Doesn't matter. The Supreme Court has made it quite clear that while they will make theoretical rulings for gun rights, if that ruling threatens to have any practical effect they'll look the other way. Which is why I can't buy a gun in New Jersey and the only effect of Bruen has been to make more of New York a "gun-free zone".
The NY case is already working through the courts. Some Colorado "assault weapons" bans have already been thrown out due to Bruen, and the CA mag ban is back at Judge Benitez who zapped it the first time.
These things take time, and we're not going to win them all. I hear these cases did not specifically address the history, text, tradition argument in Bruen, and that there's another case out there that does. So let's see how that one resolves before we become doom and gloom.
The NY case is already working through the courts.
Ah, yes, so 10 years from now perhaps the Supreme Court will decide again that NY has done wrong. And NY will go and do it again. Unless by then the Supreme Court has turned left, in which case they'll rule against gun rights and THAT ruling will have effect nationally.
Some Colorado "assault weapons" bans have already been thrown out due to Bruen
No final rulings, only a TRO. If Colorado doesn't win the District or Circuit level, they'll just pass a new law with the same effect but a Bruen-friendly justification and start all over.
When I can buy a gun in New Jersey, load it, strap it onto my hip and go to my office in New York City without violating any laws, THEN I'll believe gun rights decisions make a difference. Right now I can do none of that without committing a bunch of felonies. In fact, merely possessing certain weapons or magazines with more than 10 round capacity is a felony, a law the appeals courts endorsed before Bruen. They've been remanded but there's certainly no guarantee the appeals court won't find those laws are historically justified -- that's a loophole which can contain anything, with a friendly court.
Doesn't matter. The Supreme Court has made it quite clear that while they will make theoretical rulings for gun rights, if that ruling threatens to have any practical effect they'll look the other way. Which is why I can't buy a gun in New Jersey and the only effect of Bruen has been to make more of New York a "gun-free zone".
The NY case is already working through the courts. Some Colorado "assault weapons" bans have already been thrown out due to Bruen, and the CA mag ban is back at Judge Benitez who zapped it the first time.
These things take time, and we're not going to win them all. I hear these cases did not specifically address the history, text, tradition argument in Bruen, and that there's another case out there that does. So let's see how that one resolves before we become doom and gloom.
Ah, yes, so 10 years from now perhaps the Supreme Court will decide again that NY has done wrong. And NY will go and do it again. Unless by then the Supreme Court has turned left, in which case they'll rule against gun rights and THAT ruling will have effect nationally.
No final rulings, only a TRO. If Colorado doesn't win the District or Circuit level, they'll just pass a new law with the same effect but a Bruen-friendly justification and start all over.
When I can buy a gun in New Jersey, load it, strap it onto my hip and go to my office in New York City without violating any laws, THEN I'll believe gun rights decisions make a difference. Right now I can do none of that without committing a bunch of felonies. In fact, merely possessing certain weapons or magazines with more than 10 round capacity is a felony, a law the appeals courts endorsed before Bruen. They've been remanded but there's certainly no guarantee the appeals court won't find those laws are historically justified -- that's a loophole which can contain anything, with a friendly court.