-appointed Justices, right? This decision must be 6-3, or maybe 5-4, right?

Nope. 9-0, with Sotomayor writing the opinion.

LINK to SCOTUS .pdf

[kazoolaw]

Not exactly.
The US District Court (the trial court) denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision, which resulted in the dismissal of the suit.
The USSC vacated the appeals court decision, and sent the case back to the District Court to proceed.
Justice Sotomayor wrote "...the First Amendment prohibits government officials from wielding their power to selectively punish or suppress speech, directly or (as alleged here) through private intermediaries."

[dneal]

I'm sure there's some procedural technicality you're referring to, but:

- There was a ruling to vacate the dismissal
- Justice Sotomayor wrote what she wrote

Held:

The NRA plausibly alleged that respondent violated the First Amendment by coercing regulated entities to terminate their business relationships with the NRA in order to punish or suppress gun-promotion advocacy.

The Second Circuit concluded that Vullo’s alleged communications were “examples of permissible government speech” and “legitimate enforcement action.” The Second Circuit could only reach this conclusion, however, by taking the complaint’s allegations in isolation and failing to draw reasonable inferences in the NRA’s favor.

Vullo’s arguments to the contrary lack merit. The conceded illegality of the NRA-endorsed insurance programs does not insulate Vullo from First Amendment scrutiny under Bantam Books. Nor does her argument that her actions targeted “nonexpressive” business relationships change the fact that the NRA alleges her actions were aimed at punishing or suppressing speech. Finally, Vullo claims that the NRA’s position, if accepted, would stifle government speech and hamper legitimate enforcement efforts, but the Court’s conclusion simply reaffirms the general principle that where, as here, the complaint plausibly alleges coercive threats aimed at punishing or suppressing disfavored speech, the plaintiff states a First Amendment claim.

The NRA’s allegations, if true, highlight the constitutional concerns with the kind of strategy that Vullo purportedly adopted. Although the NRA was not the directly regulated party here, Vullo allegedly used the power of her office to target gun promotion by going after the NRA’s business partners. Nothing in this case immunizes the NRA from regulation nor prevents government officials from condemning disfavored views. The takeaway is that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from wielding their power selectively to punish or suppress speech, directly or (as alleged here) through private intermediaries.

I think we can all "read between the lines", to include the 2nd Circuit. Regardless, I'll defer to your objection, but I still think:

- The characterization/interpretation was fun, given others' penchant for similar posts (not to mention never reading decisions).
- "BOOM!" seemed a little too obvious.

[kazoolaw]

It’s saying you’re not disqualified, so now let the actual game begin.
Trump was allowed on the ballot, but not declared the winner.
Both initial wins are important but don’t decide the larger issue.
Where does the Second Circuit Court of Appeals sit? “New York City” you say? What could go wrong?
(and yes,There’s enough ignorance/confusion/misrepresentation from some posters already)

[dneal]

Fair point on the particular circuit court, but would they really just ignore a unanimous opinion that, to me, seems pretty explicit?

[kazoolaw]

The USSC ruled what the government cannot do in violation of the 1st Amendment.
Now the NRA has to prove its allegations. At the district court trial level. And trials are funny things.