Partial Win - Otherwise Loss in NY Carry Appeal
- Thread starter bushmaster1313
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Seeing what political BS Governess Hochul is capable of I expect another end run to circumvent the parts of this decision that do not go along with their Disarm the General Population elitist views.
Its a shame that some items go so slow through the court system. A obvious disregard of a court decision by bureaucrats should be fast tracked so it can be overruled by those courts.
Doing what she and the downstate legislatures does effectively keeps the gun laws in this state into a total quagmire for the honest tax paying citizen!
Its a shame that some items go so slow through the court system. A obvious disregard of a court decision by bureaucrats should be fast tracked so it can be overruled by those courts.
Doing what she and the downstate legislatures does effectively keeps the gun laws in this state into a total quagmire for the honest tax paying citizen!
John Patrick
Member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2021
- Messages
- 1,575
- Reaction score
- 2,465
This is the solution, but we don't use it:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
(R.S. § 1979; Pub. L. 96–170, § 1, Dec. 29, 1979, 93 Stat. 1284; Pub. L. 104–317, title III, § 309(c), Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3853.)
US Code Section 1983
We should be hitting the Governors, police chiefs, state attorneys generals in their personal pocketbooks. A nationwide campaign and this **** would end quickly, imo.
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
(R.S. § 1979; Pub. L. 96–170, § 1, Dec. 29, 1979, 93 Stat. 1284; Pub. L. 104–317, title III, § 309(c), Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3853.)
US Code Section 1983
We should be hitting the Governors, police chiefs, state attorneys generals in their personal pocketbooks. A nationwide campaign and this **** would end quickly, imo.
Last edited:
SAFireman
Member
I think that you are correct. Bury these officials in 1983 lawsuits that they bear individual financial responsibility for, and we will see things change. I would imagine that they will claim qualified immunity and ask the taxpayers to fund their defense and settlement.
LVSteve
Member
Can you imagine how quickly The Hill would pass qualified immunity for all elected officials if there were a significant number of 1983 lawsuits filed?
Is there a Cliff Notes version of the ruling?
OP
Here is the abridged version:
"You are hopeless ignorant Hicks if for even a moment you think WE are going to let you exercise your Constitutional Rights in OUR State."
Last edited:
Ok…..got it….
John Patrick
Member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2021
- Messages
- 1,575
- Reaction score
- 2,465
Not if conservative Constitution abiding lawmakers can block either House majority or bypassing a Senate filibuster.
ETA: But no matter the outcome it would put RINOs and leftists on record.
Last edited:
injunctions of lower court sustained against prohibitions of carrying in churches and other religious institutions, private property where there is public access. injunction also sustained against requiring carry license applicant from disclosing their social media site uses.
Every other injunction from the lower court against the rest of the law vacated.
A big loss overall.
So we are years out at the least from any if any relief from the supreme court. maybe if we pooled our money and bought them vacations, gifts, and bought their relatives houses, it would be addressed sooner with greater success.
2nd Circuit - NY decision - not great, not the worst
Litigation Update: Antonyuk Round 4, the Second Circuit Weighs In | Duke Center for Firearms Law
© 2024 Duke Center for Firearms Law.
No further comment - it's just a mixed bag, mostly not great.
Litigation Update: Antonyuk Round 4, the Second Circuit Weighs In | Duke Center for Firearms Law
© 2024 Duke Center for Firearms Law.
No further comment - it's just a mixed bag, mostly not great.
Got the Cliff Notes version for non lawyers?
OP
See post 7 above
the ruling in NY about sensitive places is a HUGE helping of egg on the faces of the 3 judges who ruled it constitutional. They heavily relied on a single law in Carolina that turns out not to have ever existed.
let that sink in. They would have been fired if it weren't for their lifetime appointments.
This came out in a 4 Boxes Diner video not too long ago.
And most of the analogues relied on were post Reconstruction, which are too late in history, and that is based on a SCOTUS 1st A case that came from Montana.
let that sink in. They would have been fired if it weren't for their lifetime appointments.
This came out in a 4 Boxes Diner video not too long ago.
And most of the analogues relied on were post Reconstruction, which are too late in history, and that is based on a SCOTUS 1st A case that came from Montana.
kbm6893
Member
Didn't bother to read it. If the courts ruled in favor of gun owners, the state would just ignore it and make new laws to circumvent it. If they rule against gun owners, the state will claim it as a victory and vigorously prosecute. When a Supreme Court decision can be so easily and proudly ignored, there is no hope.
You are onto something. It appears they just want to ignore SCOTUS.
They are just delaying, running out the clock, until the day the court swings left and they will champion the end of the 2A.
Gavin Newsom Defies SCOTUS' 'Very Bad Ruling' on the Right To Bear Arms
"In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right to carry guns in public for self-defense, saying states could not require residents to demonstrate a "special need" before allowing them to exercise that right. Newsom responded to what he called a "very bad ruling" by backing a new law that makes carry permits easier to obtain but nearly impossible to use."
Last edited:
John Patrick
Member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2021
- Messages
- 1,575
- Reaction score
- 2,465
kbm6893
Member
NY got away with it and the precedent has been set. I wonder what the outrage would be if when abortion was decided to be universal 50 years ago, if individual states said "we think this is a bad ruling and will ignore it". Holy hell would have been raised. Or even better, if it was affirmed last year instead of knocked down, if some states said "ok, you can have your abortion, but only after you pay an exorbitant fee, take some birth control classes, get 6 approvals from medical doctors and three from psychiatrists, show us your social media, and 90% of the hospitals will be prevented from performing them."
Actually, that would have been great if it did happen. What a show it would have been to watch the meltdowns.
Last edited:
John Patrick
Member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2021
- Messages
- 1,575
- Reaction score
- 2,465
NY hasn't gotten away with it… yet.
I don't think they will.
I don't think they will.
AJ
US Veteran
Would it help to make New York City and the surrounding cesspool of cities a separate state?
Similar threads
- Locked
