SCOTUS Concealed Carry Case - NYSRPA v. Bruen — Decision before July 1st!!!

[MajorCaliber]

Originally Posted by librarian72

How could you forget (toxic) masculinity being a mental health problem?!??! It's even listed.... You made it in 1.

Yes, that also fits in the chain reasoning as well as being lighter than a duck.

[Foothills]

Originally Posted by stoogescv

I think an Equal Protection challenge would have to identify a disadvantaged class of people. For example, if NY was granting permits to white applicants but not black applicants. I don't think there's anything in the record that would provide a basis for that (or other protected class such as sex or religion), so I don't think there is any way for the court to grant relief to the plaintiffs on the basis of Equal Protection. I would not be surprised if some of the opinions include something in their discussion of the history of gun control referencing the fact that many gun control restrictions were aimed at keeping the newly freed slaves from being armed, but that would not amount to an Equal Protection challenge to this current NY statute.

Organizations representing all those groups filed amicus briefs asserting that NY’s law as implemented deliberately discriminated against their demographic group in favor of wealthy, politically-connected elites. There are many landmark cases where SCOTUS cites an amicus brief in their opinion. This is true even if the parties to the case didn’t address that issue specifically.

They wouldn’t allow amicus briefs if they were limiting their analysis to arguments briefed by the parties. That is relevant at the District court level. Many landmark rulings deviate significantly from what was discussed in the initial trial.

Look at NAACP vs. Claiborne Hardware. The NAACP kept losing until the end of the appeals process. The Constitutional and Common Law issues changed quite a bit as it moved up the various court levels. The hardware store initially won its tort claim in state court.

[spike90049]

Originally Posted by wireless

It could affect cases that are being held, but I don't think it'll change this opinion much or at all.

Agreed. They aren't going to emotionally respond by changing legal opinions.

We already know where the leftist zealot judges will rule so those sure aren't changing.

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by Foothills

Organizations representing all those groups filed amicus briefs asserting that NY’s law as implemented deliberately discriminated against their demographic group in favor of wealthy, politically-connected elites. There are many landmark cases where SCOTUS cites an amicus brief in their opinion. This is true even if the parties to the case didn’t address that issue specifically.

They wouldn’t allow amicus briefs if they were limiting their analysis to arguments briefed by the parties. That is relevant at the District court level. Many landmark rulings deviate significantly from what was discussed in the initial trial.

Look at NAACP vs. Claiborne Hardware. The NAACP kept losing until the end of the appeals process. The Constitutional and Common Law issues changed quite a bit as it moved up the various court levels. The hardware store initially won its tort claim in state court.

The law changing is one thing, but an equal protection claim must rely on evidence in the record. That claim not having been asserted, there s no evidence to support it now.