SCOTUS turns back NY appeal

[ladder13]

Supreme Court denies challenge of NY gun law

“The U.S. Supreme Court has denied a possible new challenge to New York’s gun safety laws.

Justice Clarence Thomas last month pushed to bring the state’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act up for consideration.”

 

[ISCS Yoda]

Completely mystified by this I am..........

 

[Buford57]

It appears SCOTUS is going to require that the challenge to NYs clear disdain for Bruen makes it way through the lower courts rather than let it jump the line. I understand why Justice Thomas let the petition for an emergency stay come before the court and I understand why they didn't hear it. The Gov's pleasure notwithstanding she hasn't and can't win this one unless SCOTUS reverses itself on Bruen.

So the state is free to enforce a blatantly unconstitutional law for now unless the lower courts can read the writing on the wall.

 

[robertrwalsh]

I confess I was hoping that SCOTUS would try to deal with this NOW rather than later. Hope clouds reason.

 

[Racer X]

I confess I was hoping that SCOTUS would try to deal with this NOW rather than later. Hope clouds reason.

I feel that way about magazine and assault weapons bans. We know what the Constitution and SCOTUS says, so why must we wait 3-10 years? SCOTUS can read the rulings and know they are B$. So, why the wait?

 

[stansdds]

SCOTUS may not want to set a precedent for cases jumping straight to the SCOTUS. If that's the case, then we have to wait years for these cases to make their way through the judicial system. By the time they reach the SCOTUS, additional anti-2A laws will have been enacted and will be in the judicial pipeline. Who pays the legal fees for defending these anti-constitutional laws? The very people who are harmed by them, the law-abiding taxpayer. It's become a perpetual gaming of the system.

 

[Rodan]

This is another example of why there must be harsh, personal penalties for lawmakers and gov't officials who knowingly violate our rights with unconstitutional laws.

It takes years, and a great deal of OUR money to fight them, and they get to defend themselves with OUR money, all while our rights are trampled. Then when they lose, they just start over again with another clearly unconstitutional law, because there is no real consequence for them personally.

All of these court challenges should be accompanied by USC 1983 suits, personally naming the gov't officials involved. In most of the states where this stuff is going on, there is little hope of voting them out of office, but maybe if they feel a little personal pain, they'll be deterred from passing blatantly unconstitutional laws.

 

[robertrwalsh]

Theoretically there are penalties. Losing elections. Trouble is in some states a significant part of the electorate think that taking away people's constitutional rights is just fine.

 

[CH4]

If SCOTUS grants certiorari to a similar case from another state that constitutes a weapons ban and upholds it, it will incorporate all 50 states. Perhaps Duncan v. Bonte will speed things up. Since it was already GVRd back to the 9th after Bruen and they decided to violate their own policies and procedures to achieve their desired outcome, SCOTUS will jump on it. By ignoring the "in common use" test and using the old "interest balancing test", the 9th basically told SCCOTUS to pound sand. If SCOTUS will accept an interlocutory appeal from Duncan plaintiffs, this would also squash the NY case and any similar weapons ban case through incorporation.

 

[apollo99]

This is like Newsom in California, he signs these insane anti-gun bills, they go to court he loses and then signs some more. In the time between his signing and him losing in court the laws are on the books and it costs NRA and GOA and 2A people millions to fight these cases.

 

[Racer X]

This is like Newsom in California, he signs these insane anti-gun bills, they go to court he loses and then signs some more. In the time between his signing and him losing in court the laws are on the books and it costs NRA and GOA and 2A people millions to fight these cases.

I decided long ago that if I were to win the lottery big, I would set up an endowment to fund 2A lawsuits in the 9th Circuit.

 

[Racer X]

Theoretically there are penalties. Losing elections. Trouble is in some states a significant part of the electorate think that taking away people's constitutional rights is just fine.

The NM governor was term limited, so she stood to gain anti 2A street cred and going for a higher office. She needs to be buried in a Civil Rights lawsuit because NM did away with qualified immunity about 2 years ago.

 

[LVSteve]

Seems like a procedural hurdle rather than a statement of law one way or the other.

 

[llowry61]

Is this a case of the process being the punishment ?