Waiting for Justice! Antonyuk/GOA/Bruen (Page 59 of 61)
|
Originally Posted By DaveM4P99: 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? My question is can anyone tell me where I can and can't carry now? 
|
|
Originally Posted By xd341: This is how I see it. My question is can anyone tell me where I can and can't carry now? Originally Posted By xd341: Originally Posted By DaveM4P99: 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? My question is can anyone tell me where I can and can't carry now? Concealed means concealed. |
|
Originally Posted By xd341: This is how I see it. My question is can anyone tell me where I can and can't carry now? Have any lawyer pals? Carry one of those blue weighted rubber gun simulants in your CC holster and start auditing businesses. If they try to throw you out or call the cops... BAM! Lawsuit! |
If it's horrible, it exists. If it's beautiful, you're imagining it.
|
Originally Posted By DaveM4P99: 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? Originally Posted By DaveM4P99: 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? Rahimi basically said disarming people who are not a threat to the public is a no go, Rahimi could be disarmed because he posed a threat. The blanket prohibitions assume that those who would carry are a threat. The fact that they passed a background check, taken some level of training, and a permit was issued is indicative that they do not pose a threat for if they did they would not have been issued a permit to carry. Rahimi provided the standard that "Congress had the power to restrict firearms possession for people who had proven themselves irresponsible or dangerous." Previous rulings by SCOTUS have indicated that the right to bare arms extends outside the home, and that the second amendment is not a second-class right. As people with permits have not been demonstrated or proven themselves irresponsible or danger, blanket laws that restrict baring arms outside the home to essentially "a few public streets" runs afoul with Rahimi. |
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!"
|
This was the take away I received from one of the lawyers tangentially associated with this case, not one of the attorneys of record for the case, so no - NOT Nolo. Social media app materials enjoined; carry on private lands open to the public enjoined; public parks (not including zoos or urban) enjoined; and church use for security not enjoined but statutorily changed. Everything else holds and they really dug in on all of the other positions. No guns in urban parks, zoos, hospitals, mental health/chemical dependency providers, bars/restaurants for on premises alcohol consumption, banquet halls, theaters, schools, governmental buildings. Good moral character stands as does cohabitant application info. Again, he is not your attorney so you should consult with your own attorney for questions as to what is permissible. |
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!"
|
Thanks Hiram. SCOTUS will have a field day with this BS ruling (AGAIN), if we can get them to take it (AGAIN). How could they not? They GVR'd it because it was wrong the first time. Unless SCOTUS just wanted them to use the argument/reasoning in Rahimi, but to get the same ruling? IDK. Is that the next step? SCOTUS? Good moral character and training have to go. No such thing exists in the history of our nation. And basically all the location bans are bullshit too. Yes even schools. |
 2A FEDERAL APPEALS COURT DECISION TODAY KNOCKS OUT MAJOR PART OF NY GUN CONTROL LAW |
If it's horrible, it exists. If it's beautiful, you're imagining it.
|
So he suggests not appealing to SCOTUS again. I kinda disagree. SCOTUS GVRd the first decision, and the 2nd circus didn't change a thing. Would that not make SCOTUS want to take it again? The 2nd circuit is clearly thumbing their nose at them this time. Can we appeal to SCOTUS AND go back to Suddaby at the same time? Either way, we need to get Suddaby to rule based on a full trial...we shouldn't have to work too hard on that trial since we know Suddaby is on the right side... Although Suddaby was wrong to uphold the training requirement. Nothing in our history ever required training to own or carry a gun. Suddaby wrongly said that people back in the 1700s were more familiar with guns so training wasn't as important...and that people today aren't as familiar with guns so training is needed...which is crazy talk...but even if true, there is no history or tradition to requiring training. Zero. Either way, once Suddaby rules...and guts almost all of the CCIA again, the 2nd places a stay on his decision, and then we can either apply to SCOTUS again, asking to overturn the stay...or we go to full trial on the 2nd circus? Lots of options. But we need to get to SCOTUS in the next year. |
|
Originally Posted By DaveM4P99: So he suggests not appealing to SCOTUS again. I kinda disagree. SCOTUS GVRd the first decision, and the 2nd circus didn't change a thing. Would that not make SCOTUS want to take it again? The 2nd circuit is clearly thumbing their nose at them this time. Can we appeal to SCOTUS AND go back to Suddaby at the same time? Either way, we need to get Suddaby to rule based on a full trial...we shouldn't have to work too hard on that trial since we know Suddaby is on the right side... Although Suddaby was wrong to uphold the training requirement. Nothing in our history ever required training to own or carry a gun. Suddaby wrongly said that people back in the 1700s were more familiar with guns so training wasn't as important...and that people today aren't as familiar with guns so training is needed...which is crazy talk...but even if true, there is no history or tradition to requiring training. Zero. Either way, once Suddaby rules...and guts almost all of the CCIA again, the 2nd places a stay on his decision, and then we can either apply to SCOTUS again, asking to overturn the stay...or we go to full trial on the 2nd circus? Lots of options. But we need to get to SCOTUS in the next year. His thinking is that we should stop the interlocutory appeals to SCOTUS because it just slows down the entire process. We want to lose with a final judgment in the 2nd Circus as fast as possible, THEN go to SCOTUS. |
If it's horrible, it exists. If it's beautiful, you're imagining it.
|
Originally Posted By GTwannabe: His thinking is that we should stop the interlocutory appeals to SCOTUS because it just slows down the entire process. We want to lose with a final judgment in the 2nd Circus as fast as possible, THEN go to SCOTUS. Originally Posted By GTwannabe: Originally Posted By DaveM4P99: So he suggests not appealing to SCOTUS again. I kinda disagree. SCOTUS GVRd the first decision, and the 2nd circus didn't change a thing. Would that not make SCOTUS want to take it again? The 2nd circuit is clearly thumbing their nose at them this time. Can we appeal to SCOTUS AND go back to Suddaby at the same time? Either way, we need to get Suddaby to rule based on a full trial...we shouldn't have to work too hard on that trial since we know Suddaby is on the right side... Although Suddaby was wrong to uphold the training requirement. Nothing in our history ever required training to own or carry a gun. Suddaby wrongly said that people back in the 1700s were more familiar with guns so training wasn't as important...and that people today aren't as familiar with guns so training is needed...which is crazy talk...but even if true, there is no history or tradition to requiring training. Zero. Either way, once Suddaby rules...and guts almost all of the CCIA again, the 2nd places a stay on his decision, and then we can either apply to SCOTUS again, asking to overturn the stay...or we go to full trial on the 2nd circus? Lots of options. But we need to get to SCOTUS in the next year. His thinking is that we should stop the interlocutory appeals to SCOTUS because it just slows down the entire process. We want to lose with a final judgment in the 2nd Circus as fast as possible, THEN go to SCOTUS. Yeah I get that. But SCOTUS already took it at an interlocutory stage once...and GVRd it. Why not again? Especially when they see their GVR changed no minds in the 2nd circus. Can we appeal the decision to scotus and simultaneously start the trial with Suddaby? Probably not. Either way I think we have 14 days to tell Suddaby what we plan to do, now that the 2nd ruled. |
 2A WIN: FEDERAL COURT PUTS A STAKE THROUGH HEART OF NY VAMPIRE RULE….. |
If it's horrible, it exists. If it's beautiful, you're imagining it.
|
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2nd-circuit-court-rules-for-new-york-in-sensitive-places-carry-ban-lawsuit/ Gun rights advocates looking to overturn New York's "sensitive places" law have suffered a big loss in a Manhattan courtroom. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday in Antonyuk et al. v. James that the law banning people from carrying weapons in locations such as schools, parks, theaters and bars is constitutional under the Second Amendment. The court also declared constitutional the state's restrictive "good moral character" requirement for getting a concealed carry permit. |
|
Originally Posted By fighter443: https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2nd-circuit-court-rules-for-new-york-in-sensitive-places-carry-ban-lawsuit/ Originally Posted By fighter443: https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2nd-circuit-court-rules-for-new-york-in-sensitive-places-carry-ban-lawsuit/ Gun rights advocates looking to overturn New York's "sensitive places" law have suffered a big loss in a Manhattan courtroom. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday in Antonyuk et al. v. James that the law banning people from carrying weapons in locations such as schools, parks, theaters and bars is constitutional under the Second Amendment. The court also declared constitutional the state's restrictive "good moral character" requirement for getting a concealed carry permit. Not shocked More agenda from the bench |
|
The problem at SCOTUS right now is the two oldest Justices are the the big 2A supporters. If Trump wins then the possibility of them being replaced by like minded people (still pondering ACB and where she is going in her ideology as I consider 2A support to be a lukewarm 5-4 at the moment) is high. If Harris wins then the chances are not good long term. There is almost no chance of a change from 6-3 to 7-2 in favor of Conservatives under Trump as the Progressive Justices are on the younger side of the roster. But the chances of a 5-4 Conservative or even a flip to a Progressive majority is possible under Harris. New York will never give up and become a 2A friendly state. For every narrowly crafted ruling that SCOTUS comes up with, the state will craft a piece of legislation that will again get tied up for years in the courts. The cudgel they still have is the power of licensing and registration as those can be used to jam up everyone very effectively and SCOTUS has not addressed those issues yet. I figure if SCOTUS eventually rules that AR-15's and other MSR's are protected under the 2A, the state will again ramp up registration to make it is as burdensome and expensive as possible (probably even treat them like handguns). That will then require years of litigation to arrive at some (hopefully) positive outcome but will still require years of compliance while that happens. |
Joined:
Jul 2022
Posts:
141
EE: 0% (0)
NY, USA
|
Yes, there is a risk of the old folks failing. However, even with them staying, I don't see them ever giving relief from SAFE. They will let in tumble around in the lower courts forever, up and down, etc. They could have acted but didn't - cue the legalisms and customs why they don't. Now, if ARs were treated like handguns in NYS - but free from all the AWB restrictions as to configurations and magazines - that would be a step forward. Now, you can order a semi pistol from Buds or buy it from Runnings, Cabelas, or the local LGS. A Sig 320 has a 10 round mag but is certainly functional. If I had to go through the order, and even with the back and forth with the county, that would be so much better than the Frankstein ARs and wacko fixed magazines. I could live with the registration on a permit card, I already do with handguns. But even that won't happen. Scotus has no interest in AWBs or locale bans. They dither around with drug abusers and domestic violence but let the important RKBA restrictions stand because of custom, we don't do that, scold the lower courts, etc. and the lower courts will take that to stall and/or reinforce the old restrictions. |
|
Originally Posted By batjka104: Is public transportation carry ok now? I don't think so..because fuck poor people who can't afford a car or taxi. They don't deserve to protect themselves. The 2nd circuit is also terrified of pissing off NYC...they don't want to allow subway carry. |
|
Wilson v Hawaii (23-7517) is distributed for conference this Friday. The case was Hawaii's Supreme Court telling SCOTUS it was "handpicking history to make its own rules" and that the Bruen test is "fuzzy". The question being put forth is "Whether the Bruen test determines when a State's criminal prosecution for carrying a handgun without a license violates the Second Amendment". Of course if it is granted and ruled on, it will be so narrow and fuzzy as to solve nothing for New York, as usual. |
|
Some movement which I can't fully see in court listener... https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65364032/antonyuk-v-hochul/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc It sounds like @Nolocontendere @hiramranger have told the court that we MAY ask SCOTUS to pickup the case again? And we need to let Suddaby know what we want to do by Jan 22nd 2025 (the cutoff for SCOTUS to file for cert I guess?). I can't read or download the most recent letters though. But that's what it sounds like. |
|
@nolocontendere @hiramranger For what it's worth...I think we should ask SCOTUS to grant cert again. They GVR'd it in light of Rahimi for a reason...and the 2nd circus just said "nah Rahimi doesn't impact this at all" When clearly it does. Rahimi said that it is OK to restrict guns from a dangerous person, but there has to be due process first, right? So that gets rid of the Good Moral Character requirements, because there is no due process there at all. It's all at the whims of the licensing officer or judge. Completely arbitrary with no standard. There's no standard because if NY spelled it all out, it would be clearly unconstitutional, as there's no historical analogues for reasons to bar gun ownership. And all the arbitrary restricted place laws? They have no basis in the text, no history or widespread tradition, nor any analogous laws, that could even remotely allow them. And Rahimi reiterated that all modern weapons are protected arms...so that gets rid of AWBs too. I think SCOTUS would take this up, especially now that we own SCOTUS for the next 4 years. |
|
So we should know late January if SCOTUS is taking up the Maryland handgun permitting scheme case. If they strike that down, then NYs entire permit system is toast, as NY's scheme is 100x more expensive and difficult and crazy than MD's scheme. Not to mention the carry restrictions will be toast if, and hopefully when, Thomas goes scorched earth on all gun laws with these cases. I actually have some high hopes for us this winter and summer with SCOTUS. |
 BREAKING NOW: CERT DENIED IN MAJOR 2A CASES... |
If it's horrible, it exists. If it's beautiful, you're imagining it.
|
Originally Posted By crwdplsr: Wake me when our constitutional rights actually matter to the judicial system. I think Maryland's handgun license scheme isn't quite egregious enough for SCOTUS honestly. If they look at Antonyuk again, after the 2nd completely ignored their GVR, they may take it. @nolocontendere What do you think? Gonna petition for cert again by Jan 22nd? Or go back to Suddaby? |
|
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65364032/antonyuk-v-hochul/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc What does this mean? This case was Suddaby no? Who is / was Hummel? TEXT ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul J. Evangelista for all further proceedings. Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel no longer assigned to case. Authorized by Chief Judge Brenda K. Sannes on 1/18/2025. (tab) (Entered: 01/18/2025) |
|
Originally Posted By DaveM4P99: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65364032/antonyuk-v-hochul/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc What does this mean? This case was Suddaby no? Who is / was Hummel? TEXT ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul J. Evangelista for all further proceedings. Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel no longer assigned to case. Authorized by Chief Judge Brenda K. Sannes on 1/18/2025. (tab) (Entered: 01/18/2025) He's a new magistrate not the same as a district judge I think he's a former public defender... |
Ad Lucem: Towards Light
This information is a general statement of law and procedure and not a substitute for specific legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.
This information is a general statement of law and procedure and not a substitute for specific legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.
|
Originally Posted By DaveM4P99: @HiramRanger Any idea if Nolo and team petitioned SCOTUS for cert in Antonyuk? Suddaby asked for an update by end of day January 22nd right? Asking whether or not we were asking for cert or going back to his court? Not sure. I'm neck deep in state budget bullshit... but if I can find out I'll let you know. |
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!"
| Judge Suddaby was informed by our team yesterday that we are filing for cert with SCOTUS. Petition was filed but has not yet been docketed - hopefully it will be up tomorrow. Until such time it is not available. If not tomorrow, likely Monday or Tuesday. |
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: Judge Suddaby was informed by our team yesterday that we are filing for cert with SCOTUS. Petition was filed but has not yet been docketed - hopefully it will be up tomorrow. Until such time it is not available. If not tomorrow, likely Monday or Tuesday. Final judgment or is this another pointless interlocutory appeal? |
If it's horrible, it exists. If it's beautiful, you're imagining it.
|
Originally Posted By GTwannabe: Final judgment or is this another pointless interlocutory appeal? Originally Posted By GTwannabe: Originally Posted By HiramRanger: Judge Suddaby was informed by our team yesterday that we are filing for cert with SCOTUS. Petition was filed but has not yet been docketed - hopefully it will be up tomorrow. Until such time it is not available. If not tomorrow, likely Monday or Tuesday. Final judgment or is this another pointless interlocutory appeal? I don't know because it isn't available to read yet... as I said in my previous post. |
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!"
|
Wow awesome thank you Hiram. Glad to hear we are going back to SCOTUS. I mean, the 2nd circus was told they got the initial Antonyuk opinion wrong, and to redo it, when they got the GVR this summer. And they ignored it and ruled the same. So hopefully scotus does a per curium opinion (is that right?) and tells NY they can't ban carry everywhere...and they can't make the licensing process 1000x harder than anywhere else in the country. I mean, we can't go get a cheeseburger while carrying because the place serves alcohol? What sense does that make? |
Let's see if this works... posting a screen grab.
|
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 DaveM4P99: Thanks Hiram. So I assume we won't be hearing anything on Friday from SCOTUS since we just filed? I think Friday is the last order list for cases to be heard this term? I assume we are aiming for this case to be decided next term? So end of summer of 2025? I don't know. I have to be honest with you, while I'd like more definitive answers I have resigned myself to the fact that we will get them when we get them. There are really solid legal minds working on this, their commitment and tenacity is unparalleled and unquestioned. Things are beyond my control so I frankly don't spend a whole lot of time thinking about it (1) because I have a lot of other shit in my life to deal with and (2) as I tell my wife, worrying about shit outside your control just frustrates you and doesn't resolve anything any faster - although it can make things seem to take longer as you watch the pot waiting for it to boil. I can't blame anybody for wanting to know as much as possible and be anxious about updates. As I hear things I'll be sure to share them and hope others will as well, but my best advice for folks is trust in the people fighting for us and try not to become demoralized if things take longer than we'd like or we don't get the response we want initially. I'm hoping Trump's victory will put some steel in the spines of some of the newer justices and give them the reassurance they need that a strong pro-2A ruling wouldn't swing the court or result in its packing as it likely would have under Harris. |
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 MikeyCNY: Thank you, as always, to Hiram and others for keeping this thread updated. I'm ready for another dinner if needed.. a bunch of us from the area have an annual get-together in the Syracuse area. Let me know when, good to kill two birds with one stone, see you all and my family. |
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!"
 BREAKING TODAY: SCOTUS FAILS TO ACT ON SNOPE & OCEAN STATE TACTICAL |
If it's horrible, it exists. If it's beautiful, you're imagining it.
|
Originally Posted By HiramRanger: I don't know. I have to be honest with you, while I'd like more definitive answers I have resigned myself to the fact that we will get them when we get them. There are really solid legal minds working on this, their commitment and tenacity is unparalleled and unquestioned. Things are beyond my control so I frankly don't spend a whole lot of time thinking about it (1) because I have a lot of other shit in my life to deal with and (2) as I tell my wife, worrying about shit outside your control just frustrates you and doesn't resolve anything any faster - although it can make things seem to take longer as you watch the pot waiting for it to boil. I can't blame anybody for wanting to know as much as possible and be anxious about updates. As I hear things I'll be sure to share them and hope others will as well, but my best advice for folks is trust in the people fighting for us and try not to become demoralized if things take longer than we'd like or we don't get the response we want initially. I'm hoping Trump's victory will put some steel in the spines of some of the newer justices and give them the reassurance they need that a strong pro-2A ruling wouldn't swing the court or result in its packing as it likely would have under Harris. Originally Posted By HiramRanger: Originally Posted By DaveM4P99: Thanks Hiram. So I assume we won't be hearing anything on Friday from SCOTUS since we just filed? I think Friday is the last order list for cases to be heard this term? I assume we are aiming for this case to be decided next term? So end of summer of 2025? I don't know. I have to be honest with you, while I'd like more definitive answers I have resigned myself to the fact that we will get them when we get them. There are really solid legal minds working on this, their commitment and tenacity is unparalleled and unquestioned. Things are beyond my control so I frankly don't spend a whole lot of time thinking about it (1) because I have a lot of other shit in my life to deal with and (2) as I tell my wife, worrying about shit outside your control just frustrates you and doesn't resolve anything any faster - although it can make things seem to take longer as you watch the pot waiting for it to boil. I can't blame anybody for wanting to know as much as possible and be anxious about updates. As I hear things I'll be sure to share them and hope others will as well, but my best advice for folks is trust in the people fighting for us and try not to become demoralized if things take longer than we'd like or we don't get the response we want initially. I'm hoping Trump's victory will put some steel in the spines of some of the newer justices and give them the reassurance they need that a strong pro-2A ruling wouldn't swing the court or result in its packing as it likely would have under Harris. It’s hard not to be anxious I applaud those fighting for us in the courts But honestly I just don’t trust the courts |
|
The fundamental issue is that we are relying on the courts to confirm rights already granted in the Constitution. It’s frustrating to the laymen who knows exactly what “shall not be infringed” means, as they watch the courts essentially determine how much states can. SCOTUS has made the situation much worse as has the cowardice of Congress. I understand the appeals process, and I understand it’s been gamed in a way that keeps these cases from the inevitable decision. But we’ve been playing this game long enough to know SCOTUS is now wearing a “kick me” sign, to our detriment. It’s further discouraging we’ve been told justices like ACB are “constitutionalists” when it’s pretty clear they are not. We need bolder leadership on the Second Amendment and we also need to change the game. We should be thinking bigger about how to go after the NFA and dismantle its unconstitutional framework. Instead we are still playing footsie with states trying to ban weapons and magazines that clearly fall within the Second Amendment- and worrying the courts will somehow agree with that subversion. In that regard, the antis are defining the rules of the game and for some reason we are playing along with that obfuscation. Ditto for Congress who has done nothing to clarify issues such as NFA. They just keep talking about things like how they’re gonna pass the HPA. Yeah, sure. You betcha. To be fair, it’s only been a few days, but that said Trump, who promised to protect our “great, big, beautiful Second Amendment” has stiffed us. Other than closing Biden’s unconstitutional gun safety office he’s done nothing with any agencies nor has he outlined any Second Amendment initiatives. Here my advice. Since some of the states are the only ones protecting your Second Amendment rights, move to one. Because nobody in Congress or the federal courts is coming to help. IMVHO. |
|
Originally Posted By M-Aurelius: The fundamental issue is that we are relying on the courts to confirm rights already granted in the Constitution. It’s frustrating to the laymen who knows exactly what “shall not be infringed” means, as they watch the courts essentially determine how much states can. SCOTUS has made the situation much worse as has the cowardice of Congress. I understand the appeals process, and I understand it’s been gamed in a way that keeps these cases from the inevitable decision. But we’ve been playing this game long enough to know SCOTUS is now wearing a “kick me” sign, to our detriment. It’s further discouraging we’ve been told justices like ACB are “constitutionalists” when it’s pretty clear they are not. We need bolder leadership on the Second Amendment and we also need to change the game. We should be thinking bigger about how to go after the NFA and dismantle its unconstitutional framework. Instead we are still playing footsie with states trying to ban weapons and magazines that clearly fall within the Second Amendment- and worrying the courts will somehow agree with that subversion. In that regard, the antis are defining the rules of the game and for some reason we are playing along with that obfuscation. Ditto for Congress who has done nothing to clarify issues such as NFA. They just keep talking about things like how they’re gonna pass the HPA. Yeah, sure. You betcha. To be fair, it’s only been a few days, but that said Trump, who promised to protect our “great, big, beautiful Second Amendment” has stiffed us. Other than closing Biden’s unconstitutional gun safety office he’s done nothing with any agencies nor has he outlined any Second Amendment initiatives. Here my advice. Since some of the states are the only ones protecting your Second Amendment rights, move to one. Because nobody in Congress or the federal courts is coming to help. IMVHO. So true The Courts will not protect our rights Even the current SCOTUS They might say the 2A is not a 2nd class right but they are talking out of the side of their mouth. You don’t need to be a Harvard law grad to see that states are blatantly denying 2A rights and have an agenda to strip those rights completely : one bite at a time. The courts are complicit and have shown repeatedly they have no respect for the SCOTUS rulings…..and SCOTUS doesn’t have the spine to take on and shred unconstitutional state laws |
|
Originally Posted By M-Aurelius: Other than closing Biden’s unconstitutional gun safety office he’s done nothing with any agencies nor has he outlined any Second Amendment initiatives. He did authorize ATF agents to carry out immigration enforcement. That keeps them from doing ATF things. |
|
Originally Posted By Zero6: He did authorize ATF agents to carry out immigration enforcement. That keeps them from doing ATF things. Originally Posted By Zero6: Originally Posted By M-Aurelius: Other than closing Biden’s unconstitutional gun safety office he’s done nothing with any agencies nor has he outlined any Second Amendment initiatives. He did authorize ATF agents to carry out immigration enforcement. That keeps them from doing ATF things. 2A is important but not really the most important thing on his plate. If in a month or two he hasn’t taken some legit action I’ll agree. He has almost nobody confirmed, including his AG who will (hopefully) start reining them in. We have a disaster of epic proportions in NC and Cali, we have a war in Europe that is incredibly destabilizing, another in the Middle East, North Korea being froggy, an economy to kickstart, and a Hell of a lot more. It’s been FIVE FUCKING DAYS. 
|
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!"
Joined:
Jul 2022
Posts:
146
EE: 0% (0)
NY, USA
|
That is true, and we should give the man a chance. However, the actions on DEI were rolled out immediately. If there were plans to deal with gun rights - I don't see them. Investigating aid to states that have AWB and mag bans, or the like could have been in pipeline. They immediately announced an investigation of universities with large endowments about their DEI policies. A look at Federal aid to ban states - that could have been planned. I think it isn't a priority, sadly. The internal workings of Scotus so they don't take the chances to solidfy and clarify Bruen and take action is something for court historians. It's clear the energy to act isn't there and waiting for Thomas and Alito to 'scorch' the bad states is a dream. Could be wrong but we will see. Those two don't seem to be convincing their supposed collegues to act. It parallels Heller - it had flaws - no AWB protection. Folks said just you wait - Scalia will - well, nada. Looks like the same thing here - Bruen - just you wait, Thomas will - and nada, |
|
The administration released a “roadmap” for the next FOUR years. The Second Amendment isn’t on it in any form. I can’t even find related reforms for the ATF or DoJ. It’s now being mentioned on several gun websites as a pretty significant oversight. The fact the Second Amendment isn't presented in any form is making people think they’ve taken it in the neck again. SCOTUS has also now passed on all the major cases for this term, meanwhile some states have taken that inaction to further subvert our Second Amendment Rights. There is no per curriam decision coming. I’ll bet $100 on that. Roberts and ACB will team up with the liberals to ensure nothing happens. |
|
Originally Posted By M-Aurelius: The administration released a “roadmap” for the next FOUR years. The Second Amendment isn’t on it in any form. I can’t even find related reforms for the ATF or DoJ. It’s now being mentioned on several gun websites as a pretty significant oversight. The fact the Second Amendment isn't presented in any form is making people think they’ve taken it in the neck again. SCOTUS has also now passed on all the major cases for this term, meanwhile some states have taken that inaction to further subvert our Second Amendment Rights. There is no per curriam decision coming. I’ll bet $100 on that. Roberts and ACB will team up with the liberals to ensure nothing happens. Disgusting 
|
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!"
|
New Entry in Antonyuk v. Hochul TEXT ORDER continuing the stay of this matter until such time that the Supreme Court either grants or denies Plaintiffs' petition for a writ of certiorari or the parties otherwise seek to reopen proceedings in this Court, whichever is earlier. (Dkt. No. 128 ). The Parties are directed to file a further Joint Status Report on or before February 7, 2025. SO ORDERED by U.S. District Judge Glenn T Suddaby on 1/28/2025. (sal ) (Entered: 01/28/2025) |