NYSRPA v Bruen decision

Now, that I've had some time to read and digest this decision, I'm prepared to present my analysis.

    I am not an attorney and, therefore, what I’m saying should not be construed as legal advise or anything other than my personal opinion, about my interpretation of what I believe to be the plain and clear language of the Bruen decision.
    Those of us, myself included, who believed that the ramifications of this decision were going to be huge were WRONG. Hear me out.
    Much of this decision is based on the language of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, as well as the entirety of the 2nd Amendment. For those, for whom the text of that section of the 14th Amendment does not come to immediate mind (myself included), it reads as follows:
“Section 1
    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
    I’ve highlighted the two portions of that Section of the 14th Amendment which I believe to be the crux of much of the Bruen decision.
    The fact that the decision was based on a combination of interpretations of the 2nd and 14th Amendments takes the ramifications thereof completely out of the realm of huge, then places it, squarely, in the footprint of MONUMENTAL.
    Here’s how I see what this SCOTUS decision has done:
    1) all “red flag” laws are VOID,
    2) O’Brien v Keegan, 87 N. Y. 2d 436, 438–439, 663 N.E. 2d 316, 316–317 (1996) (the NY decision which granted licensing authorities as much issuing discretion as they felt appropriate) is now VOID,
    3) the concepts of “proper cause,” “special circumstances,” “special need,” “extraordinary need” or any similar euphemisms, used by licensing agents, are VOID and, therefore, any “administrative restrictions,” which were only made valid, by the Keegan decision, are, now, also, invalid and VOID,
    4) this decision does not apply just to NYC or NYS but to every square inch of this country; every state, territory and DC are subject to and must abide by it; it’s a country-wide decision, affecting all citizens,
    5) ALL states and other levels of government MUST recognize and honor the firearms license and/or Constitutional Carry status of any citizen of any other state or city; therefore, there can no longer be a separate requirement, within NYS, for an NYC “endorsement” to one’s license or a separate NYC license (14th A’s equal protection clause, above),
    6) the concept of “sensitive places,” where firearms will not be allowed to be carried, is going to be defined very narrowly, by SCOTUS, regardless of what any state’s, county’s or city’s ordinance may claim to be a “sensitive place,”
    7) anyone, who violates the Bruen decision, can be personally subject to the penalties of 42 US Code §1983 (violation of Constitutional rights); violations of this section of federal law are federal felonies, subjecting anyone convicted thereof to imprisonment and fines. While there is a “qualified immunity” feature, in that statute, for governmental officials, the immunity does not apply to intentional violations and any refusal, to conform to a SCOTUS decision, could only be viewed as an intentional violation of rights.

    Now, all we have to do is wait for the MD law suit (Maryland Shall Issue, Inc., et al, v. Lawrence Hogan, governor of Maryland, et al [case 1:16-cv-03311-ELH]) to be heard by SCOTUS, to clarify that no license or other form of governmental approval is needed, to exercise any Constitutionally-protected right. Add to that, the NJ-based suit of ANJRPC v. Grewal (US Court of Appeals, case #19-3142), which is challenging the Constitutionality of the concept and civilian prohibition of possession of so-called “high capacity” magazines. to be heard by SCOTUS, to clarify that no license or other form of governmental approval is needed, to exercise any Constitutionally-protected right.


Comments are closed