For STATE gun laws in the pending NYS case, what will this do to the following 1) CALIFORNIA bans on normal capacity magazines 2) CT bans on normal capacity magazines 3) "Assault weapon bans" 4) FOID cards (Illinois) 5) Californian bans on on -line ammo sales I submit none of those laws can survive a strict scrutiny review
Could you please expand your OP, if you are open to the participation, in your thread, of members who are not so acutely atuned to any legal ruling, potentially affecting gun owners, that they presently know anything about the SCOTUS case, to which you refer?
None of them can be demonstrated both necessary and effective, so... Especially the FOID and any other ownership permit process - The NICS is the least restrictive means, thus making the FOID an unnecessary restriction.
The pending case concerning NY may result in the USSC imposing "strict scrutiny" review of any state interference with the second amendment. This already exists for some of the other bill of rights amendments that have been incorporated through the 14th amendment
I don't have a frame of reference from your OP. I am a former cop in IL. I have a FOID card. I also don't align with the idea there is a "cut and dry" solution. The reality is criminals either (1) don't care about the law, or (2) are able to circumvent the law.
Thanks for trying, but I still know zilch about the specific SCOTUS case, involving NY State, which is at the center of your thread. Understanding/explaining that, would seem to me, a requisite starting point.
Essentially what the OP is talking about and failing to explain is how courts Shape law through rulings. Strict Scrutiny Interprets law in the narrowest context possible and traditionally uses on text and tradition to form its opinions. Intermediate scrutiny, which is what a lot of judges are using to bend rulings on second amendment issues, takes a broader approach and views the lens on how it impacts society and not just text and tradition. As you can guess Strict Scrutiny judges tend to be more conservative in nature, Intermediate scrutiny judges tend to mean more liberal. However their are many who laywers and judges that take one or the other approach and lean differently politically. Typically older lawyers and judges also will be more text and tradition orientated and newer lawyers and judges the other way as well. As to the OPs point. States are expanding gun control by using Intermediate scrutiny in court to basically say "Guns are a threat to society, therefore strict scrutiny approach does not properly consider the impact on society, therefore Intermediate Scrutiny should apply." The problem they are running into is in Heller and Macdonald that the courts ruled that Strict Scrutiny should apply to gun ownership. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_scrutiny https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/intermediate_scrutiny
I think that SCOTUS is going to outright reject applying tiers of scrutiny for the RKBA; it just leaves too much wiggle-room for anti-2ndA judges to craft rulings that avoid enforcing the 2ndA. The NYSRPA oral arguments and moves made by the federal appeals courts since then, tells me the Court is going to just demand the lower court abandon their "two-tier inquiry" for contested gun laws. After Heller, the Circuit courts developed a self-created, SCOTUS ignoring two-step test . . . Under this process, those lower federal courts first decide if the challenged law burdens / implicates conduct protected by the Second Amendment. If they conclude the law does infringe on the RKBA, they proceed to the second step, deciding how severe the infringement is and whether that infringement it is really worth worrying about. No surprise, that question is always answered the same; NO PROBLEM! and the court declares the gun control law is absolutely needed for public safety. They then proceed to invent creative ways to explain why the violation of the right must be allowed and they never fail saying the RKBA just doesn't matter! Back to oral argument (on Nov. 3, 2021) . . . Both lawyers defending the NY law were queried by the Justices about the legal process used by the lower federal courts to decide the constitutionality of challenged gun control laws (including NYSRPA). Understandably, the two lawyers could not defend the "two-step inquiry" and in fact, the Principal Deputy Solicitor General of the USA, Brian Fletcher (representing the Biden Administration, who requested oral argument time) conceded that applying the "text [of the 2ndA], informed by history and tradition" (as articulated years ago by Thomas and explained by Kavanaugh in his dissent in Heller II) is the proper process. We see the 9th Circuit reading the tea leaves and seeing what is coming. The losing (gun rights) party in a recent large capacity magazine (LCM) case in the 9th Circuit (Duncan, decided using the "two-step" on December 22nd) made a motion immediately after the NYSRPA oral argument to the 9th, moving to stay the enforcement of the ban on possession of hi-cap mags until they can appeal to SCOTUS; it was uncontested by California and was granted. The 9th has also suspended (held in abeyance) two pending assault weapon (AW) ban cases until NYSRPA is decided and the 3rd Circuit has also held a NJ LCM ban case until after the NYSRPA decision. What we can draw from all this? Well, the lower federal courts realize the "two-step inquiry" is dead, and all the cases decided using the "two-step inquiry" are at best, infirm. It seems a forgone conclusion (by all parties), that SCOTUS will invalidate the "circuit judge two-step" and demand "text, informed by history and tradition" be the only acceptable standard to apply the 2ndA to a challenged gun control law. It is hard to comprehend this ground-shift . . . NYSRPA will result in a deluge of motions for rehearings in these Circuits, and the reversals of those decisions that sustained gun laws, see @Turtledude 's list in the OP, will follow quickly (there is no legal defense). Many, many gun laws will be invalidated in short order . . . Note, these rehearings and reversals / invalidations of these bans will not require any appeals or granting of cert and hearing by SCOTUS; it all happens in the Circuits that screwed the pooch originally -- forced to abandon the interest balancing / intermediate scrutiny two step and reconsider those laws ONLY applying the "text, informed by history and tradition" of the 2ndA, and decide those cases like they should have been done ever since Heller and McDonald, declaring those AW and LCM bans invalid / unconstitutional.
