Waiting for Justice! Antonyuk/GOA/Bruen (Page 60 of 61)
|
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. Link to four year roadmap? |
|
Originally Posted By LamePostCount: Link to four year roadmap? Originally Posted By LamePostCount: 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. Link to four year roadmap? 
|
|
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. IMHO, the fight at this point is to keep anything passing at the federal level so we can still have free states to move to. Blue states are going to be blue no matter what at this point. |
|
Link to Trump-Vance “priorities” page: https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/ This is what he told us at the NRA Convention; “Every single Biden attack on gun owners and manufacturers will be terminated my very first week back in office,” -President Trump, NRA Convention Meanwhile, deuces. But we got the Gulf of Mexico renamed the Gulf of America. Guess that was a higher priority. |
|
Originally Posted By M-Aurelius: Link to Trump-Vance "priorities" page: https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/ This is what he told us at the NRA Convention; "Every single Biden attack on gun owners and manufacturers will be terminated my very first week back in office," -President Trump, NRA Convention Meanwhile, deuces. But we got the Gulf of Mexico renamed the Gulf of America. Guess that was a higher priority. |
Joined:
Jul 2022
Posts:
149
EE: 0% (0)
NY, USA
|
Enchiladas will become American Spicy Cheese Rolls before Trump actual does something. He certainly was vocal on other court decisions. How about a little chat re: Scotus passing on these cases? Mark Smith and Armed Scholar say that there is little chance of action. Of course, they are liberal trolls trying to cause depression in gun owners. Friend in Seattle tells me that they might pass a rather draconian insurance requirement for gun owners. It certainly is anti 2A and economically discriminatory with a racial correlation of income. Of course, folks there say - Just you wait till it get to the Supreme Court. Clarence wii .... |
|
Like his last term, It’s a slap in the face to the second amendment community. Executive Orders Giving rights to obscure Indian nations who supported him while not tossing us a bone. I just don’t get the love and take a lot of flack here for not being a “daddy’s boy.” Maybe if he gets some pressure we will revisit the hearing protection act and national reciprocity but I don’t have a great deal of hope: Trump and 2A Community 
|
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.
|
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-795/339880/20250122152930714_Antonyuk%2024-%20Petition.pdf Here y’all go! |
My lungs are black, my heart is pure
My hands are scarred from nights before
My hands are scarred from nights before
|
Originally Posted By NoloContendere: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-795/339880/20250122152930714_Antonyuk%2024-%20Petition.pdf Here y'all go! 
|
CURRENT SKUNK JIHAD SCORE-
Arfcom=23! : SKUNKS=4.5
"They used to be called 'Jumpolines'. Untill your mom got on one back in 1972."
Arfcom=23! : SKUNKS=4.5
"They used to be called 'Jumpolines'. Untill your mom got on one back in 1972."
|
Originally Posted By NoloContendere: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-795/339880/20250122152930714_Antonyuk%2024-%20Petition.pdf Here y’all go! Thank you brother! |
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 NoloContendere: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-795/339880/20250122152930714_Antonyuk%2024-%20Petition.pdf Here y’all go! Thanks for leading the charge. |
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 AdLucem: Thanks for leading the charge. Originally Posted By AdLucem: Originally Posted By NoloContendere: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-795/339880/20250122152930714_Antonyuk%2024-%20Petition.pdf Here y’all go! Thanks for leading the charge. Yes thank you Stephen. Amazing work. I'm betting when you took up this case you thought it would be a slam dunk after Bruen right? NY's utter defiance was expected...but I think we all hoped SCOTUS would intervene a whole lot stronger than than they have. Let's hope they see what NY is doing to defy them, and they grant cert or GVR it again with clearer instructions or something. |
|
Originally Posted By DaveM4P99: NY's utter defiance was expected...but I think we all hoped SCOTUS would intervene a whole lot stronger than than they have. Let's hope they see what NY is doing to defy them, and they grant cert or GVR it again with clearer instructions or something. Guess we will see what the conference brings this week. |
Joined:
Jul 2022
Posts:
151
EE: 0% (0)
NY, USA
|
Good piece from the GOA (obviously liberal trolls) about remind Trump that he owes the RKBA community something. https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/goa-encourages-members-to-remind-trump-about-2a-promises/ A little more important than crackpot schemes to build Rivera resorts in Gaza. Maybe the NYSRPA could get on it, rather than selling Trump commemorative SAAs? |
|
Slow and steady. |
|
Originally Posted By fighter443:
Slow and steady. link directly to case text This case is pretyy significant. It stands as a warning to individuals working in licencing positions who participate in unlawful 2A denials that their conduct will subject them to personal liability in the future. The only reason that the individual officer in this case did not lose his qualified immunity was that the denial occured before Bruen. If that denial had occurred today he would be personally on the hook. Also the county was deemed to be monetarily liable for their denial of a constitutional right and the case is now adjourned not only for the drafting of the permanent injunction but for.... damages! this is a shot across the bow of licensing authorities in NY |
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 AdLucem: link directly to case text This case is pretyy significant. It stands as a warning to individuals working in licencing positions who participate in unlawful 2A denials that their conduct will subject them to personal liability in the future. The only reason that the individual officer in this case did not lose his qualified immunity was that the denial occured before Bruen. If that denial had occurred today he would be personally on the hook. Also the county was deemed to be monetarily liable for their denial of a constitutional right and the case is now adjourned not only for the drafting of the permanent injunction but for.... damages! this is a shot across the bow of licensing authorities in NY |
| A point of clarification. This is a Report and Recommendation by a Magistrate judge and not a District Court decision so it does not yet have the force of law. A Report and Recommendation is a recommendation to a district judge on how to proceed. They are typically approved by a District Judge in the majority of cases where no objections are filed; however, if objections are raised, the District Judge must review those objections and may choose to accept, reject, or modify the Magistrate Judge's recommendations, meaning approval is not guaranteed in all situations. The "final decision" can be appealed to United States Court of Appeals . |
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.
Denied 
|
|
And Antonyuk was denied cert this morning with SCOTUS. They clearly don't care that NY is thumbing their noses at Bruen. So I guess we are back to Suddaby's court, to go to full trial? Suddaby will almost definitely rule in our favor again right? Or does he have to follow the 2nd circus "logic"? Then either way it goes to the 2nd circus, where we lose again... Then to scotus again for one last hail Mary. So what? 3-5 years till we get to the final stage I assume. |
|
Originally Posted By Sgt_Gold: Ok, so with this what is the actual state of the SAFE Act\CCIA in NY? What parts have been struck down, and what is still in force? Basically everything in the CCIA is intact...except the blanket ban on carry in all private businesses open to the public. That was tossed. Safe act...unchanged since Lane vs. James also got punted by the District judge. Karas said nobody made a proper case proving one way or the other that AWs are protected or can be banned. So that goes to full trial at the district level I think? With Judge Karas. So unless scotus picks up Snopes and Ocean State and rules hard for the 2nd amendment, we aren't going to make any progress anytime soon. Fucking sucks. |
|
Thanks for the update. Originally Posted By DaveM4P99: Basically everything in the CCIA is intact...except the blanket ban on carry in all private businesses open to the public. That was tossed. Safe act...unchanged since Lane vs. James also got punted by the District judge. Karas said nobody made a proper case proving one way or the other that AWs are protected or can be banned. So that goes to full trial at the district level I think? With Judge Karas. So unless scotus picks up Snopes and Ocean State and rules hard for the 2nd amendment, we aren't going to make any progress anytime soon. Fucking sucks. |
|
Time to get it on in the Western District. I completely understand why the team tried for immediate relief, but Roberts and the other cuckservatives are clearly not interested in protecting our rights and are willing to let the abuse play out so that when we finally win we will have "earned it" by playing their fucked up interlocutory jihad game. Nolo keep up the fight brother. We love you. |
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: Time to get it on in the Western District. I completely understand why the team tried for immediate relief, but Roberts and the other cuckservatives are clearly not interested in protecting our rights and are willing to let the abuse play out so that when we finally win we will have "earned it" by playing their fucked up interlocutory jihad game. Nolo keep up the fight brother. We love you. You think Suddaby can rule in our favor again? Or are his hands tied by the 2nd circus and their "logic"? Obviously the 2nd circuit will overturn whatever positive gun ruling Suddaby could give, but it would be nice to win again even if it was pointless. Only thing Suddaby got wrong was saying mandatory training was constitutional. His logic was that people in the 1700s and 1800s were more familiar with guns, so they didn't need training. Which is obviously incorrect. And he also said that militias required training, so that justifies it. But that makes no sense because they didn't require you to pass training to own or carry guns...it was only if you were in the active militia. They didn't take personal guns away from you if you weren't "well regulated" or forbid you from carrying them for protection. They wanted regular citizens to own guns in the hopes that they could fight back as a militia if the need ever arose. Oh and school carry. They didn't ban guns from the one room schoolhouse in the 1700s or 1800s. Definitely not by law. So school carry should be allowed too. And the fact that the state is having to hire historians to scour obscure historical texts just to find a small glimmer of an analogous gun law proves our point... Everything the state finds is an outlier. |
|
Originally Posted By DaveM4P99: You think Suddaby can rule in our favor again? Or are his hands tied by the 2nd circus and their "logic"? Obviously the 2nd circuit will overturn whatever positive gun ruling Suddaby could give, but it would be nice to win again even if it was pointless. Only thing Suddaby got wrong was saying mandatory training was constitutional. His logic was that people in the 1700s and 1800s were more familiar with guns, so they didn't need training. Which is obviously incorrect. And he also said that militias required training, so that justifies it. But that makes no sense because they didn't require you to pass training to own or carry guns...it was only if you were in the active militia. They didn't take your guns away or forbid carry if you didn't undergo militia training. Oh and school carry. They didn't ban guns from the one room schoolhouse in the 1700s or 1800s. Definitely not by law. So school carry should be allowed too. Originally Posted By DaveM4P99: Originally Posted By HiramRanger: Time to get it on in the Western District. I completely understand why the team tried for immediate relief, but Roberts and the other cuckservatives are clearly not interested in protecting our rights and are willing to let the abuse play out so that when we finally win we will have "earned it" by playing their fucked up interlocutory jihad game. Nolo keep up the fight brother. We love you. You think Suddaby can rule in our favor again? Or are his hands tied by the 2nd circus and their "logic"? Obviously the 2nd circuit will overturn whatever positive gun ruling Suddaby could give, but it would be nice to win again even if it was pointless. Only thing Suddaby got wrong was saying mandatory training was constitutional. His logic was that people in the 1700s and 1800s were more familiar with guns, so they didn't need training. Which is obviously incorrect. And he also said that militias required training, so that justifies it. But that makes no sense because they didn't require you to pass training to own or carry guns...it was only if you were in the active militia. They didn't take your guns away or forbid carry if you didn't undergo militia training. Oh and school carry. They didn't ban guns from the one room schoolhouse in the 1700s or 1800s. Definitely not by law. So school carry should be allowed too. Yes Suddaby can rule in our favor. Everything to date has been based on his TRO and whether it would be stayed or not. The Supreme Court would not take this case because it had not worked its way through the system and the relief we were seeking was interlocutory. All the second circuit said was in their estimation the state would prevail in court. Suddaby hasn't telegraphed that. And you can wish for a 100% ideologically aligned ruling from Suddaby, it isn't going to happen. I happen to agree with you that it is the way it SHOULD be, but if that is your standard for victory you will be sadly disappointed. The entirity of the CCIA is not likely to be struck down. |
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: Yes Suddaby can rule in our favor. Everything to date has been based on his TRO and whether it would be stayed or not. The Supreme Court would not take this case because it had not worked its way through the system and the relief we were seeking was interlocutory. All the second circuit said was in their estimation the state would prevail in court. Suddaby hasn't telegraphed that. And you can wish for a 100% ideologically aligned ruling from Suddaby, it isn't going to happen. I happen to agree with you that it is the way it SHOULD be, but if that is your standard for victory you will be sadly disappointed. The entirity of the CCIA is not likely to be struck down. Originally Posted By HiramRanger: Originally Posted By DaveM4P99: Originally Posted By HiramRanger: Time to get it on in the Western District. I completely understand why the team tried for immediate relief, but Roberts and the other cuckservatives are clearly not interested in protecting our rights and are willing to let the abuse play out so that when we finally win we will have "earned it" by playing their fucked up interlocutory jihad game. Nolo keep up the fight brother. We love you. You think Suddaby can rule in our favor again? Or are his hands tied by the 2nd circus and their "logic"? Obviously the 2nd circuit will overturn whatever positive gun ruling Suddaby could give, but it would be nice to win again even if it was pointless. Only thing Suddaby got wrong was saying mandatory training was constitutional. His logic was that people in the 1700s and 1800s were more familiar with guns, so they didn't need training. Which is obviously incorrect. And he also said that militias required training, so that justifies it. But that makes no sense because they didn't require you to pass training to own or carry guns...it was only if you were in the active militia. They didn't take your guns away or forbid carry if you didn't undergo militia training. Oh and school carry. They didn't ban guns from the one room schoolhouse in the 1700s or 1800s. Definitely not by law. So school carry should be allowed too. Yes Suddaby can rule in our favor. Everything to date has been based on his TRO and whether it would be stayed or not. The Supreme Court would not take this case because it had not worked its way through the system and the relief we were seeking was interlocutory. All the second circuit said was in their estimation the state would prevail in court. Suddaby hasn't telegraphed that. And you can wish for a 100% ideologically aligned ruling from Suddaby, it isn't going to happen. I happen to agree with you that it is the way it SHOULD be, but if that is your standard for victory you will be sadly disappointed. The entirity of the CCIA is not likely to be struck down. No totally. I don't think it'll all be struck...just hoping Nolo and team can argue the above points and change Suddaby's mind on those ones. |
|
Also, the definition of their "good moral character" requirement... “having the essential character, temperament and judgement necessary to be entrusted with a weapon and to use it only in a manner that does not endanger oneself or others.” The whole god damn point we own guns is to possibly endanger others. Even if endanger means wrongful harm...it's still ambiguous. And "well regulated" / training - They didn't take personal guns away from you if you weren't "well regulated" or forbid you from carrying them for protection. They wanted regular citizens to own guns in the hopes that they could fight back as a militia if the need ever arose. Suddaby hopefully learns this during the trial. |
I think he makes a good point regarding SC’s habit of not taking cases that are on interlocutory appeal. BREAKING NEWS: SCOTUS DENIES CERT IN ANOTHER 2ND AMENDMENT CASE... |
When they kick out your front door
How you gonna come?
With your hands on your head
Or on the trigger of your gun?
How you gonna come?
With your hands on your head
Or on the trigger of your gun?
|
>>All the second circuit said was in their estimation the state would prevail in court. Which is why nobody has respect for the courts. They strain the boundaries of credulity with fallacies easily disproven by the Bruen ruling. They’ve become biased auspices of a political party, not neutral arbiters of the law. Based on the facts this isn’t even a close call. They just want to delay its inevitable implementation and even the most pedestrian citizen can see it. It’s just one more reason why people are leaving NY. Justice delayed is indeed justice denied and in this state it is not simply the Second Amendment. It is any issue, civil or criminal, that the corrupt courts litigate. |
|
Originally Posted By cranberry1: Anyone know where we stand and what to expect in the coming months is there a timeline or hearing coming up. Nolo says they will begin discovery soon. |
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- since liberal judges new favorite trick in issuing injunctions and applying rulings nationwide from lower courts is, from what I can tell, to grant a class status which immediately puts that ruling in place for all states, remind me why conservative judges are not doing this with respect to the Second Amendment? What am I missing here? |
|
Originally Posted By 69rrdriver: Any date for the next step? I personally wouldn’t expect updates here. |
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!"