NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!

[IronEye]

As i recall NY State had a tantrum and passed new restrictions on carry post Bruen. A Federal judge issued an opinion that invalidated much of the law. 2nd Federal Court of Appeals issued a stay on his decision in Jan 2023. SCOTUS, when asked to intervene declined at that time and gave the lower court time to complete the process - but did indicate it should hurry. 9 months later it seems that SC's patience is exhausted and they are going to reconsider taking action against the stay.

 

[Boxcab]

Where's the Flounder? " Oh boy, oh boy" clip!!


.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

 

[ShafTed]

New York's revolt against Bruen.

Remeber when they passed the laws because Hochul felt the Bruen decision was wrong?

Yes, this is the same Bruen political temper tantrum in New York that Bloomburg, Inc. spread to New Jersey and Maryland. I look back wistfully at the same situation in the school desegregation and voting rights struggles, and the judicial oversight put in place to insure compliance with both. What we need is a ruling that any new proposed gun restriction laws in MD, NY, NJ, CA, and HI (at least to start with) have to be reviewed and approved by Justice Thomas before they can be enacted.

 

[Blacksmith101]

I'm confused, what case is this?

Concealed Carry Improvement Act.

 

[Occam]

Concealed Carry Improvement Act.

That's the issue at hand ... but which case brings that issue to SCOTUS?

 

[IronEye]

Thomas called for a full Supreme Court conference on October 6th to discuss NYS's Concealed Carry Improvement Act.

 

[Inigoes]

That's the issue at hand ... but which case brings that issue to SCOTUS?

Not complying with Bruen

 

[Occam]

Not complying with Bruen

OK, but WHO is bringing that non-compliance before SCOTUS? The Supreme Court doesn't have a wandering patrol that goes looking for stuff. Someone has to bring it before them. Who?

 

[Biggfoot44]

I think it's Antonyuk ?

 

[delaware_export]

Well, it got to Thomas and he is bringing to conference. So, someone is bringing it

I don’t know who the attorney is, bringing this case, but it is covered in the other thread. The plaintiff is … antyonk or something like that iirc.. my spelling on that sucks , but it’ll get ya started.

EDIT: NOT Antonyuk as I say above

in the bruen CCw case, oral argument day, I think it was maybe alito that had anticipated the states roadblocking and such. The discussion and his question was something along the lines of…

can all of Manhattan be made a “sensitive” area and all carry blocked?

i paraphrase slightly but that’s a fairly accurate repeat of his question. I can see maybe 2- 3 ready to take this on. But not more. But I ain’t a lawyer. the 3 dissenters and roberts , no.

2 yes, and the rest … a maybe. Wildcards?

OK, but WHO is bringing that non-compliance before SCOTUS? The Supreme Court doesn't have a wandering patrol that goes looking for stuff. Someone has to bring it before them. Who?

 

[Threeband]

OK, but WHO is bringing that non-compliance before SCOTUS? The Supreme Court doesn't have a wandering patrol that goes looking for stuff. Someone has to bring it before them. Who?

It sounds like this is a continuation of the processes described in post 4701.

I wish Justice Thomas would crack down on Maryland.

...I look back wistfully at the same situation in the school desegregation and voting rights struggles, and the judicial oversight put in place to insure compliance with both. What we need is a ruling that any new proposed gun restriction laws in MD, NY, NJ, CA, and HI (at least to start with) have to be reviewed and approved by Justice Thomas before they can be enacted.

" What we need is a ruling that any new proposed gun restriction laws in MD, NY, NJ, CA, and HI (at least to start with) have to be reviewed and approved by Justice Thomas before they can be enacted."

 

[Blacksmith101]

The case Is:
Nadine Gazzola, et al., Applicants
v.
Kathleen Hochul, Governor of New York, et al.

Case No. 23A230

Link To Supreme Court Docket

Search

Link to Letter requesting Justice Thomas review

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23A230/279430/20230912175519922_23-%20Letter.pdf

The following is very interesting
Link to letter with supplemental information in support of request

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23A230/279664/20230915133630282_SCOTUS%20ltr%20from%20PAC%2009152023%20w%20attach.pdf

 

[Allen65]

The case Is:
Nadine Gazzola, et al., Applicants
v.
Kathleen Hochul, Governor of New York, et al.

Case No. 23A230

Link To Supreme Court Docket

Search

Link to Letter requesting Justice Thomas review

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23A230/279430/20230912175519922_23-%20Letter.pdf

The following is very interesting
Link to letter with supplemental information in support of request

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23A230/279664/20230915133630282_SCOTUS%20ltr%20from%20PAC%2009152023%20w%20attach.pdf

That's the firearms dealers' suit about new laws affecting commerce in firearms, not Antonyuk, the suit over carry.

See "QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW" starting on page 2 here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-622/251374/20230104141522160_22 Petition for Certiorari.pdf

I've heard several pro-2A pundits state the plaintiffs in this case crafted their arguments poorly, unfortunately.

 

[Blacksmith101]

That's the firearms dealers' suit, IIRC, not Antonyuk, the suit over carry.

Look at the docket this is the case going to the full court on October 6th.

 

[Allen65]

Look at the docket this is the case going to the full court on October 6th.

Understood, but it's not Antonyuk, which several folks here are confusing it with. I was trying to clarify for those who don't know that. There is some overlap in issues, but they're different cases.

 

[press1280]

That's the firearms dealers' suit about new laws affecting commerce in firearms, not Antonyuk, the suit over carry.

See "QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW" starting on page 2 here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-622/251374/20230104141522160_22 Petition for Certiorari.pdf

I've heard several pro-2A pundits state the plaintiffs in this case crafted their arguments poorly, unfortunately.

Just skimming over this the plaintiffs are saying the state (and city I assume) were supposed to be giving new guidelines and forms as to how to get and renew CCWs and those never came, so basically anyone about to expire or doesn’t have one is screwed?

 

[RennBaer]

I believe that this SCOTUS conference on 10/6 is specifically in response to the plaintiffs in Gazzola v Hochul seeking an immediate stay of NY's new ammo background check and NY's takeover of the NICS background check. I'm not sure how much, if any, of the rest of the case will be addressed by SCOTUS on 10/6. Unfortunately, even if this particular stay is granted by SCOTUS, the vast majority of NY's anti-carry laws will remain in-effect and it will still be illegal to bring your firearm anywhere.

 

[bcr229]

So... when can we expect to find out what happened today?

 

[Inigoes]

So... when can we expect to find out what happened today?

Look for the orders list Tuesday morning.

2009 Term Court Orders

 

[pcfixer]

Just skimming over this the plaintiffs are saying the state (and city I assume) were supposed to be giving new guidelines and forms as to how to get and renew CCWs and those never came, so basically anyone about to expire or doesn’t have one is screwed?

Interesting----https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-622/251374/20230104141522160_22%20Petition%20for%20Certiorari.pdf

It’s a chaotic situation on the ground in New York as a direct result of laws generated in anger and passed literally in the dark of night while the Governor was at the bully pulpit. Petitioners respectfully ask the help of this Court through preliminary injunctive relief so that they can withstand this fight without fear that “…the next person who walks through the door won’t be a Trooper from the Zone K substation with the handcuffs removed from his belt”. [Nadine Gazzola, Doc 132, ¶38] Respectfully submitted this 3rd day of January 2023 Paloma A. Capanna Counsel of Record