Oral Arguments In NYSRPA V. Bruen

Todd Vandermyde and I have had multiple conversations regarding the Supreme Court this last few months. Todd, for those that don’t know him, was the NRA’s lobbyist in Illinois for many years. He also coordinated with NRA-ILA on bringing cases at the state and Federal level against restrictions in the Prairie State. Don Moran, former president of the Illinois State Rifle Association, once told me that the reason Todd was successful in Springfield is that he knew the gun laws better than anyone and could quote any section of the laws verbatim at will.

Todd has been reading the tea leaves in NYSRPA v. Bruen from the oral arguments. He found some interesting things in them especially with regard to comments by Chief Justice John Roberts.

Todd lays out his thoughts in the YouTube below. While we are waiting for the decision, this gives some things to think about and to look for in the final decision.

7 thoughts on “Oral Arguments In NYSRPA V. Bruen”

  1. Good stuff. I hope he’s right. With the current blood dancing over Uvalde, a decision such as he predicts would be welcome.

      1. It’s a bit of a ME issue, but every time the mic conducted you thumping the desk, it takes my ears a few moments to recover, so I literally missed a lot of what was said.

    1. I second the request for a transcript. I can read about 10 times faster than anyone can talk.

  2. Thanks Todd. I’ve known you back since IL days and appreciated our discussions and your perspective. I too thought it telling that the Chief kept going back to Heller. And I thought that because given the analysis in Heller, well, it seemed to me that NYSRPA was in effect decided back in 2008.

    Frankly I’ve long suspected that NYSRPA would either be a somewhat narrower 6-3, or a more full throated 5-4. After arguments, and after listening the Robert’s questioning, I am leaning toward 6-3. I too suspect Thomas may author (esp. in a 5-4) and I am not too concerned about his P&I views. I just don’t think they will make it into the controlling opinion (though possibly a concurrence).

Comments are closed.