Recent New York Anti-Carry Law now at Supreme Court

[bushmaster1313]

Right after the Bruen Decision from the U.S. Supreme Court, the New York Legislature held an "Extraordinary" midnight session and passed a law with a gaggle of restrictions explicitly designed to "fight back" against the U.S. Supreme Court. Several pro-2A groups filed lawsuits in U.S. District Court to enjoin New York from enforcing the new laws and by and large the District Court judges who ruled on these laws found them to the blatantly in violation of the U.S. Constitution. One of the cases is known as Antonyuk II, where the District Court Judge wrote a 187 Opinion in which he sliced and diced the New York law.

As expected, New York appealed to the Second Circuit. Without any written analysis, the Second Circuit immediately reinstated the New York law. On December 21, 2022 the pro-2A Plaintiffs filed an Emergency Application to the U.S. Supreme Court to reinstate the District Court's Decision. This Application went to Justice Sonya Sotomayor.
Copy of the Application here.

Copy of the Appendix to the Application here

Justice Sotomayor is not known for being sympathetic to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. However, on December 27, 2022 Justice Sotomayor requested the State of New York to respond to the Application by 4:00 PM on January 3, 2022. This means that the Application caught Justice Sotomayor's eye and is a good omen.

Link to Supreme Court Docket in Antonyuk II

 

[M29since14]

I am not a legal tradesman but I have seen enough of judges to understand that they don't like to have their decrees and orders trifled with, even by other judges. Maybe especially by other judges?

 

[bushmaster1313]

I am not a legal tradesman but I have seen enough of judges to understand that they don't like to have their decrees and orders trifled with, even by other judges. Maybe especially by other judges?

One foundation of the Rule of Law is that judges must follow the rulings of their superiors. There is simply no wiggle room for a judge to go against a ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States.

 

[NYlakesider]

As a pistol permit holder since 1970 and past instructor I hope this mess gets straightened out fast and in the right way.

With all the BS the governor and "our elected officials" did the whole state is in a serious confusion mode. No one appears to know for sure what is legal or illegal. You even ask 4 cops a carry question and you can easily get 4 different answers

A strict interpretation of this new law and about the only place many people can carry is their own property. That is due to the nonsense of any place that wants to allow a legally carried gun to come in has to have a big sign that basically says that. Even going somewhere and locking you gun in a car is almost
impossible to do. So gun owners are in a Catch 22.

I was hoping that this would fast track and hopefully we would get back many/most of our rights. Keep a eye on what is going on as its miles beyond interesting at this point now!

 

[bushmaster1313]

As a pistol permit holder since 1970 and past instructor I hope this mess gets straightened out fast and in the right way.

One very sad point is that in New York and New Jersey the Bruen decision motivated the legislatures and the governors to take away 2A rights

 

[Protocall_Design]

I'm hoping that by ignoring the rule of law, the anti's are building a house of cards that will cave in on them. Only time will tell.

 

[mauser9]

Small wonder so many are fleeing these lousy Blue States. Not just gun laws but just about all else!

 

[bushmaster1313]

I'm hoping that by ignoring the rule of law, the anti's are building a house of cards that will cave in on them. Only time will tell.

Extreme swings of the pendulum create momentum in the other direction. Two cases on point. First, the Supreme Court only took up and ruled in our favor in Heller when Washington D.C. banned all handgun purchases and prohibited keeping any functioning gun in the home. Second, the Supreme Court smacked down New York and New Jersey in Bruen for prohibiting ordinary citizens from bearing arms outside the home for self defense.

We need to consider this well and not advocate for our own extremes, like mail order machine guns and the right to keep and bear grenades, rockets and Claymores.

 

[Borderboss]

Extreme swings of the pendulum create momentum in the other direction. Two cases on point. First, the Supreme Court only took up and ruled in our favor in Heller when Washington D.C. banned all handgun purchases and prohibited keeping any functioning gun in the home. Second, the Supreme Court smacked down New York and New Jersey in Bruen for prohibiting ordinary citizens from bearing arms outside the home for self defense.

We need to consider this well and not advocate for our own extremes, like mail order machine guns and the right to keep and bear grenades, rockets and Claymores.

What the heck are you talking about?

 

[robertrwalsh]

I am both hopeful and confident the force of the Second Amendment will prevail. The road, however, may be longer and more rocky than many would like even though a win down the road is very likely.

 

[bushmaster1313]

What the heck are you talking about?

We got wins in Heller and Bruen because the other side's positions were so extreme.

If our side takes extreme positions we should expect to lose.

 

[Borderboss]

We got wins in Heller and If our side takes extreme positions we should expect to lose.

And where have you seen that? I haven't seen it at all.

 

[bushmaster1313]

And where have you seen that? I haven't seen it at all.

Based on over 30 years of litigating in Federal Courts I have seen over and over that fair judges do not take kindly to extreme positions. It's sort of like what they say on Wall Street: "Bulls and Bears Win — Pigs Lose"

 

[Borderboss]

Based on over 30 years of litigating in Federal Courts I have seen over and over that fair judges do not take kindly to extreme positions. It's sort of like what they say on Wall Street: "Bulls and Bears Win — Pigs Lose"

Again, who have you seen do this? There shouldn't be any lecturing on our side where it's not warranted. Let's keep an eye on who the real enemy is in this fight to keep our constitutional rights.

 

[tops]

I assume I don't understand and I know I'm not very intelligent. If Justice Sotomayor is not known for being sympathetic for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms why would she get involved unless she thinks it will hinder the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Larry

 

[NYlakesider]

I assume I don't understand and I know I'm not very intelligent. If Justice Sotomayor is not known for being sympathetic for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms why would she get involved unless she thinks it will hinder the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Larry

That is the $64,000 question, I saw that real fast.

"Beware of Greeks bearing gifts!"

 

[Racer X]

perhaps she saw New York State's behavior as flipping off the Supreme Court, and that if you let one state slide and ignore the Constitution and clarifying ruling by SCOTUS,, then you have effectively lost authority over all states.

 

[John Patrick]

One foundation of the Rule of Law is that judges must follow the rulings of their superiors. There is simply no wiggle room for a judge to go against a ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States.

But the leftist judges do anyway.

 

[John Patrick]

One very sad point is that in New York and New Jersey the Bruen decision motivated the legislatures and the governors to take away 2A rights

It's not a sad point, it's an opportunity to require the states to adhere to the 2A.

 

[John Patrick]

Extreme swings of the pendulum create momentum in the other direction. Two cases on point. First, the Supreme Court only took up and ruled in our favor in Heller when Washington D.C. banned all handgun purchases and prohibited keeping any functioning gun in the home. Second, the Supreme Court smacked down New York and New Jersey in Bruen for prohibiting ordinary citizens from bearing arms outside the home for self defense.

We need to consider this well and not advocate for our own extremes, like mail order machine guns and the right to keep and bear grenades, rockets and Claymores.

****! 2A is plain. EVERY modern military weapon ought to be legal under 2A! EVERY military weapon available in 1784 was legal.

Alternative? Constitutional Convention.