Talk:New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen

Non Neutral Language

Various sections of this article seem to contain language that does not seem neutral and informative, by doing things such as mentioning irrelevant actors like a reporter for Vox, this language can come off as if Wikipedia is defending New York State and the Sullivan act or NY SAFE act and should be removed or revised as to come back to a neutral state of information a Rookie editor of This Emporium of Knowledge, SirColdcrown (talk) 14:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

It's required attribution for an opinion statement per NPOV to mention who the speaker is. --Masem (t) 14:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Masem The naming of the author of the article is not the issue. The inclusion of a notably biased source is the issue. Vox is habitually biased and therefore may not be considered as a neutral source per NPOV. 47.135.153.185 (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:RSPVOX - Has been determined to be a reliable source, one that can be very liberal, yes, but bias does not immediately rule a source unreliable. Masem (t) 14:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Mass deletion of all mention of any amicus briefs

Masem has, on 3 occasions at last count, the first a "stealth" deletion without commenting, mass-deleted all mention of amicus briefs without trying to add more brief summaries, under the clearly incorrect logic that "we can't mention any briefs without mentioning all of them." Both the Heller and McDonald articles also mention some specific briefs without mentioning all of them and they have never been deleted under the guise of "it's not NPOV unless every brief is summarized". If he really felt that way, perhaps add summaries of the other briefs rather than trying to mass delete relevant amicus curiae to the case? It's probably not his intent to be so biased here, but the reasoning to delete the entire amicus section without attempting to improve the section does not stand up. Omnibus (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

First ONUS applies, as you are trying to add info.

Second, except in a couple of cases on those pages, the briefs are sourced to the briefs themselves (primary), which is not appropriate use of court documents. Inclusion should be based on secondary coverage. That briefs are included this way on other articles doesn't make it right here

Now yes. There is a secondary source for the addition, but it is a highly tailored pov (the racial issues. Which didn't come up in the ruling). It is UNDUE. Now I haven't been able check if other briefs are documents in secondary sources yet, but again per ONUS that shound be on you to expand. --Masem (t) 17:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Now I did just find this [1] that can be used. I can't integrate it fully right now. Masem (t) 17:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I already added that to the article before you found it here. As far as the "onus being on me to add every single brief summary to the article," that's not how Wikipedia works or has ever worked. Check your sources on that. Omnibus (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

"The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" Masem (t) 17:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

So, you interpreted that as meaning the onus is on me to include all briefs because you personally found it offensive to include any briefs? That's a poor reading. Also, you said there was no secondary source but it was always sourced to Gothamist, not just the primary sources. It was an odd and obviously false accusation for you to make here? Omnibus (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

You should be fixing the NPOV issues which means that broader discussion of all amici, which doesn't mean every single one, but a good summary. Also I did say you had a secondary source here, just that on the other article, most amici were sourced to primary. Masem (t) 18:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

It would be the onus of the person posting each amicus summary to summarize it in an NPOV way, but there's no onus to include all briefs (and 0% of SCOTUS cases on Wikipedia have that). At any rate, I think we're moving in the right direction now and now that the template is there, more briefs will be added along the way. Omnibus (talk) 18:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

'With a backdrop of "low-browed foreigners" purchasing firearms'

This edit by Omnibus attributes this quote about foreigners from a contemporarious New York Times article with the text "with a backdrop of." I don't believe this is sufficient. For one thing, the article came out after the law was passed (but before it went into effect), while the edit seems to imply that this article represents the background of the enactment of the law. This is misleading. I think it would be useful to have more information about the motivations and context that led to the law's enactment, including xenophobic ones, but this would require a wider sampling of sources giving a fuller picture of the background of the law. As it stands, I believe this single quote does not give a full account of the law's background and therefore violates NPOV. I will be reverting this change back to the previous text. PenguiN42 (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to find more sources about this other than Gothamist and The New York Times (already provided). I'll include more sources when I change it back, if that's where those sources lead. Omnibus (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Factual error in case background

In Case Background, it says, "The law states that to obtain a permit, the applicant must "demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession"."

This is incorrect; the law states no such thing. Rather, this quote is from a court ruling on the law about what "proper cause" means in this scenario; the source this is associated with says as much as well. This should be changed to something along the lines of:

The law has been interpreted to require "a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession" in order to obtain a permit. Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 18:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Concealed Carry Improvement Act

It's important to identify New York laws correctly to avoid confusion. My edits are being both change-reverted as I edit. (They're not being entirely reverted, but semi-incorporating my changes seems like, which is fine I guess... But not really a revert?) The thing identified as the "Concealed Carry Improvement Act", what is its origin and status? This may likely need to be more than a shot from the hip using an ABC News article. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 17:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I made a mistake and fixed it, as well as combining info that I thought applied to a separate law. CCIA is important and needs to be covered. --Masem (t) 17:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I am assuming the likely cause of the flurry of press releases in August was the impending effective dates of the CCIA on 1 September. It does not appear as though the CCIA is an official name, but the Gun Owners of America decision and order from Chief Judge Suddaby identifies the CCIA as chapter 371, which is identified as S.51001 on the NYSenate.gov website. So where did the CCIA name come from? int21h (talk · contribs · email) 17:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

It appears that earlier (pre 2020) laws in NY, part of those that were challenged at SCOTUS, were called the CCIA, and this new one is a replacement for those, so even while the new law was not passed with a name, it was filling the void that the old CCIA left. --Masem (t) 17:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

That is not normal practice in New York state AFAICT. The codified Consolidated Laws chapters are usually calls "laws", e.g. the recent Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act created the Cannabis Law as chapter 7-A. So I would assume any CCIA would normally have amended or created some law, not another act. So I definitely think this should be fleshed out clearly and concisely. Note that I believe "continuous codification" may have even been quoted within Gibson's New York Legal Research Guide, in that it's a New York particularism that its acts normally amend its codified laws directly instead of other acts. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 17:39, 2 October 2022 (UTC) int21h (talk · contribs · email) 17:47, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Google seemingly rejects this hypothesis as well. :) int21h (talk · contribs · email) 18:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

¯\(ツ)/¯ guess we'll maybe know more when the next bill is named. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 20:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

All I know is that in the court documents around this, CCIA is tossed around as the common name for this, see for example this order that places an injunction on the new law (pending the emergency appeal) If this is not how NY law works, the NY courts don't seem aware of that. Masem (t) 20:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

It's definitely the common name. I was hoping it could be nailed down better, but yeah there is enough to establish the claim. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 17:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

mostly untrue statement as to case law history

"The issue around the right to carry guns in public in the United States has been a contested area in politics and constitutional law for most of the 20th and, so far, the 21st century."

Not entirely true. The Court's decision in Miller v. U.S., 1939, was universally read as recognizing only a collective (militia) right, not an individual right, to gun ownership. There was no contrary case law until the 1990s when lower courts began to question it. captcrisis 68.196.10.68 (talk) 02:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

You cite us v miller but even in the wiki page for that article it is clearly stated that the interpretations of that ruling are vast. It is argued that any weapon suitable for a militia is protected as well as your reading above. It is a vague ruling and was treated as such by the courts. 100.36.253.183 (talk) 00:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Had the Court recognized only a “collective” right to keep and bear arms, it would have resolved the case thus. But Justice McReynolds et al. instead went to the merits of the respondents' contention that “a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ ” was one of those arms protected by the Second Amendment. In other words, Jack Miller and Frank Layton “had standing to assert an individual right of some kind.” See Brian L. Frye, The Peculiar Story of United States v. Miller, 3 N. Y. U. J. L. & LIB'Y. 48, 79 (2008).

Because the Miller Court had ultimately held, 307 U. S., at 178, that there must exist a “reasonable relationship” between a given armament and its utility towards the security of a free state, much controversy arose as to what exactly this meant: Were automatic weapons protected? After all, they would surely be useful towards “the common defense,” Miller, supra, and have been standard-issue since the 1950s, thus being “part of ordinary military equipment,” ibid.

Nonetheless, the Court held in dicta in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), that machine guns are not protected because they are among “ ‘dangerous and unusual’ ” weapons, see id., at 627 (quoting Blackstone, 4 COMMENTARIES 148 – 149 (1769)). While they are undoubtedly “part of ordinary military equipment” under the Miller test (and consequently not “ ‘unusual’ ”), they are still “ ‘dangerous,’ ” and therefore able to be restricted, see Heller, at 623 (describing tradition of restricting weapons that are either dangerous “or” unusual). OzzyMuffin238 (talk) 15:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Vol. 597 already available?

I've noticed from visiting this Article, as well as the one for Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, that a page number is shown. But the Court's website only shows bound volumes of the United States Reports up through Vol. 578 for official versions, and Vol. 584, Pt. 1, for preliminary prints.

Is Vol. 597 available elsewhere, then? Or how do we already know the respective page numbers for these cases? OzzyMuffin238 (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)