Waiting for Justice! Antonyuk/GOA/Bruen (Page 58 of 61)
|
Originally Posted By LamePostCount: It's passed the 32 day mark. Is Sudaby's injunction back in effect? Originally Posted By LamePostCount: It's passed the 32 day mark. Is Sudaby's injunction back in effect? This is verbatim from an attorney intimately familiar with the case. I JUST got done speaking with him specifically to get you the below update. Note, NOT Nolo as I understand he must be careful in what he says so as not to speak out of turn and offend the court. When the Supreme Court vacated the Antonyuk 2nd Circuit decision, and remanded it back to that Court to issue a decision consistent with the terms found in US v. Rahimi, the Supreme Court did not reinstate the original stay on the Suddaby decision out of the NDNY. GOA is currently in disagreement with the State as to what that exactly means. The State is trying to argue that the original temporary stay issued when the 2nd Circuit first got the case, has remained in place the entire time, even after the initial 2nd Circuit decision was issued and the appeal went up the Supreme Court. That is utter nonsense. With no 2nd Circuit decision currently on the books (as a result of the SCOTUS vacatur), and no stay having be reinstated by either the 2nd Circuit or SCOTUS, I take the position that the Suddaby decision is what controls right now and the original temporary stay is not reinstated. The Suddaby decision found sensitive locations at all government buildings, schools, and polling places. It also found that the feds had made mass transportation centers (eg.//airports, train stations, etc.) sensitive areas. Outside of that, it was property owner discretion. Be that as it may, I would strongly urge you to relay that anyone truthfully concerned about this matter discuss it with their own attorney if they believe they may wish to carry in a location previously designated as “sensitive.” I added the underlined emphasis for the attorney, because as always, he is not your attorney and he is not providing anybody who is not his client with legal advice. Please consult an attorney you're comfortable with and follow their guidance. |
The duty of a patriot is to protect his nation from its government.
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"
|
Originally Posted By HiramRanger: This is verbatim from an attorney intimately familiar with the case. I JUST got done speaking with him specifically to get you the below update. Note, NOT Nolo as I understand he must be careful in what he says so as not to speak out of turn and offend the court. I added the underlined emphasis for the attorney, because as always, he is not your attorney and he is not providing anybody who is not his client with legal advice. Please consult an attorney you're comfortable with and follow their guidance. Thanks. |
|
Originally Posted By HiramRanger: This is verbatim from an attorney intimately familiar with the case. I JUST got done speaking with him specifically to get you the below update. Note, NOT Nolo as I understand he must be careful in what he says so as not to speak out of turn and offend the court. I added the underlined emphasis for the attorney, because as always, he is not your attorney and he is not providing anybody who is not his client with legal advice. Please consult an attorney you're comfortable with and follow their guidance. 
|
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Fiat justitia ruat caelum.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we lived.
Fiat justitia ruat caelum.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we lived.
|
https://www.newsmax.com/politics/machine-gun-possession-unconstitutional/2024/08/23/id/1177694/ A federal judge has dismissed charges against a Kansas man for possessing a machine gun, saying prosecutors failed to establish that a federal ban on owning such weapons is constitutional. The decision by U.S. District Judge John Broomes in Wichita on Wednesday appeared to mark the first time a court has held that banning machine guns is unconstitutional after the conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court in 2022 issued a landmark ruling that expanded gun rights. In that ruling, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Supreme Court established a new test for assessing firearms laws, saying restrictions must be "consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." The Supreme Court clarified that standard in June as it upheld a ban on people subject to domestic violence restraining orders having guns, saying a modern firearms restriction needs only a "historical analog," not a "historical twin," to be valid. Broomes, an appointee of Republican then-President Donald Trump, said prosecutors in Tamori Morgan's case failed to identify such a historical analog to support charging him with violating the machine gun ban... |
There will always be an 82d Airborne Division because it lives in the hearts of men and somewhere young men will dare the challenge to "stand up and hook up" and know that moment of pride and strength which is its reward
|
Originally Posted By shocktrp: https://www.newsmax.com/politics/machine-gun-possession-unconstitutional/2024/08/23/id/1177694/ Originally Posted By shocktrp: https://www.newsmax.com/politics/machine-gun-possession-unconstitutional/2024/08/23/id/1177694/ A federal judge has dismissed charges against a Kansas man for possessing a machine gun, saying prosecutors failed to establish that a federal ban on owning such weapons is constitutional. The decision by U.S. District Judge John Broomes in Wichita on Wednesday appeared to mark the first time a court has held that banning machine guns is unconstitutional after the conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court in 2022 issued a landmark ruling that expanded gun rights. In that ruling, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Supreme Court established a new test for assessing firearms laws, saying restrictions must be "consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." The Supreme Court clarified that standard in June as it upheld a ban on people subject to domestic violence restraining orders having guns, saying a modern firearms restriction needs only a "historical analog," not a "historical twin," to be valid. Broomes, an appointee of Republican then-President Donald Trump, said prosecutors in Tamori Morgan's case failed to identify such a historical analog to support charging him with violating the machine gun ban... There have been several stupid rulings this week that are basically ignoring history. Maryland's licensing regimen has been upheld as has California's switchblade ban. All claiming history does not disallow these bans and licensing schemes. |
|
Originally Posted By Aardvark: That has been the buzz BUT even the pro-2A groups acknowledge it will be reversed on an expected appeal. It is an outlier ruling for the moment and nothing short of a ruling by SCOTUS will change that. The question is what will the 10th Circuit ultimately decide when it gets to them? There have been several stupid rulings this week that are basically ignoring history. Maryland's licensing regimen has been upheld as has California's switchblade ban. All claiming history does not disallow these bans and licensing schemes. Originally Posted By Aardvark: Originally Posted By shocktrp: https://www.newsmax.com/politics/machine-gun-possession-unconstitutional/2024/08/23/id/1177694/ A federal judge has dismissed charges against a Kansas man for possessing a machine gun, saying prosecutors failed to establish that a federal ban on owning such weapons is constitutional. The decision by U.S. District Judge John Broomes in Wichita on Wednesday appeared to mark the first time a court has held that banning machine guns is unconstitutional after the conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court in 2022 issued a landmark ruling that expanded gun rights. In that ruling, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Supreme Court established a new test for assessing firearms laws, saying restrictions must be "consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." The Supreme Court clarified that standard in June as it upheld a ban on people subject to domestic violence restraining orders having guns, saying a modern firearms restriction needs only a "historical analog," not a "historical twin," to be valid. Broomes, an appointee of Republican then-President Donald Trump, said prosecutors in Tamori Morgan's case failed to identify such a historical analog to support charging him with violating the machine gun ban... There have been several stupid rulings this week that are basically ignoring history. Maryland's licensing regimen has been upheld as has California's switchblade ban. All claiming history does not disallow these bans and licensing schemes. Idiots. It's not if history "disallows" the ban...there has to be a long standing tradition of that ban being in place throughout the nation. |
|
Originally Podsted By Zero6: 2nd Circuit still at it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEo9jm6lB3M 
|
|
NY just dropped their brief. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66676018/344/antonyuk-v-hochul/ No surprise arguing Rahimi helps them...and somehow says the private property ban should now be back in effect? Still reading...but damn the 2nd circus is gonna love this bullshit. It's laughable that NY thinks the GVR from SCOTUS somehow meant that SCOTUS thinks the 2nd circus ruled TOO pro gun. Is the GOA / Nolo going to submit a brief soon? I assume so. Looking forward to reading it. |
|
Ok, this is really gonna let my stupid out of the bag....but while I'm glad SCOTUS GVR'd the 2nds decision. What in Rhaimi is supposed to dramatically change the 2nds opinion? Wasn't this a case about domestic abuse or something? Why do we think this will help us get our rights back? |
|
Originally Posted By xd341: Ok, this is really gonna let my stupid out of the bag....but while I'm glad SCOTUS GVR'd the 2nds decision. What in Rhaimi is supposed to dramatically change the 2nds opinion? Wasn't this a case about domestic abuse or something? Why do we think this will help us get our rights back? Well...Rahimi says that responsible person tests are not constitutional, as they are too arbitrary. I think? So that gets rid of good moral character. The rest of Rahimi...not sure. "Not cast in amber" and other statements may not help our side, as it may water down Bruen? But the fact that SCOTUS granted cert and made NY pay Antonyuk $300 for costs so far, has to mean SCOTUS thinks the 2nd ruled too anti gun right? Or maybe Antonyuk was awarded $300 because they were the ones to ask for cert? I don't know. But if NY wins based on this latest brief, we go back to not being able to carry anywhere and the private property ban will go back into effect. That will suck. Hoping GOA knocks it out of the park with a final brief before midnight tonight... |
|
"Accordingly, New York's private-property provision continues a longstanding tradition of protecting the right of owners of property both closed to the public and open to the public to determine whether and when firearms are permitted on their property. CONCLUSION For all these reasons and those stated in defendants-appellants' original briefs, this Court should vacate the preliminary injunction." So after GOA submits their brief, where does this go from here? |
|
GOA Brief is up. It reads pretty good but I don't know anything, lol. Hopefully, eventually, Nolo for a victory! Courtlistener |
|
Originally Posted By CatskillDraht: GOA Brief is up. It reads pretty good but I don't know anything, lol. Hopefully, eventually, Nolo for a victory! Courtlistener Why was there another 2nd circuit court listener page started? NYs brief was submitted to the old one... Ours was submitted to this new one. I've been refreshing the old one for days haha. |
| As always, the GOA team did an outstanding job. Thanks Nolo! |
The duty of a patriot is to protect his nation from its government.
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"
|
Originally Posted By CatskillDraht: GOA Brief is up. It reads pretty good but I don't know anything, lol. Hopefully, eventually, Nolo for a victory! Courtlistener Read as much of it as I could during lunch today. Absolutely solid work. |
|
Originally Posted By DaveM4P99: Agreed! Let's hope the 2nd circus has even a modicum of honesty left. Hope springs eternal |
*post contains personal opinion only and should not be considered information released in an official capacity*
0110001101101100011010010110001101101011
0110001101101100011010010110001101101011
|
The state dropped yet another letter, arguing that the recent Wolford case out of the (big surprise) 9th circuit used Rahimi to reinstate the private property bans in CA and HI. Man the 2nd circus is gonna fuck us. Rahimi didn't reverse Bruen at all, but they are acting like it. |
|
Originally Posted By DaveM4P99: The state dropped yet another letter, arguing that the recent Wolford case out of the (big surprise) 9th circuit used Rahimi to reinstate the private property bans in CA and HI. Man the 2nd circus is gonna fuck us. Rahimi didn't reverse Bruen at all, but they are acting like it. Nah, they'll fuck us.
They pulled their moot the case trick hand in hand with the NYPD in another case recently. No shred of integrity left when they keep willfully pulling the rug out from underneath plantiffs when the state / pd magically change their minds on decades old policy. |
|
I can't actually believe we are going to get the default private property carry ban back, after SCOTUS GVR'd the original 2nd circus decision that got rid of it. Nobody, not even pro gun businesses, are going to post "guns allowed" signs. And they know it. Only in NY would a GVR in our favor turn into less gun rights. |
|
Originally Posted By DaveM4P99: I can't actually believe we are going to get the default private property carry ban back, after SCOTUS GVR'd the original 2nd circus decision that got rid of it. Nobody, not even pro gun businesses, are going to post "guns allowed" signs. And they know it. Only in NY would a GVR in our favor turn into less gun rights. Yup, infuriating. But they are pushing SCOTUS closer and closer to declaring permits and sensitive places void save for a few they specifically outline in their ruling. The second circuit is playing with fire. They are going to force an unambiguous ruling because they’re likely not smart enough to restrain themselves. |
The duty of a patriot is to protect his nation from its government.
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"
|
Originally Posted By HiramRanger: Yup, infuriating. But they are pushing SCOTUS closer and closer to declaring permits and sensitive places void save for a few they specifically outline in their ruling. The second circuit is playing with fire. They are going to force an unambiguous ruling because they're likely not smart enough to restrain themselves. |
|
Originally Posted By xd341: If there are the votes on the court. That's the game, make the squishy votes uncomfortable in the hopes that they fold rather than really nuking the restrictions. If that was the case they would have never made a ruling on Bruen. And the ones in our favor have to be getting so pissed that burning things down seems like an attractive option at this point. Eventually even the most laid back person gets pushed to thier limits and goes nuclear |
|
Originally Posted By Crash1433: If that was the case they would have never made a ruling on Bruen. And the ones in our favor have to be getting so pissed that burning things down seems like an attractive option at this point. Eventually even the most laid back person gets pushed to thier limits and goes nuclear If your theory is accurate the 2nd will fuck us and the SCOTUS will immediately (in scotus terms) issue a stay or injunction or whatever...right? It's so frustrating. How many times does the SCOTUS have to act before it sticks? |
|
Originally Posted By xd341: Your lips to God's ears, that's how I would feel but I'm not a lifetime appointee and permanent denizen of DC. (Shudder) If your theory is accurate the 2nd will fuck us and the SCOTUS will immediately (in scotus terms) issue a stay or injunction or whatever...right? It's so frustrating. How many times does the SCOTUS have to act before it sticks? If our worst nightmare comes to pass in November, 2025 going forward is not going to be pleasant for us at all. All these Circuit Court rulings will most likely stand and if SCOTUS takes them up with additional left wing Justices, Bruen and Heller will be Dobbs'ed. |
|
@Nolocontendere dropped a final letter in the Antonyuk CCIA case, fighting back against NYs argument that some outlier case in the 9th circuit (Wolford) should have an impact on this case. Wolford reinstated the defacto private property carry an, but only in Hawaii, not California. Also saying that Wolford actually says areas with "vulnerable" people aren't necessarily sensitive locations, and there's no history or tradition showing you can ban guns just because there are "vulnerable" people there like kids. Good job Nolo. @HiramRanger |
|
Originally Posted By DaveM4P99: @Nolocontendere dropped a final letter in the Antonyuk CCIA case, fighting back against NYs argument that some outlier case in the 9th circuit (Wolford) should have an impact on this case. Wolford reinstated the defacto private property carry an, but only in Hawaii, not California. Also saying that Wolford actually says areas with "vulnerable" people aren't necessarily sensitive locations, and there's no history or tradition showing you can ban guns just because there are "vulnerable" people there like kids. Good job Nolo. @HiramRanger For those looking for the letter. |
The duty of a patriot is to protect his nation from its government.
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"
|
So SCOTUS GVR'd the 2nd circus ruling...didn't someone say the 2nd circus has 32 days to re-rule? Or it goes back to the district court ruling? So we are under the Suddaby ruling now right? Basically carry everywhere ok except a few places like playgrounds and schools? |
|
Originally Posted By CatskillDraht: This is a win. NYS Court strikes down limitations on carry in public places. Yay, minor victory! But only for the Western district of NY. And then only until NY makes an emergency appeal to the 2nd Circus and it gets stayed, again. |
If it's horrible, it exists. If it's beautiful, you're imagining it.
|
Originally Posted By GTwannabe: Yay, minor victory! But only for the Western district of NY. And then only until NY makes an emergency appeal to the 2nd Circus and it gets stayed, again. Originally Posted By GTwannabe: Originally Posted By CatskillDraht: This is a win. NYS Court strikes down limitations on carry in public places. Yay, minor victory! But only for the Western district of NY. And then only until NY makes an emergency appeal to the 2nd Circus and it gets stayed, again. The private property ban (vampire rule) was already struck down by the 2nd circuit in their original decision (which was the appeal hearing from the favorable Suddaby court decision we got). Even the 2nd circus agreed it was a total disaster of a law, with both 1st amendment and 2nd amendment problems. That entire 2nd circuit decision (which upheld too many of NYs carry ban laws still) was GVR'd by scotus in light of Rahimi (and we are still waiting on a new decision from the 2nd circus)...but then it would be argued the law goes back to Sinatra and Suddaby's original rulings which were even more pro gun than the 2nd circuits decision. So the "default private property open to the public ban" has been gone for a while. Good to have Sinatra reaffirm it though. And his decision should be state wide...not just in his district right? It's saying NY state as a government can't enforce the law..it's not saying only these counties can't enforce it. If Hawaii judge can enjoin any federal law or presidential action, and have it effect the entire nation, then a NY district judge enjoining a law effects all of NY. @GTwannabe @CatskillDraht |
|
Originally Posted By DaveM4P99: The private property ban (vampire rule) was already struck down by the 2nd circuit in their original decision (which was the appeal hearing from the favorable Suddaby court decision we got). Even the 2nd circus agreed it was a total disaster of a law, with both 1st amendment and 2nd amendment problems. That entire 2nd circuit decision (which upheld too many of NYs carry ban laws still) was GVR'd by scotus in light of Rahimi (and we are still waiting on a new decision from the 2nd circus)...but then it would be argued the law goes back to Sinatra and Suddaby's original rulings which were even more pro gun than the 2nd circuits decision. So the "default private property open to the public ban" has been gone for a while. Good to have Sinatra reaffirm it though. And his decision should be state wide...not just in his district right? It's saying NY state as a government can't enforce the law..it's not saying only these counties can't enforce it. If Hawaii judge can enjoin any federal law or presidential action, and have it effect the entire nation, then a NY district judge enjoining a law effects all of NY. @GTwannabe @CatskillDraht Agreed. It's a small, affirmative victory but a victory nonetheless. Will take it! |
|
Originally Posted By GTwannabe: Yay, minor victory! But only for the Western district of NY. And then only until NY makes an emergency appeal to the 2nd Circus and it gets stayed, again. I read a little bit of it but must have missed that part. |
|
Originally Posted By fnub315: Does it say it's only for the Western district of NY? I read a little bit of it but must have missed that part. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York only has jurisdiction for the Western District of New York. Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Chemung, Erie, Genesee, Livingston, Monroe, Niagara, Ontario, Orleans, Schuyler, Seneca, Steuben, Wayne, Wyoming, and Yates Counties. |
|
Originally Posted By Zero6: The U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York only has jurisdiction for the Western District of New York. Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Chemung, Erie, Genesee, Livingston, Monroe, Niagara, Ontario, Orleans, Schuyler, Seneca, Steuben, Wayne, Wyoming, and Yates Counties. Originally Posted By Zero6: Originally Posted By fnub315: Does it say it's only for the Western district of NY? I read a little bit of it but must have missed that part. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York only has jurisdiction for the Western District of New York. Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Chemung, Erie, Genesee, Livingston, Monroe, Niagara, Ontario, Orleans, Schuyler, Seneca, Steuben, Wayne, Wyoming, and Yates Counties. Either way, after scotus GVRd the 2nd circus ruling and the 2nd hasn't re-ruled in a timely manner, we are back to the original Suddaby ruling which pretty much gets rid of the entire CCIA, spare carry in schools and playgrounds? And it maybe upheld training requirements? Which is totally wrong but that's another story. |
|
Originally Posted By Zero6: The U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York only has jurisdiction for the Western District of New York. Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Chemung, Erie, Genesee, Livingston, Monroe, Niagara, Ontario, Orleans, Schuyler, Seneca, Steuben, Wayne, Wyoming, and Yates Counties. Does that mean since the western district judge is the one who struck down the 7 round limit back in 2015, then that's only limited to those specific counties within that district? Also since the Suddaby decision comes from the northern district, that also means his ruling and injunction only applies to the northern district counties? |
|
Originally Posted By fnub315: Ahh, I never knew that's how it was. Does that mean since the western district judge is the one who struck down the 7 round limit back in 2015, then that's only limited to those specific counties within that district? Also since the Suddaby decision comes from the northern district, that also means his ruling and injunction only applies to the northern district counties? Originally Posted By fnub315: Originally Posted By Zero6: The U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York only has jurisdiction for the Western District of New York. Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Chemung, Erie, Genesee, Livingston, Monroe, Niagara, Ontario, Orleans, Schuyler, Seneca, Steuben, Wayne, Wyoming, and Yates Counties. Does that mean since the western district judge is the one who struck down the 7 round limit back in 2015, then that's only limited to those specific counties within that district? Also since the Suddaby decision comes from the northern district, that also means his ruling and injunction only applies to the northern district counties? Well the 7 round ruling was also affirmed by the 2nd circuit. So that's NY and CT etc. I do recall when the Suddaby injunction took place it was state wide though...no? |
|
Originally Posted By fnub315: Does that mean since the western district judge is the one who struck down the 7 round limit back in 2015, then that's only limited to those specific counties within that district? You forget this is New York. The law is still on the books 9 years later, even in the Western District where it was struck down. New York just said they won't enforce it, until they do. Penal Law Section 265.37 Unlawful possession of certain ammunition feeding devices. It shall be unlawful for a person to knowingly possess an ammunition feeding device where such device contains more than seven rounds of ammunition. If such device containing more than seven rounds of ammunition is possessed within the home of the possessor, the person so possessing the device shall, for a first offense, be guilty of a violation and subject to a fine of two hundred dollars, and for each subsequent offense, be guilty of a class B misdemeanor and subject to a fine of two hundred dollars and a term of up to three months imprisonment. If such device containing more than seven rounds of ammunition is possessed in any location other than the home of the possessor, the person so possessing the device shall, for a first offense, be guilty of a class B misdemeanor and subject to a fine of two hundred dollars and a term of up to six months imprisonment, and for each subsequent offense, be guilty of a class A misdemeanor. |
 Judge Destroys New York's Concealed Carry Ban on Private Property - Is Your Right to Carry Restored? |
There will always be an 82d Airborne Division because it lives in the hearts of men and somewhere young men will dare the challenge to "stand up and hook up" and know that moment of pride and strength which is its reward
|
Originally Posted By DaveM4P99: Well the 7 round ruling was also affirmed by the 2nd circuit. So that's NY and CT etc. I do recall when the Suddaby injunction took place it was state wide though...no? But I don't get the whole northern vs western district thing. So if Sinatra's ruling is only in effect for the Western district, then Suddaby's would only be in effect for his district?.. If so, it seems like a lot of people who didn't live in the northern district were misinformed and under the assumption they had some of their rights restored when his ruling came out initially. |
|
We have an opinion out!!! https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66674530/antonyuk-v-hochul/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc Haven't read yet. ETA...first page seems to suggest it's the same conclusion as before. No default private property ban etc. Still reading. |
|
Originally Posted By DaveM4P99: We have an opinion out!!! https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66674530/antonyuk-v-hochul/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc Haven't read yet. ETA...first page seems to suggest it's the same conclusion as before. No default private property ban etc. Still reading. It's garbage. Basically the second circus says Rahimi doesn't change anything. Gee, you think that SCOTUS remanded it to you for further proceedings with Rahimi in mind if Rahimi didn't mean anything? This is outright contempt by a lower court. Every other court in the country follows directions, these screwballs think they are above SCOTUS. Typical NYC liberal arrogance. |
The duty of a patriot is to protect his nation from its government.
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"
|
Originally Posted By HiramRanger: It's garbage. Basically the second circus says Rahimi doesn't change anything. Gee, you think that SCOTUS remanded it to you for further proceedings with Rahimi in mind if Rahimi didn't mean anything? This is outright contempt by a lower court. Every other court in the country follows directions, these screwballs think they are above SCOTUS. Typical NYC liberal arrogance. It took how long to reach that opinion? And that is the point, just draw this out as long as possible despite the clear opinion of SCOTUS. I hope they (scotus) get big mad. |
|
Originally Posted By HiramRanger: It's garbage. Basically the second circus says Rahimi doesn't change anything. Gee, you think that SCOTUS remanded it to you for further proceedings with Rahimi in mind if Rahimi didn't mean anything? This is outright contempt by a lower court. Every other court in the country follows directions, these screwballs think they are above SCOTUS. Typical NYC liberal arrogance. Originally Posted By HiramRanger: Originally Posted By DaveM4P99: We have an opinion out!!! https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66674530/antonyuk-v-hochul/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc Haven't read yet. ETA...first page seems to suggest it's the same conclusion as before. No default private property ban etc. Still reading. It's garbage. Basically the second circus says Rahimi doesn't change anything. Gee, you think that SCOTUS remanded it to you for further proceedings with Rahimi in mind if Rahimi didn't mean anything? This is outright contempt by a lower court. Every other court in the country follows directions, these screwballs think they are above SCOTUS. Typical NYC liberal arrogance. What did we think Rahimi would have done to alter the original opinion? I mean obviously the 2nd circus got most of it terribly wrong (on purpose) the first time... But what in Rahimi could have changed the decision? I think Rahimi should have gotten rid of the arbitrary responsible persons tests all together, right? What else? And now do we just go back to Suddaby for a full trial? Or some appeal back to SCOTUS once again? |
|
I guess the good news is, the default private property ban is gone for good...and we can now move forward with either the full Suddaby trial...or appealing back to SCOTUS again..for the rest of the CCIA. Both options point to a win for us, no? |