Recent New York Anti-Carry Law now at Supreme Court

[ISCS Yoda]

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

Alternative? Constitutional Convention.

A very bad plan and one nobody should advocate. A constitutional convention REALLY and LITERALLY will open the Pandora's box, the can of worms, whatever negative such term you can think of. There is no rule that says the government or the people can call such a convention and limit it to one thing. If you feel inclined to jeopardize all of your First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights go move to Canada where you don't have those. PLEASE! Tell your friends - NEVER advocate for a constitutional convention. NOT EVER!!!

As for this:

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.

That's correct but nobody is doing that and we need to stick to the current issues in the courts and in the Congress.


______________

 

[ISCS Yoda]

Mr. Muggins is correct. What's interesting is that Justice Sotomayor wanted to see New York's response in the legal equivalent of "immediately if not sooner."

and

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 don't mix up the courts. The District Court in NY is junior to the Second Circuit court. The Second Circuit can always overturn a Southern or Eastern District of NY decision. The problem is that the District Court was 100% correct and Justice Sotomayor knows that, and she knows what the Supreme Court held in Bruen even she was not ruling with the majority.
So, in THAT case, she is at the senior court level and could find herself considerably irked that a lower court cavalierly dismissed an even lower court's ruling that was based on a SCOTUS decision.

This should be interesting.

 

[dsf]

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

And yet, I'll bet about half the gunowners in each state voted for them.

 

[tmd17]

... if we ever get to the point of convening an actual Convention of States, we better make damn sure that we have the majority opinion on OUR side ....

We can't even agree who is on our side, much less move in unison.

 

[BC38]

We can't even agree who is on our side, much less move in unison.

GOOD point! Even in a pro-gun forum like this one, we still find ourselves squabbling over minutia...

 

[bushmaster1313]

New York's Jan 3 Opposition at the Supreme Court

Bushmaster1313's take on ^^^

Guns are bad
Laws that restrict ordinary people from carrying guns are good

 

[John Patrick]

New York's Jan 3 Opposition at the Supreme Court

Bushmaster1313's take on ^^^

Guns are bad
Laws that restrict ordinary people from carrying guns are good

I enjoyed the state's argument that "even if it's unconstitutional for us to infringe on one of the named complainant's Constitutional rights, it's ok for us to infringe on every other New Yorker's Constitutional rights until every individual New Yorker sues us to stop us from infringing on their individual Constitutional rights."

 

[bushmaster1313]

GOOD point! Even in a pro-gun forum like this one, we still find ourselves squabbling over minutia...

A well hashed minutia being necessary to the security of a free forum the right of the members to keep squabbling shall not be infringed.

 

[fordson]

Well hashed minutia being necessary to the security of a free forum the right of members to keep squabbling shall not be infringed.

Hahaha…….well said

 

[GaryS]

This sort of thing will continue to happen until the government officials who are making them are consistently sued in both their professional and individual capacities under federal law. Once they, not the taxpayers, are writing the checks out of their personal accounts they'll reconsider their unconstitutional ways.

I enjoyed the state's argument that "even if it's unconstitutional for us to infringe on one of the named complainant's Constitutional rights, it's ok for us to infringe on every other New Yorker's Constitutional rights until every individual New Yorker sues us to stop us from infringing on their individual Constitutional rights."

 

[John Patrick]

This sort of thing will continue to happen until the government officials who are making them are consistently sued in both their professional and individual capacities under federal law. Once they, not the taxpayers, are writing the checks out of their personal accounts they'll reconsider their unconstitutional ways.

You're preaching to the quire! It's past time for 2A organizations to start suing the individual officials for money damages under the civil rights statutes.

 

[BC38]

You're preaching to the quire! It's past time for 2A organizations to start suing the individual officials for money damages under the civil rights statutes.

Never happen. They have granted themselves immunity from any bad thing that might happen to any of us little people as a consequence of their actions. And the only way for those laws to be revoked would be for them to revoke them. Think they'll ever do that?

 

[Racer X]

Never happen. They have granted themselves immunity from any bad thing that might happen to any of us little people as a consequence of their actions. And the only way for those laws to be revoked would be for them to revoke them. Think they'll ever do that?

Maybe the various 2A organizations SHOULD sue individual legislators and get those suits before SCOTUS, who MIGHT declare Legislature's immunity from Civil Rights violations Unconstitutional? The legislature's defense that we decided we are immune is suspect at best.

 

[BC38]

Maybe the various 2A organizations SHOULD sue individual legislators and get those suits before SCOTUS, who MIGHT declare Legislature's immunity from Civil Rights violations Unconstitutional? The legislature's defense that we decided we are immune is suspect at best.

All valid observations and good thoughts.
I'm no lawyer, but they are going to have to find someone with "standing" (someone who has suffered provable injury) in order to even bring a suit attempting to revoke the existing laws giving them immunity.
I'm not sure how many judges are going to be willing to rule that way either - since the same liability would then also be applied to them.

 

[John Patrick]

All valid observations and good thoughts.
I'm no lawyer, but they are going to have to find someone with "standing" (someone who has suffered provable injury) in order to even bring a suit attempting to revoke the existing laws giving them immunity.
I'm not sure how many judges are going to be willing to rule that way either - since the same liability would then also be applied to them.

It's not the legislators that get sued, it's the state officials in their individual capacity acting under "color of law" which implement the unconstitutional deprivation of rights.

Under the civil rights laws judges are immune.

I'm going deer hunting this afternoon. I'll find the citation to the law and post it while in my stand. I'll try to find analogous cases too.

 

[Stephanie B]

Maybe the various 2A organizations SHOULD sue individual legislators and get those suits before SCOTUS, who MIGHT declare Legislature's immunity from Civil Rights violations Unconstitutional? The legislature's defense that we decided we are immune is suspect at best.

I think that suing a legislator because the party bringing the suit doesn't like how they voted on a bill is about the worst idea I've heard this year. If a person is killed by a drunk driver, can the survivors sue the legislators who voted against yet another anti-drunk-driving bill? Sue the legislators who didn't vote to close all the bars at 1 AM?

 

[delcrossv]

I think that suing a legislator because the party bringing the suit doesn't like how they voted on a bill is about the worst idea I've heard this year. If a person is killed by a drunk driver, can the survivors sue the legislators who voted against yet another anti-drunk-driving bill? Sue the legislators who didn't vote to close all the bars at 1 AM?

Not a good analogy as driving drunk is not a civil right.

 

[PPS1980]

First, Sotomayor got this case because she automatically gets all 2nd Circuit cases, its her assignment. If she denies then the case can be submitted to any justice. (Apologies to Muggins as he already pointed this out).

Second, I know of no state that allows sitting legislators to be sued for actions taken in their official capacity - particularly relating to being on the floor (voting) or in chambers (committees) - relating to their official duties. Sorry, but suing a legislator for voting in a manner you dislike isn't subject to civil filing its got to wait until the next election or a recall.

Judge Napolitano's analysis of this issue at the Supreme Court:
Supreme Court & the NY Gun Carry Law - YouTube

 

[ladder13]

Status quo for now.

Supreme Court allows New York gun law to remain in effect

 

[HeyJoe]

Status quo for now.

Supreme Court allows New York gun law to remain in effect

unbelievable.