User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 1:17:05 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fish223: Your pessimism is noted, and in fact, i generally agree that this process will take a lot longer than we want it too, and way, way, way longer than it should. I also agree that CCW holders in NY are actually verifiably worse off now than just a short time ago. It sucks. It's unfair. It's actually unconstitutional, and we all know it. But I am not pessimistic. Not even a bit. Because all over the country Bruen is working like it should, and laws are being changed or stricken from the books, people are more free, more good people are carrying, and the mood everywhere is improving. A MAJORITY of the states now have Constitutional carry. A majority. And soon #27, like any day, if not already. Mag bans, ammo bans, carry bans, carry permits, AWB's, it's all changing. Colorado threw out the new AWB just yesterday, I think. Our time will come, and in the meanwhile good things are happening in most places. I am cynical, but not defeated. I am cautiously optimistic, and encouraged by what I see elsewhere. So, please, let's remain civil and respectful, and save our gumption for the real fight. NYHTF is full of awesome people, and we are all in the same boat, let's remember who the real enemy is.  |
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 2:41:02 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fish223: ...Mag bans...  and that a ban on civilian standard capacity magazine ownership gives the police an advantage over armed civilians Then something really stupid about not being covered by the 2A because only useful for military use.I figure a few more years of rulings like these before they manage to get to SCOTUS. On the bright side, Colorado just rejected a proposed MSR ban today. Not even the modified stripped down bill garnered support. Maybe they realized it was doomed to be struck down by the courts eventually. So there is some positive Bruen trickle down happening at least in some legislatures. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2023 5:33:46 AM EDT
[Last Edit: P400]
[#3]
Just adding Amy Coney Barrett's response in the 7th Circuit Naperville case, for those who didn't see it floating around GD yesterday.
Another case of courts not abiding by NYSRPA v. Bruen. https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/naperville-sun/ct-supreme-court-naperville-illinois-assault-weapon-bans-20230502-qcsirks74nccxcneensfddxk2q-story.html  Attached File MAJOR BREAKING NEWS: SCOTUS Issues Unusual Order in AR-15 and Magazine Ban case |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2023 10:07:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: DaveM4P99]
[#4]
Originally Posted By P400: Just adding Amy Coney Barrett's response in the 7th Circuit Naperville case, for those who didn't see it floating around GD yesterday. Another case of courts not abiding by NYSRPA v. Bruen. https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/naperville-sun/ct-supreme-court-naperville-illinois-assault-weapon-bans-20230502-qcsirks74nccxcneensfddxk2q-story.html https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/61196/ACBNaperville_jpg-2804149.JPG  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKzsQfgk3aIWe all know 99.9% of NYs gun laws are unconstitutional, and therefore null and void. Some of the laws we can't ignore, like pistol permits and semi auto rifle licenses, because nobody is going to sell those to you without the license. But the other laws...they are wrong and illegal. I look forward to SCOTUS ruling on the CCIA and the AWB /magazine laws. Then we have to dismantle licensing laws for pistols and rifles...ammo purchase laws etc. |
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 5/3/2023 2:47:47 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By P400: Just adding Amy Coney Barrett's response in the 7th Circuit Naperville case, for those who didn't see it floating around GD yesterday. Another case of courts not abiding by NYSRPA v. Bruen. https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/naperville-sun/ct-supreme-court-naperville-illinois-assault-weapon-bans-20230502-qcsirks74nccxcneensfddxk2q-story.html https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/61196/ACBNaperville_jpg-2804149.JPG https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKzsQfgk3aIIt will be "interesting" to see what claptrap the defense team for Naperville comes up with. I suspect they have a long weekend coming up scouring ancient law books in dark damp basements trying to find anything that would even remotely support their case. The fact that they, like the state, passed their ban AFTER the Bruen ruling speaks volumes about their opinion of the court. Especially in light of Maryland's AWB being GVR'd by SCOTUS (and still in force because those courts are dragging their feet too). I also hope it is pointed about by the court that one would have assumed Naperville would have had all their legal justifications in place when they passed the law. Just like New York claimed with the CCIA and is now scrambling to defend. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2023 4:30:56 PM EDT
[#6]
We all know it's complete BS post-Bruen, and they know it too.
Everything they do is a delay tactic, that's it. It's all coming down. It's inexorable. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2023 6:27:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: P400]
[#7]
If the 7th gets smacked down by SCOTUS first, I wonder if it will have some influence on how the 2nd Circus rules.
Probably just wishful thinking though. The 2nd seems too embedded in NYC life to act in an unbiased manner. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2023 11:37:47 PM EDT
[#9]
Weasley shit, trying to moot. And it might work. It has before.
This is a painfully slow process. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2023 11:49:43 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fish223: Weasley shit, trying to moot. And it might work. It has before. This is a painfully slow process. There are a number of other challenges that remain. Shit one could argue in the Judeo Christian tradition we are responsible for our own security. In Luke 22:36 Jesus commands his disciples to sell their cloak and buy a sword if they do not have one already. |
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 5/6/2023 8:11:48 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PNFLDS: Update Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PNFLDS: Update https://www.ar15.com/forums/Hometown/Whatever-happened-to-/9-668436/#i7350613 I wonder how long it will be before New York State files a brief requesting dismissal of the various cases against the CCIA for mootness "Hey we made some slight changes to the law and most of the plaintiffs arguments no longer apply" The 2nd Circus had the hearing on the five CCIA cases just for a TRO on March 20th and still crickets. After almost 61 years in this state, sans a four-year college stint in Massachusetts, I have pretty much figured out how this state screws us over time and again before they even think of it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2023 8:33:54 AM EDT
[#12]
While I try to stay positive like the rest of you NY will just keep changing the laws around to screw us over.
Bruen has done great things for the rest of the country though. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2023 8:55:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: DaveM4P99]
[#13]
So they are just trying to moot the Adirondack/Catskill park and church carry challenges...but not the rest of the restricted / sensitive places or private property carry bans.
|
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 5/6/2023 9:53:52 AM EDT
[#14]
The most devastating provision is the business opt-in with the associated car storage requirements. I can't see schools being relaxed. Medical facilities - maybe. The class, moral standards, etc. will probably stand. Annoying but they can be dealt with. But without getting rid of opt-in, everything else is not that important.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2023 10:27:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: DaveM4P99]
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By EXSUNY: The most devastating provision is the business opt-in with the associated car storage requirements. I can't see schools being relaxed. Medical facilities - maybe. The class, moral standards, etc. will probably stand. Annoying but they can be dealt with. But without getting rid of opt-in, everything else is not that important. Moral standards is definitely unconstitutional. It's the same as proper cause. Totally subjective. And prone to abuse. Same with social media and references. SCOTUS will easily toss most of that eventually. The class? It's 10x harder, more expensive and longer than any other state's class. I see it getting tossed or made easier. |
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 5/6/2023 12:52:30 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DaveM4P99: So they are just trying to moot the Adirondack/Catskill park and church carry challenges...but not the rest of the restricted / sensitive places or private property carry bans. Yeah, sounds close to reasonable specific mooting. Specific line items in some cases go away. Maybe one entire case??? |
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 5/6/2023 8:40:48 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fish223: Weasley shit, trying to moot. And it might work. It has before. This is a painfully slow process. There are exceptions to "mootness", one of them being a case that is capable of repetition yet evades review. If New York keeps changing laws as soon as they go to court because they know it is about to be overturned, the USSC can still rule on the law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2023 10:28:48 PM EDT
[#18]
The state added amendments permitting certain formally prohibited activities. Thus the legal challenges to the CCIA provisions which prohibited firearms in (a) places of worship and (b) in Catskill Park are now moot as those restrictions no longer exist.
The other challenges remain before the 2nd Circuit... Also they did some clean-up allowing firearms possession while hunting, training and during reenactments even though those provisions were not directly challenged. They also cleaned up exemptions for qualified in state and out of state active and retired leos |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2023 9:27:26 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: The state added amendments permitting certain formally prohibited activities. Thus the legal challenges to the CCIA provisions which prohibited firearms in (a) places of worship and (b) in Catskill Park are now moot as those restrictions no longer exist. The other challenges remain before the 2nd Circuit... Also they did some clean-up allowing firearms possession while hunting, training and during reenactments even though those provisions were not directly challenged. They also cleaned up exemptions for qualified in state and out of state active and retired leos Good thing they thought this law through before ramming it through. Fucking morons.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2023 11:46:42 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DaveM4P99: Good thing they thought this law through before ramming it through. Fucking morons. I firmly believe they had it ready for what they knew was going to be a pro-2A decision. What they did not predict was the verbiage in the decision which specifically prohibited the broad use of "sensitive" areas. the problem.... the politicization of the courts and the 2nd circus.... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2023 12:17:04 PM EDT
[#21]
|
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 5/8/2023 1:08:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Aardvark]
[#22]
Quote HistoryI was wondering why the State of Illinois was responding when the directive was issued to Naperville. I see Illinois has intervened on behalf of Naperville. I suspect Naperville was like a deer in the headlights when Justice ACB demanded a response by today  44 pages long I'll have to wait for the Cliff Notes summary by either Four Boxes Diner or Langley Outdoors Academy. Next question will be how long with it take for ACB to decide what happens next?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2023 1:27:12 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryLots of babbling about weapons needing to be "commonly used for self-defense" to qualify for 2A protection. That is NOT the standard per the Heller and Bruen decisions. All arms in common use by Americans for lawful purposes are protected by the 2A. Period. No further discussion or analysis is required. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2023 1:46:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: DaveM4P99]
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GTwannabe: Lots of babbling about weapons needing to be "commonly used for self-defense" to qualify for 2A protection. That is NOT the standard per the Heller and Bruen decisions. All arms in common use by Americans for lawful purposes are protected by the 2A. Period. No further discussion or analysis is required. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GTwannabe: Lots of babbling about weapons needing to be "commonly used for self-defense" to qualify for 2A protection. That is NOT the standard per the Heller and Bruen decisions. All arms in common use by Americans for lawful purposes are protected by the 2A. Period. No further discussion or analysis is required. Yeah they didn't try to hard. They know they can't justify their laws, just like NY. SCOTUS is going to mop the floor with decisions like these. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 5/10/2023 11:02:30 AM EDT
[#25]
What the state is trying to do is specifically moot the case on the basis of the plaintiffs and their particular complaint. That is "persons responsible for security". Can't the plaintiffs amend their complaint to include an additional plaintiff who is simply a private citizen wishes by to carry at church?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2023 11:18:33 AM EDT
[#26]
Luke 22:36
Then he said to them, “But now, whoever has a money-bag should take it, and also a traveling bag. And whoever doesn’t have a sword should sell his robe and buy one. Jesus said security is our own responsibility. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2023 1:08:31 PM EDT
[#27]
Seems familiar.
|
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 5/14/2023 12:30:08 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By P400:Seems familiar.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2023 1:33:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: xd341]
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Aardvark: Meanwhile in the 2nd they are still debating the TRO heard on March 20th Isn't one of the cases already sitting in the queue for SCOTUS to step in due to the 2nds delay? I know ours was invited back if the 2nd doesn't make with the decision most rikky tik... |
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 5/14/2023 2:57:03 PM EDT
[#30]
Debating - not really, I assume that's sarcasm. They already know that they will stall to maximum allowable and then not support the TRO. So does that mean Scotus then takes an appeal of that? If they do, how long until they did and then decide? Or will they say - oh, good, you made a decision like we said to do. We won't overturn it but allow the cases now to proceed through normal process with their long time scales.
Guess which I bet on - no relief for a long time, if ever. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 5/15/2023 9:50:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: M-Aurelius]
[#31]
Do any of the existing lawsuits specifically target the outrageous training requirements and fees? This is becoming a substantial issue in many counties where the cost, number of hours and months of wait time is dissuading, delaying and interfering with people's ability to obtain a license.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2023 10:48:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: DaveM4P99]
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By M-Aurelius: Do any of the existing lawsuits specifically target the outrageous training requirements and fees? This is becoming a substantial issue in many counties where the cost, number of hours and months of wait time is dissuading, delaying and interfering with people's ability to obtain a license. I believe this lawsuit with Nolo addresses the crazy training requirement. Unfortunately Suddaby kept the training in place and didn't issue an injunction on that... His ridiculous reasoning was because people in the 1700s were more familiar with firearms than they are today. So training is more important today. Which is both untrue and still unconstitutional. Yes militias had training requirements but they did not take away your guns or revoke your right to carry if you didn't complete the training. Plus there is no militia requirement in the 2nd amendment anyway. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 5/15/2023 12:24:49 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: The state added amendments permitting certain formally prohibited activities. Thus the legal challenges to the CCIA provisions which prohibited firearms in (a) places of worship and (b) in Catskill Park are now moot as those restrictions no longer exist. The other challenges remain before the 2nd Circuit... Also they did some clean-up allowing firearms possession while hunting, training and during reenactments even though those provisions were not directly challenged. They also cleaned up exemptions for qualified in state and out of state active and retired leos Where can I get a summary of the latest changes? |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 5/15/2023 12:59:06 PM EDT
[#34]
I found this article about the place of worship carry:
https://buffalonews.com/news/local/new-york-amends-concealed-carry-law-legal-challenges-buffalo-mass-shooting/article_6ed42e82-ef32-11ed-90b8-33e52d67d2a3.html My favorite quote from the article: "While the amendments approved by state legislators and signed by Gov. Kathy Hochul allow pastors to carry firearms at their church, that right does not extend to worshippers, according to Hitsous, the assistant solicitor general for the state. “Plaintiffs do not purport to raise Second Amendment claims on behalf of their congregants, and there is no authority for third-party standing in such circumstances. Thus, plaintiffs’ action challenging the place-of-worship provision is now moot,” Hitsous said." |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2023 1:05:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: emsjeep]
[#35]
Submitted a letter day after Bruen asking for an upgrade, ignored, check not cashed. Waited to get into a class, resubmitted in February, still no action. Are these the actions of a legitimate government? I think not.
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 5/15/2023 1:18:11 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By emsjeep: Submitted a letter bay after Bruen asking for an upgrade, ignored, check not cashed. Waited to get into a class, resubmitted in February, still no action. Are these the actions of a legitimate government? I think not. What County? |
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 5/15/2023 1:31:10 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By batjka104: What County? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By batjka104: Originally Posted By emsjeep: Submitted a letter bay after Bruen asking for an upgrade, ignored, check not cashed. Waited to get into a class, resubmitted in February, still no action. Are these the actions of a legitimate government? I think not. What County? Curious myself. I would think Nassau would cash the check because this county is all about the money. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 5/15/2023 2:22:35 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Aardvark: If I had to guess I would say Nassau though Westchester would be a close second. Curious myself. I would think Nassau would cash the check because this county is all about the money. I put in for an amendment in Westchester about 3 weeks after Bruen. I got my full carry in about 1.5 months after applying. No class was required at the time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2023 3:07:06 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By batjka104: What County? |
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 5/16/2023 7:21:07 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By emsjeep: Suffolk |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 5/16/2023 11:55:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: batjka104]
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By batjka104: I found this article about the place of worship carry: https://buffalonews.com/news/local/new-york-amends-concealed-carry-law-legal-challenges-buffalo-mass-shooting/article_6ed42e82-ef32-11ed-90b8-33e52d67d2a3.html My favorite quote from the article: "While the amendments approved by state legislators and signed by Gov. Kathy Hochul allow pastors to carry firearms at their church, that right does not extend to worshippers, according to Hitsous, the assistant solicitor general for the state. “Plaintiffs do not purport to raise Second Amendment claims on behalf of their congregants, and there is no authority for third-party standing in such circumstances. Thus, plaintiffs’ action challenging the place-of-worship provision is now moot,” Hitsous said." So they used a dirty trick of only allowing the pastors to carry in church, because the pastors sued. But since the parishioners did not sue, they cannot carry. It's a disgrace, a complete lie, a spit in the face of the Supreme Court and the citizenry. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 5/16/2023 1:04:22 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By batjka104: So they used a dirty trick of only allowing the pastors to carry in church, because the pastors sued. But since the parishioners did not sue, they cannot carry. It's a disgrace, a complete lie, a spit in the face of the Supreme Court and the citizenry. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By batjka104: Originally Posted By batjka104: I found this article about the place of worship carry: https://buffalonews.com/news/local/new-york-amends-concealed-carry-law-legal-challenges-buffalo-mass-shooting/article_6ed42e82-ef32-11ed-90b8-33e52d67d2a3.html My favorite quote from the article: "While the amendments approved by state legislators and signed by Gov. Kathy Hochul allow pastors to carry firearms at their church, that right does not extend to worshippers, according to Hitsous, the assistant solicitor general for the state. “Plaintiffs do not purport to raise Second Amendment claims on behalf of their congregants, and there is no authority for third-party standing in such circumstances. Thus, plaintiffs’ action challenging the place-of-worship provision is now moot,” Hitsous said." So they used a dirty trick of only allowing the pastors to carry in church, because the pastors sued. But since the parishioners did not sue, they cannot carry. It's a disgrace, a complete lie, a spit in the face of the Supreme Court and the citizenry. But since the 2nd circus has refused to moot the lawsuit (which is what I thought read) their dirty trick didn't work. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 5/16/2023 1:14:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: fnub315]
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By nyrifle: Suffolk is running 4-5 months for the "carry" upgrade. Suffolk and Nassau are basically NYC at this point |
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 5/16/2023 2:13:43 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By StymieCosentino: But since the 2nd circus has refused to moot the lawsuit (which is what I thought read) their dirty trick didn't work. I suppose the 2nd Circus might just scrap just about everything they may have already written from the March 20th hearing and just go along with the states' claim the cases are moot, since they really really want to find for the state. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2023 4:17:15 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Aardvark: Nothing has been decided on anything at this point as I read the article. The last activity from the 2nd Circuit was the hearing on March 20th on the TRO's. The only statement about the case being moot is from Jonathan D. Hitsous, the assistant solicitor general for the state. But one would expect him to believe that. I suppose the 2nd Circus might just scrap just about everything they may have already written from the March 20th hearing and just go along with the states' claim the cases are moot, since they really really want to find for the state. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Aardvark: Originally Posted By StymieCosentino: But since the 2nd circus has refused to moot the lawsuit (which is what I thought read) their dirty trick didn't work. I suppose the 2nd Circus might just scrap just about everything they may have already written from the March 20th hearing and just go along with the states' claim the cases are moot, since they really really want to find for the state. I'm your Huckleberry... Thomas and Alito would have raging boners if the 2nd's response to their directive to come forward with their justification for ignoring all of our claims with an argument that they are moot because the state addressed maybe 5% of the claims. |
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 5/16/2023 4:27:14 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HiramRanger: I'm your Huckleberry... Thomas and Alito would have raging boners if the 2nd's response to their directive to come forward with their justification for ignoring all of our claims with an argument that they are moot because the state addressed maybe 5% of the claims. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HiramRanger: Originally Posted By Aardvark: Originally Posted By StymieCosentino: But since the 2nd circus has refused to moot the lawsuit (which is what I thought read) their dirty trick didn't work. I suppose the 2nd Circus might just scrap just about everything they may have already written from the March 20th hearing and just go along with the states' claim the cases are moot, since they really really want to find for the state. I'm your Huckleberry... Thomas and Alito would have raging boners if the 2nd's response to their directive to come forward with their justification for ignoring all of our claims with an argument that they are moot because the state addressed maybe 5% of the claims. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2023 4:34:49 PM EDT
[#47]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2023 4:45:15 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bushman_269: Did we do this one yet? Sensitive places enjoined in NJ Federal District Court Good news. There's just no way to justify the constitutionality of most gun laws after Bruen. The liberal circuit courts will fight it, but the ink on Bruen isn't even dry...there's no getting around it. |
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 5/16/2023 5:56:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: kzin]
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DaveM4P99: Good news. There's just no way to justify the constitutionality of most gun laws after Bruen. The liberal circuit courts will fight it, but the ink on Bruen isn't even dry...there's no getting around it. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DaveM4P99: Originally Posted By Bushman_269: Did we do this one yet? Sensitive places enjoined in NJ Federal District Court Good news. There's just no way to justify the constitutionality of most gun laws after Bruen. The liberal circuit courts will fight it, but the ink on Bruen isn't even dry...there's no getting around it. I just read through that decision. 100% win, the only provisions not enjoined were those not challenged. Great text basically saying the State had nothing Bruen legal. He also referenced Suddaby's NY decision at least twice as being obviously correct. I bet the district gives it the same knee-jerk, unsupported stay, though :( ETA lol - what I read was the TRO decision from January :) Now to read the new one - hopefully it's just as good and longer. |
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 5/17/2023 9:02:02 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By nyrifle: I may have this confused but I remember NYC trying to moot the Bruen case in the 1st place so the SC would not rule on it. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By nyrifle: Originally Posted By HiramRanger: Originally Posted By Aardvark: Originally Posted By StymieCosentino: But since the 2nd circus has refused to moot the lawsuit (which is what I thought read) their dirty trick didn't work. I suppose the 2nd Circus might just scrap just about everything they may have already written from the March 20th hearing and just go along with the states' claim the cases are moot, since they really really want to find for the state. I'm your Huckleberry... Thomas and Alito would have raging boners if the 2nd's response to their directive to come forward with their justification for ignoring all of our claims with an argument that they are moot because the state addressed maybe 5% of the claims. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
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.
