User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/27/2023 3:50:37 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Aardvark: That would be hilarious  Especially if it is released as close to midnight as possible. For bonus points, it rules against the plaintiffs and supports the state 100%. Then comes the conference and it appears there will be a major $#!tstorm coming from SCOTUS for all the circuits that cannot seem to read and comprehend Thomas's Bruen decision.Our illustrious Governor crying on TV that her precious law is toast would be icing on the cake  I would be very surprised if the 2nd Circuit DIDN'T simply "rubber stamp" the NY's position and rule in the State's favor "because, you know... things." Thomas needs to come down hard and embarrass them at this point, any desire for integrity or honesty by the 2nd Circuit is long gone. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2023 8:45:18 AM EDT
[#2]
Unless Thomas does something that has teeth Hochul will just change the law again.
|
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 9/28/2023 9:59:29 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fighter443: Unless Thomas does something that has teeth Hochul will just change the law again. |
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 9/28/2023 10:00:29 AM EDT
[#4]
There has to be, somehow, a clear decision that voids and prevents, opt in and the broad locale, sensitive places bans. These make all else pretty trivial. It's a pain to buy ammo, so that slows me down when I want to plan for matches. I have to go through an onerous course, done that elsewhere. However, if I cannot carry in most places, that's the major problem.
One could see the regime changing to mandating stores must put up a sign and there will be massive efforts to get major businesses to do that. Reducing the felony to a misdemeanor might make more people take the risk - if the law saws you are not busted unless you refuse to leave. Many options in other states. I just fear a lack of clarity and planning in thinking through possible counter measures and precluding them. NO vague statements. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 9/29/2023 12:30:55 AM EDT
[#5]
Can someone explain how this works?
I remember seeing that after the NYSPRA v Bruen case, the "may issue" states turned into "shall issue" states (meaning that a case which had removed a NY restriction led to the end of the same/similar restrictions in other states). Would it be possible for the same thing to happen with other cases? California magazine limits---if the CA limit ends up going away, does ours go away too? There are cases in other states that are similar the case that this entire forum is about. If another state's case ends up getting rid of the law of that state (their law that is basically the same as the Hochul law), does that mean the Hochul law goes away? If not, what would be the reason why sometimes one state's restriction going away causes removal of other states' restrictions, while at other times the removal of one state's restriction does not affect the other states? |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 9/29/2023 8:43:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: DaveM4P99]
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ThatsThe1911A1: Can someone explain how this works? I remember seeing that after the NYSPRA v Bruen case, the "may issue" states turned into "shall issue" states (meaning that a case which had removed a NY restriction led to the end of the same/similar restrictions in other states). Would it be possible for the same thing to happen with other cases? California magazine limits---if the CA limit ends up going away, does ours go away too? There are cases in other states that are similar the case that this entire forum is about. If another state's case ends up getting rid of the law of that state (their law that is basically the same as the Hochul law), does that mean the Hochul law goes away? If not, what would be the reason why sometimes one state's restriction going away causes removal of other states' restrictions, while at other times the removal of one state's restriction does not affect the other states? It's pretty simple really. If it's a SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) decision, then the decision is binding in EVERY state. If it's just a state level / district level / circuit level decision, that decision is only applicable to that one state. Well, circuit level decisions effect a few states. There's maps that show what states are in what circuits. So no...If the 9th circuit rules correctly (doubtful) and tosses the CA magazine limit law, us here in NY don't win too. Has to go to SCOTUS. Now often as we have seen, states will simply ignore SCOTUS decisions...unless SCOTUS is extremely clear. Often a state or state level court will ignore a SCOTUS decision unless SCOTUS rules on their exact specific law. Which is bullshit. States are supposed to take SCOTUS decisions into full account when deciding on the constitutionality of laws. And apparently liberal states think Bruen wasn't clear enough...even though text, history and tradition seems pretty clear to me. If there wasn't an analogous gun law in the 1790s, then there can't be one today. Simple. Basically Bruen negated every NY gun law (and most gun laws for that matter)...NY just hasn't given in. |
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 9/29/2023 9:12:54 AM EDT
[#7]
If and when Scotus takes a case, it cannot remand them to the lower courts to take account of Bruen. This just starts another cycle of years. I fear that they might do this. Take the CA case and want to scold their circuit, instead of clearly knocking down the law.
Again the opt in and locale restrictions are way more important than taxes and courses. I wonder if they truly get that? |
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 9/29/2023 9:26:01 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By EXSUNY: If and when Scotus takes a case, it cannot remand them to the lower courts to take account of Bruen. This just starts another cycle of years. There are still a few other GVR'd cases, like the Maryland MSR ban, still languishing in the lower courts. Pretty sure all of them will not be remanded again if they get that far. Maybe Thomas and the Conservative wing will see that no matter how much deference they give to lower courts to do the right thing, they will not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2023 9:28:27 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DaveM4P99: It's pretty simple really. If it's a SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) decision, then the decision is binding in EVERY state. If it's just a state level / district level / circuit level decision, that decision is only applicable to that one state. Well, circuit level decisions effect a few states. There's maps that show what states are in what circuits. So no...If the 9th circuit rules correctly (doubtful) and tosses the CA magazine limit law, us here in NY don't win too. Has to go to SCOTUS. Now often as we have seen, states will simply ignore SCOTUS decisions...unless SCOTUS is extremely clear. Often a state or state level court will ignore a SCOTUS decision unless SCOTUS rules on their exact specific law. Which is bullshit. States are supposed to take SCOTUS decisions into full account when deciding on the constitutionality of laws. And apparently liberal states think Bruen wasn't clear enough...even though text, history and tradition seems pretty clear to me. If there wasn't an analogous gun law in the 1790s, then there can't be one today. Simple. Basically Bruen negated every NY gun law (and most gun laws for that matter)...NY just hasn't given in. The liberal states are placing their bets on Bruen being overturned once the court changes a couple of faces. They've even said as much |
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 9/29/2023 9:35:58 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tc556guy: The liberal states are placing their bets on Bruen being overturned once the court changes a couple of faces. They've even said as much Yeah. Not sure there is any stopping it. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 9/29/2023 10:01:00 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tahawus: Yeah. Not sure there is any stopping it. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tahawus: Originally Posted By tc556guy: The liberal states are placing their bets on Bruen being overturned once the court changes a couple of faces. They've even said as much Yeah. Not sure there is any stopping it. It's pretty freaking unheard of for SCOTUS to overturn a decision that still has wet ink. That's not to say they couldn't walk back Bruen a bit in a few years...I don't put anything past liberal activist judges. |
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 9/29/2023 10:38:05 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DaveM4P99: It's pretty freaking unheard of for SCOTUS to overturn a decision that still has wet ink. That's not to say they couldn't walk back Bruen a bit in a few years...I don't put anything past liberal activist judges. Slightly back on subject in breaking news: the 9th Circuit has extended the stay in Judge Benitez magazine ban decision by another 10 days AND will convene an 11 judge en banc panel to re-hear the case. Surprise, surprise. I expect the ban to be upheld and SCOTUS to again have to step up and make a decision. I am sure the 2nd Circus is taking detailed notes right now. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 9/29/2023 12:59:08 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DaveM4P99: It's pretty freaking unheard of for SCOTUS to overturn a decision that still has wet ink. That's not to say they couldn't walk back Bruen a bit in a few years...I don't put anything past liberal activist judges. Apparently it's only happened 146 times with more than 25,000 ruling being made since 1789.. Less than 0.05% of all rulings lol |
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 9/30/2023 5:52:45 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Aardvark: Slightly back on subject in breaking news: the 9th Circuit has extended the stay in Judge Benitez magazine ban decision by another 10 days AND will convene an 11 judge en banc panel to re-hear the case. Surprise, surprise. I expect the ban to be upheld and SCOTUS to again have to step up and make a decision. I am sure the 2nd Circus is taking detailed notes right now. Maybe by late 2025 we will be allowed to again purchase and possess magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds here in New York (that is unless they create a brand new licensing requirement to possess them).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2023 9:53:37 AM EDT
[#15]
Bump
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2023 10:48:04 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Aardvark: Update on the above Duncan v Bonta case courtesy of Steve Lehto on YouTube. The en banc panel that will rehear this case is the exact same 11 judge panel that shot Duncan down the first time, rather than the usual randomly selected 11 judges, AND whose previous decision was GVR'd by SCOTUS back to the 9th. So it is a forgone conclusion that they will again decide in favor of California and its ban on standard capacity magazines. On the plus side, this will most likely get standard capacity magazine bans in front of SCOTUS within the year Maybe by late 2025 we will be allowed to again purchase and possess magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds here in New York (that is unless they create a brand new licensing requirement to possess them).Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Aardvark: Originally Posted By Aardvark: Slightly back on subject in breaking news: the 9th Circuit has extended the stay in Judge Benitez magazine ban decision by another 10 days AND will convene an 11 judge en banc panel to re-hear the case. Surprise, surprise. I expect the ban to be upheld and SCOTUS to again have to step up and make a decision. I am sure the 2nd Circus is taking detailed notes right now. Maybe by late 2025 we will be allowed to again purchase and possess magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds here in New York (that is unless they create a brand new licensing requirement to possess them).Yeah my MA permit is also a license to possess standard capacity magazines. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2023 8:35:38 AM EDT
[#17]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2023 10:07:04 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HiramRanger: Yeah my MA permit is also a license to possess standard capacity magazines. What are they charging for those now? I gave mine up when the cost went from ten bucks to a 100 , required finger prints and issued different permits for standard or neutered capacity magazines. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2023 3:33:53 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tc556guy: What are they charging for those now? I gave mine up when the cost went from ten bucks to a 100 , required finger prints and issued different permits for standard or neutered capacity magazines. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tc556guy: Originally Posted By HiramRanger: Yeah my MA permit is also a license to possess standard capacity magazines. What are they charging for those now? I gave mine up when the cost went from ten bucks to a 100 , required finger prints and issued different permits for standard or neutered capacity magazines. $100 a year |
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 10/10/2023 3:39:38 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HiramRanger: $100 a year  and I thought Nassau County's $200/5 year fee was outrageous (well it is and it was courtesy of the Republican controlled legislature and Republican County Executive) but that would equal $500/5 years  Probably coming soon here anyhow...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2023 4:18:11 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Aardvark: Wow and I thought Nassau County's $200/5 year fee was outrageous (well it is and it was courtesy of the Republican controlled legislature and Republican County Executive) but that would equal $500/5 years Probably coming soon here anyhow...Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Aardvark: Originally Posted By HiramRanger: $100 a year and I thought Nassau County's $200/5 year fee was outrageous (well it is and it was courtesy of the Republican controlled legislature and Republican County Executive) but that would equal $500/5 years Probably coming soon here anyhow...Yeah it is exorbitant, but when I have to go to Boston I'm glad I have it. |
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 10/10/2023 9:48:51 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HiramRanger: Yeah my MA permit is also a license to possess standard capacity magazines. How does that work? |
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 10/11/2023 9:45:39 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Aardvark: Update on the above Duncan v Bonta case courtesy of Steve Lehto on YouTube. The en banc panel that will rehear this case is the exact same 11 judge panel that shot Duncan down the first time, rather than the usual randomly selected 11 judges, AND whose previous decision was GVR'd by SCOTUS back to the 9th. So it is a forgone conclusion that they will again decide in favor of California and its ban on standard capacity magazines. On the plus side, this will most likely get standard capacity magazine bans in front of SCOTUS within the year Maybe by late 2025 we will be allowed to again purchase and possess magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds here in New York (that is unless they create a brand new licensing requirement to possess them). |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 10/11/2023 9:59:18 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Aardvark: 9th Circuit overturned Judge Benitez's ruling and granted California the permanent injunction it requested so California's standard capacity magazine ban remains. The en banc panel voted 7 to 4 as expected. Since SCOTUS seems to have lost interest in Bruen, so has the 9th Circuit. I am guessing the 2nd will go the same way. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Aardvark: Originally Posted By Aardvark: Update on the above Duncan v Bonta case courtesy of Steve Lehto on YouTube. The en banc panel that will rehear this case is the exact same 11 judge panel that shot Duncan down the first time, rather than the usual randomly selected 11 judges, AND whose previous decision was GVR'd by SCOTUS back to the 9th. So it is a forgone conclusion that they will again decide in favor of California and its ban on standard capacity magazines. On the plus side, this will most likely get standard capacity magazine bans in front of SCOTUS within the year Maybe by late 2025 we will be allowed to again purchase and possess magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds here in New York (that is unless they create a brand new licensing requirement to possess them).Yeah there's no way we get even a single favorable ruling from the 2nd circus. They are all radical left wing activist judges who will ignore common sense and the Constitution. And SCOTUS does unfortunately seem done with the 2nd amendment...they did their "big" once a decade decision and threw us some scraps, but that's all we are getting. Glad some people are enjoying Bruen because NY is infinitely more fucked now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2023 12:32:00 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DaveM4P99: Yeah there's no way we get even a single favorable ruling from the 2nd circus. They are all radical left wing activist judges who will ignore common sense and the Constitution. And SCOTUS does unfortunately seem done with the 2nd amendment...they did their "big" once a decade decision and threw us some scraps, but that's all we are getting. Glad some people are enjoying Bruen because NY is infinitely more fucked now. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DaveM4P99: Originally Posted By Aardvark: Originally Posted By Aardvark: Update on the above Duncan v Bonta case courtesy of Steve Lehto on YouTube. The en banc panel that will rehear this case is the exact same 11 judge panel that shot Duncan down the first time, rather than the usual randomly selected 11 judges, AND whose previous decision was GVR'd by SCOTUS back to the 9th. So it is a forgone conclusion that they will again decide in favor of California and its ban on standard capacity magazines. On the plus side, this will most likely get standard capacity magazine bans in front of SCOTUS within the year Maybe by late 2025 we will be allowed to again purchase and possess magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds here in New York (that is unless they create a brand new licensing requirement to possess them).Yeah there's no way we get even a single favorable ruling from the 2nd circus. They are all radical left wing activist judges who will ignore common sense and the Constitution. And SCOTUS does unfortunately seem done with the 2nd amendment...they did their "big" once a decade decision and threw us some scraps, but that's all we are getting. Glad some people are enjoying Bruen because NY is infinitely more fucked now. What I don't get is, even if you guys are right and SCOTUS has lost interest in the Heller and Bruen decisions, if solely Clarence Thomas still cares about the 2nd Amendment and his own Bruen decision, he has the power to lift these circuit appeals court stays if he wants with the stroke of his pen. All it takes is an emergency filing to SCOTUS by plaintiffs, the other justices can decline, then appeal for relief directly to Clarence Thomas and he can lift the various appeals level stays. He doesn't even have to tell anybody why (Lord know the 2nd and the 9th Circuits don't feel the need to justify their stays, beyond "because we say so"). Is my thinking so far off base here? Is he so wedded to procedure that he can't even get himself to defend his own work against inferior courts who are literally laughing at his court's authority? If this is true, in some ways by sticking so rigidly to procedure, he is actually helping the breakdown of the judicial integrity of the federal court system by allowing SCOTUS decisions to become nothing more than pontificating hot air, proudly and publicly ignored by a rogue subordinate judiciary. Sorry guys, that's my frustration talking.  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2023 12:33:49 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Zero6: How does that work? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Zero6: Originally Posted By HiramRanger: Yeah my MA permit is also a license to possess standard capacity magazines. How does that work? I don't know because I don't bother, but I believe they have to be pre-94 mags. I still have a few in storage out of state, but not worth going to get them just to carry in MA and then have to return them for storage. I suppose if I was going to take a class in MA or shoot 3 Gun I'd go dig them out. Since I however usually carry a P365 10 is fine. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2023 12:36:07 PM EDT
[#27]
Wasn't there supposed to be a SCOTUS conference last Friday over the ammo back ground check deal? Or do I have that all confused?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2023 12:47:56 PM EDT
[#28]
@CatskillDraht can the thread title be updated? Maybe "Still waiting as of 10/2023". I keep seeing 'TRO GRANTED' but that's no longer the case...
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2023 1:10:36 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MikeyCNY: @CatskillDraht can the thread title be updated? Maybe "Still waiting as of 10/2023". I keep seeing 'TRO GRANTED' but that's no longer the case... got it, thanks. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 10/11/2023 1:14:45 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By xd341: Wasn't there supposed to be a SCOTUS conference last Friday over the ammo back ground check deal? Or do I have that all confused? Yeah that happened. Thomas allowed it to go to conference but the emergency appeal was denied yesterday. Scotus apparently really really wants the 2nd circus to handle it...and we all know how that's going. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2023 5:45:04 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BMANSAR15: What I don't get is, even if you guys are right and SCOTUS has lost interest in the Heller and Bruen decisions, if solely Clarence Thomas still cares about the 2nd Amendment and his own Bruen decision, he has the power to lift these circuit appeals court stays if he wants with the stroke of his pen. All it takes is an emergency filing to SCOTUS by plaintiffs, the other justices can decline, then appeal for relief directly to Clarence Thomas and he can lift the various appeals level stays. He doesn't even have to tell anybody why (Lord know the 2nd and the 9th Circuits don't feel the need to justify their stays, beyond "because we say so"). Is my thinking so far off base here? Is he so wedded to procedure that he can't even get himself to defend his own work against inferior courts who are literally laughing at his court's authority? If this is true, in some ways by sticking so rigidly to procedure, he is actually helping the breakdown of the judicial integrity of the federal court system by allowing SCOTUS decisions to become nothing more than pontificating hot air, proudly and publicly ignored by a rogue subordinate judiciary. Sorry guys, that's my frustration talking. Yeah that's all of us
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2023 6:34:36 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DaveM4P99: Yeah that happened. Thomas allowed it to go to conference but the emergency appeal was denied yesterday. Scotus apparently really really wants the 2nd circus to handle it...and we all know how that's going. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DaveM4P99: Originally Posted By xd341: Wasn't there supposed to be a SCOTUS conference last Friday over the ammo back ground check deal? Or do I have that all confused? Yeah that happened. Thomas allowed it to go to conference but the emergency appeal was denied yesterday. Scotus apparently really really wants the 2nd circus to handle it...and we all know how that's going. I do enjoy criticizing them, but the truth is they seem to average an 11-13 month turnaround time on most cases. So maybe it's a normal time frame (for them), but it's still too damn long. Plus they were told to expedite this matter. |
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 10/12/2023 9:53:50 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BMANSAR15: What I don't get is, even if you guys are right and SCOTUS has lost interest in the Heller and Bruen decisions, if solely Clarence Thomas still cares about the 2nd Amendment and his own Bruen decision, he has the power to lift these circuit appeals court stays if he wants with the stroke of his pen. All it takes is an emergency filing to SCOTUS by plaintiffs, the other justices can decline, then appeal for relief directly to Clarence Thomas and he can lift the various appeals level stays. He doesn't even have to tell anybody why (Lord know the 2nd and the 9th Circuits don't feel the need to justify their stays, beyond "because we say so"). Is my thinking so far off base here? Is he so wedded to procedure that he can't even get himself to defend his own work against inferior courts who are literally laughing at his court's authority? If this is true, in some ways by sticking so rigidly to procedure, he is actually helping the breakdown of the judicial integrity of the federal court system by allowing SCOTUS decisions to become nothing more than pontificating hot air, proudly and publicly ignored by a rogue subordinate judiciary. It came out yesterday that in the Duncan v Bonta standard capacity magazine case in the 9th, they are scheduling a hearing for March 18, 2024 But apparently it is not about the case itself but a challenge to the court having thrown out its procedures by grabbing the case from the standard three judge panel and immediately issuing a stay. So they have already figured out a way to delay that case possibly four or more years. If they ultimately decide in 2025 that they were wrong to throw out procedure, they will naturally send the case down to a three judge panel to start the hearing process all over. That will take at least a year into 2026 to get a ruling which most likely will result in an en banc hearing resulting in a hearing in 2026 or 2027 and a ruling in 2028. So most likely 2028 at the earliest for a ruling that can be challenged in SCOTUS. And there will be another Presidential election in 2028.I suspect other circuits are going to follow suit as it looks like a strategy to possibly delay a favorable Bruen ruling close to indefinitely. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 10/12/2023 12:33:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: DaveM4P99]
[#34]
My only last ditch hope is that Thomas and the other conservative justices are really waiting to get Bruen II back on the docket...meaning all 5 cases heard in March regarding the CCIA and other laws.
It makes the court look more impartial when they are just reiterating what they've already said in a previous case...and not just taking up every gun case they get handed. So I'm hoping Thomas is just waiting for the second circuit to rule stupidly in regards to the CCIA and all the other cases heard in March together...Because those are really direct responses to Bruen. Then they can lay a nationwide smack down on gun laws and say "You completely ignored us after Bruen...now here is Bruen II in case you missed the point." And this time it would cut a clear path to dismantling AWBs, licensing laws, mag limits etc. as well as carry bans. I mean, if (when) the 2nd circuit rules like idiots, and SCOTUS doesn't grant cert on the appeal, that would really show they are totally gutless and refuse to back up their decisions. The CCIA is a clear spit in their faces. |
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 10/12/2023 2:59:26 PM EDT
[#35]
Said this sort of thing all along and got scolded (like the 2nd Circuit is supposed to be) by the Thomas true believers and procedural apologists.
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 10/12/2023 3:05:38 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DaveM4P99: "You completely ignored us after Bruen...now here is Bruen II in case you missed the point." That is what Bruen was! Bruen was only necessary because the courts have ignored Heller. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 10/12/2023 10:27:04 PM EDT
[#37]
Hello DaveM4P99, I guess I missed a few things.
These five cases, what are the five going to be? Also, could someone tell me what Bruen II is going to be about? |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 10/12/2023 10:51:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: DaveM4P99]
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ThatsThe1911A1: Hello DaveM4P99, I guess I missed a few things. These five cases, what are the five going to be? Also, could someone tell me what Bruen II is going to be about? So 2 federal judges (Suddaby and Sinatra) put injunctions on the CCIA not too long ago. Then immediately the corrupt 2nd circuit stayed those injunctions and gave ZERO reasoning. Because they knew they had no constitutional reasons. We appealed to scotus, who denied us, but told the 2nd circuit that they screwed up big time, and that they better expedite a hearing and give good reason why they stayed the 2 injunctions. And to take Bruen into account. So the 2nd circuit begrudgingly heard arguments for 5 cases all attacking different parts of the CCIA (carry bans in sensitive places / restricted places, church carry, ammo background checks, and I think aspects of the new licensing laws - good moral character requirements, social media investigations, ridiculous training requirements etc.) Antonyuk vs. NY is our very own Nolocontendere's case - he's a member here and a 2nd amendment lawyer. It's against the CCIA carry bans mostly I think. You can find audio of the hearing and hear NYs dumb ass arguments...and read the briefs online. So we've been waiting since March 20th for the 2nd circus to rule against us. It is inevitable. Then...what I referred to as Bruen II...would be SCOTUS granting cert these cases when we appeal. But we aren't at Bruen II yet. We all say March or April 2024 is when the idiots of the 2nd circus will rule against us with some stupid 2 step test using interest balancing scrutiny. As usual. Then another year or so for SCOTUS to grant cert...which will only happen if Thomas and Alito hang on. But I DO see it getting granted cert because the CCIA is literally the Bruen response bill...and scotus already said in their old denial that even though they are denying helping at this stage, that the CCIA has grave 1st and 2nd amendment issues. So it's a waiting game. Let's hope other state cases (California's mag bans, Maryland's AWB etc) make it to SCOTUS sooner. But doubtful. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 10/12/2023 11:03:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: DaveM4P99]
[#39]
My one question...
So the 2nd circuit rules against us sometime next year. Now the March hearing we had was supposed to be just to decide if the 2nd circuit's stay on Suddaby and Sinatra's injunctions were merited. But the March hearing had a ton of legal and merits arguments, and it seemed like the 2nd circuit judges wanted to decide the entire case based on merits right then and there. They did act as if the hearing was a full trial, and not just a stay hearing which confused even Nolo. That aside, supposedly, unless Sinatra or Suddaby grossly abused their judicial authority, the 2nd circuit should not have stayed their injunctions. But I'm sure the 2nd circus will find some reason to say they did abuse their judicial authority. So the 2nd rules that the stay will remain, and the CCIA will stay in place...despite Bruen and despite us being likely to win on the merits of our case. So then...the stay remains. But wouldn't the next step be to go through a FULL trial with the 2nd circuit? Which would take literally years...like 5 or more? And only after that case is heard, could we then appeal to SCOTUS. Or could we do another emergency appeal when the 2nd let's the stay remain? Not like that has a chance though. SCOTUS will probably only grant cert after it's been beaten to death by the liberal activist judges of the 2nd circuit for the next 5 years. |
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 10/13/2023 8:37:33 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DaveM4P99: Let's hope other state cases (California's mag bans, Maryland's AWB etc) make it to SCOTUS sooner. But doubtful. Just looked up the SCOTUS Justice ages again and the two oldest are Thomas at 75 and Alito at 73. The Circuit Courts are playing the long game hoping mortality takes over. I cannot see Thomas or Alito retiring but the Grim Reaper is an independent contractor with his own schedule. |
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 10/13/2023 9:35:59 AM EDT
[#41]
Have the apologists finally realized that the supposed gun rights positive justices on Scotus have NO fire in the belly for the issue or restoring rights as quickly as possible? They either don't care or are mired in the procedural nonsense of 'scolding' the circuits and/or 'making the circuits do their job'. If a case gets through the 2nd Circuit (of course negative) and then Scotus takes it up (given Clarence is still there), they might just remand it for some years to 'make the circuit do its job'. All those folks who chortled how Clarence spanked the Circuit, want to recant that nonsense. Do they get fired, their pay docked? Spank - meaningless.
Coming up with some ambiguous historical 'test' in Bruen was a mistake instead of clear, positive statements. Dancing around locales and weapons types without clear statements that all semis are legal as are all mags was a mistake in Heller and since (not taking up AWB cases, remands). They never can cut to the chase. If you look at affirmative action (whether you agree or not , not my issue), that decision had the same ambiguous blather. They were against affirmative action but then let in a giant loophole that schools could consider personal tales of struggle that were demographically based. Thus schools are advising students how to race signal within that loophole. Again, I'm not saying pro or con about affirmative action but how these folks get their heads in the clouds of legal babble and make things unclear for years to come. Every internet post of WE WON after the lowest court decision is to say the least naive. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2023 11:07:58 PM EDT
[#42]
https://www.oann.com/newsroom/n-y-c-lawmaker-arrested-for-bringing-weapon-to-pro-palestine-rally/
The councilwoman was arrested and charged with criminal possession of a handgun, and she was required to surrender both her lawfully issued firearm and her permit.
Of course they arrested the R and not the terrorists. Will be interesting to see if they quietly drop the charges or they want to take this to trial and then deal with all the appeals to SCOTUS. |
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 10/14/2023 7:58:39 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By shocktrp: Will be interesting to see if they quietly drop the charges or they want to take this to trial and then deal with all the appeals to SCOTUS. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 10/14/2023 8:39:57 AM EDT
[#44]
If you can't carry during a potentially violent pro-palestine event celebrating the mass murder or Jewish children, I don't know where you can.
Pretty clear cut that NYs sensitive place laws are unconstitutional. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2023 11:50:30 AM EDT
[#45]
What did they actually charge her with and why?
|
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 10/14/2023 1:17:12 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DaveM4P99: If you can't carry during a potentially violent pro-palestine event celebrating the mass murder or Jewish children, I don't know where you can. Pretty clear cut that NYs sensitive place laws are unconstitutional. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DaveM4P99: If you can't carry during a potentially violent pro-palestine event celebrating the mass murder or Jewish children, I don't know where you can. Pretty clear cut that NYs sensitive place laws are unconstitutional. Scotus has been ok with sensitive places in their recent decisions, in principle. However, they were unclear as to what actually is one. Blanket geographical ones seem to be not ok but the CCIA circumvented that with opt in (which Clarence missed). Here's a good analysis: https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2022/07/new-yorks-response-to-bruen-the-outer-limits-of-the-sensitive-places-doctrine/ One telling part that is troublesome is that opt in may survive: New York’s ban on gun possession in private businesses unless explicitly permitted will likely be more difficult to challenge in court. While New York’s approach is novel, courts that have considered Second Amendment challenges to gun prohibition on private property have generally held that “[a]n individual’s right to bear arms as enshrined in the Second Amendment, whatever its full scope, certainly must be limited by the equally fundamental right of a private property owner to exercise exclusive dominion and control over its land.” GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. v. Georgia, 687 F.3d 1244, 1265 (11th Cir. 2012). It’s possible a future challenger may argue that New York’s decision to criminalize unauthorized carry in private businesses creates a state-action nexus, or point to the cumulative effect of the private-business restriction and the sensitive-places list to argue that New York’s approach effectively nullifies the right to carry guns in public for self-defense (as we see in the complaint discussed below). If opt in survives all the wailing and lamentation about other parts of the CCIA are meaningless as if you got rid of them all, your gun still says in the underwear draw. Useless permit for SD applications. Easier to buy a gun, yes - maybe. Defend yourself out of your house - forget it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2023 6:19:52 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By waldershrek: What did they actually charge her with and why? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By waldershrek: What did they actually charge her with and why? Reportedly, the NYPD told Vernikov that she was in breach of the law after she left the event, and she later surrendered herself into the 70th Precinct escorted by her lawyer at 2:50 a.m. The councilwoman was arrested and charged with criminal possession of a handgun, and she was required to surrender both her lawfully issued firearm and her permit. According to New York state law, “a person is guilty of criminal possession of a firearm, rifle or shotgun in a sensitive location when such person possesses a firearm, rifle or shotgun in or upon a sensitive location, and such person knows or reasonably should know such location is a sensitive location.” After the news of the arrest, Governor Kathy Hochul (D-N.Y.) posted on X stating that “gun laws apply to everyone.” |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 10/14/2023 7:37:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: DaveM4P99]
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By EXSUNY: Scotus has been ok with sensitive places in their recent decisions, in principle. However, they were unclear as to what actually is one. Blanket geographical ones seem to be not ok but the CCIA circumvented that with opt in (which Clarence missed). Here's a good analysis: https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2022/07/new-yorks-response-to-bruen-the-outer-limits-of-the-sensitive-places-doctrine/ One telling part that is troublesome is that opt in may survive: If opt in survives all the wailing and lamentation about other parts of the CCIA are meaningless as if you got rid of them all, your gun still says in the underwear draw. Useless permit for SD applications. Easier to buy a gun, yes - maybe. Defend yourself out of your house - forget it. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By EXSUNY: Originally Posted By DaveM4P99: If you can't carry during a potentially violent pro-palestine event celebrating the mass murder or Jewish children, I don't know where you can. Pretty clear cut that NYs sensitive place laws are unconstitutional. Scotus has been ok with sensitive places in their recent decisions, in principle. However, they were unclear as to what actually is one. Blanket geographical ones seem to be not ok but the CCIA circumvented that with opt in (which Clarence missed). Here's a good analysis: https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2022/07/new-yorks-response-to-bruen-the-outer-limits-of-the-sensitive-places-doctrine/ One telling part that is troublesome is that opt in may survive: New York’s ban on gun possession in private businesses unless explicitly permitted will likely be more difficult to challenge in court. While New York’s approach is novel, courts that have considered Second Amendment challenges to gun prohibition on private property have generally held that “[a]n individual’s right to bear arms as enshrined in the Second Amendment, whatever its full scope, certainly must be limited by the equally fundamental right of a private property owner to exercise exclusive dominion and control over its land.” GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. v. Georgia, 687 F.3d 1244, 1265 (11th Cir. 2012). It’s possible a future challenger may argue that New York’s decision to criminalize unauthorized carry in private businesses creates a state-action nexus, or point to the cumulative effect of the private-business restriction and the sensitive-places list to argue that New York’s approach effectively nullifies the right to carry guns in public for self-defense (as we see in the complaint discussed below). If opt in survives all the wailing and lamentation about other parts of the CCIA are meaningless as if you got rid of them all, your gun still says in the underwear draw. Useless permit for SD applications. Easier to buy a gun, yes - maybe. Defend yourself out of your house - forget it. Even the 2nd circus judges doubted the opt in scheme. Granted they will still find some dumb reason to uphold it.. But during oral arguments in March even the lead judge said "well how can you force a private business to put up a sign to allow a constitutional right? Could NY require a sign that says "communists welcome" and if that sign wasn't up, could NY say that person was committing a felony?" Opt in has "novel 1st and 2nd amendment" issues. Constitutional rights are defacto allowed on private property. Sensitive places... Thomas was pretty clear they aren't extensive. Nowhere near what NY enacted. One big mistake you make EXSUNY. You keep saying Thomas missed things. But he can't exactly rule on specifics unless the case brings them up. Bruen did not have anything to do with sensitive places or opt in or licensing. Bruen was solely about "proper cause" requirements. They eluded to licensing being unconstitutional, as well as overreaching location bans though. Re-read Heller and Bruen. Thomas did what he could and it was quite strong. Just not for the thick headed liberals in NY. EXSUNY - you want a silver bullet. As do we all. But that doesn't exist in law. Stop, listen and learn a bit. Text history and tradition/ the historical test is basically a silver bullet though. No gun laws existed in the 1790s let alone analogous ones. But NY is hanging on to racists gun laws against native Americans and slaves... laughable. Especially because Thomas already said unconstitutional laws can't be used as examples of analogous laws. |
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 10/14/2023 9:28:53 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DaveM4P99: Text history and tradition/ the historical test is basically a silver bullet though. No gun laws existed in the 1790s let alone analogous ones. There were gun laws in the 1790's. You couldn't murder someone with a gun. That law would be, and is still Constitutional today. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 10/15/2023 10:11:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: DaveM4P99]
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Zero6: There were gun laws in the 1790's. You couldn't murder someone with a gun. That law would be, and is still Constitutional today. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Zero6: Originally Posted By DaveM4P99: Text history and tradition/ the historical test is basically a silver bullet though. No gun laws existed in the 1790s let alone analogous ones. There were gun laws in the 1790's. You couldn't murder someone with a gun. That law would be, and is still Constitutional today. Well not really. Yes murder was illegal...but I don't think there was any laws that said using a gun was specifically illegal. Just the murder part was illegal. But either way, there are simply no analogous gun laws, especially ones that relate to the ridiculous NY laws on the books. Maybe some black powder specific laws that were more large city fire codes when everything was made of wood...but NY can have at that. Be my guest. Everything else is unconstitutional. |
|
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
