NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!

[dblas]

Yes Sir< I believe the same. The government or states was to protect or defend the people's Rights.
ALL of them, especially I think the oppressed.

EDIT....George Washington said, “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal.”

While Washington may have said that at the time, all men where not viewed as equal, nor treated so, and would not be equal until at least 1863, when blacks and other minorities were determined, by the addition of a Constitutional Amendment, to be equal.

 

[dblas]

If MGA removed the sections of the statute that relief was sought for, wouldn't that moot the case? There wouldn't be an issue for the court other than 1988 fees. I don't remember the complaint in Bianchi asking for damages for past injury.

I don't think so since SCOTUS, for all intent and purposes took the case (They granted CERT), Vacated the opinion (Because the law is Unconstitutional under the new finding in Bruen), and sent it back to the lower court to rewrite their ruling accordingly.

Texasgrillchef spelled it out in one of his replies, but Maryland will have no choice but to rewrite the law, given that SCOTUS has basically said "the law is Unconstitutional because of Bruen, 4th Circuit rewrite your opinion." So no, they can't moot it. And I believe they are on the hook for 1988 fes.

 

[dblas]

That's why several of us here think MGA may do a special session to moot Call, Bianchi, and the new MSI case by removing the offending language from the Public Safety Article, but adding new requirements that will make ownership of semiautomatics and any sort of outside the home carry onerous and legally hazardous, and which will require new cases seeking relief that start from scratch. The effort may ultimately fail, but from the anti's POV it gives them some breathing room to get past the election and devise a long-term strategy.

I really don't see them doing a special session for the gun laws, although I do believe that is what the delay is. Frosh is trying to get enough support for one, but I don't believe it is there. There are still enough Democrats that have some amount of common sense to understand what the ramifications will be if they over step on any new restrictions. One of those, and the most powerful in the discussion and the process is the Chair of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee (Senator "Fresh Prince" Smith).
While he is a Democrat, he does listen, somewhat and like his predecessor, he does understand the legal and Constitutional ramifications of the Legislatures actions.

 

[dblas]

Good job NYSRPA Gun owners/valid permit holders are worse off as of today than before Bruen.

The law is summarized in detail below within the quote.

Would you stop with the BGOS...Jumping Jesus Christ on a POGO Stick dude...

 

[Brute]

Just asked Jim Rosapepe when they were going to fix our gun laws.

"What gun laws? We have a lot."
"The ones you need to comply with the recent Supreme Court ruling."
"That's up to the Supreme Court."
"So you're going to let them enforce it?"
"That's correct."

Sounded like he only crawled out of his cave for this parade and has no idea what I was asking for.

 

[babalou]

I have the JD Wentworth outlook. I want my Constitutional Rights and I want it NOW!! And not have to spend $800 for all kinds of BS and references.

 

[Allen65]

I have the JD Wentworth outlook. I want my Constitutional Rights and I want it NOW!! And not have to spend $800 for all kinds of BS and references.

And just like with Wentworth, there is a price tag associated with wanting it now. Us engineers have a saying that for some reason management needs to be reminded of weekly: High quality, fast delivery, low cost; you get to pick 2.

I want the laws I'm stuck living under to be well crafted, and inexpensive to comply with. I'm willing to wait a few months more to get that.

 

[whistlersmother]

If the districts don't immediately enjoin these new restrictions (and don't stay their enjoinments), then we'll know the jury box is closed. We'll also know which judges in the judiciary are not willing to live up to their oath.

 

[whistlersmother]

And just like with Wentworth, there is a price tag associated with wanting it now. Us engineers have a saying that for some reason management needs to be reminded of weekly: High quality, fast delivery, low cost; you get to pick 2.

I want the laws I'm stuck living under to be well crafted, and inexpensive to comply with. I'm willing to wait a few months decades more to get that.

FIFY

 

[camo556]

Bronx Public Defenders: The Supreme Court’s gun ruling was a victory over racist policing

bearingarms.com

Bronx defense attorneys:

The next steps are clear. Now that the Supreme Court has spoken, prosecutors must dismiss all gun cases that punish people for engaging in constitutionally protected activity and free them from jail. As state lawmakers weigh their legislative response to the decision, we hope they will finally safeguard New Yorkers’ right to keep and bear arms and create a system free of racism.


We hope New York will finally stop criminalizing people for exercising their individual right to carry firearms.

Well, too late for the last bit.

But, how constitutional carry is going to happen: Judges decide to dismiss prosecutions for constitutionally protected activity.

This is going to happen. NY is going to risk an appellate ruling cementing constitutional carry, because they are arrogant. I am not sure if MD is that dumb. I am coming around to the idea AG Frosh is.

tick tock.

 

[dblas]

Just asked Jim Rosapepe when they were going to fix our gun laws.



Sounded like he only crawled out of his cave for this parade and has no idea what I was asking for.

Give me the weekend, I'll go sit outside his house and ask him when I see my "neighbor". He live in the same neighborhood, three blocks over.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

If I understand a lawsuit being GVR'd by SCOTUS, Maryland's AWB has technically been ruled Unconstitutional by SCOTUS and sent back to the 4th Circuit to be rewritten accordingly due to Bruen. So it would have to be some very extreme fuckery to even pass.

If it doesn’t, Bianchi still has a right to take it back to SCOTUS. If history tells us anything if it goes back to SCOTUS. Then it ends up getting a mandate like SCOTUS wants. The courts know that. So they have to be very careful about what they do.

Depending on what judge or justices are making the final decision. Assuming the worst, they will try to limit the damage as much as possible. That’s assuming that all 3 or even all 11 justices are on the liberal side of things. If we have even one conservative Justice. They will help limit some of the damage.

Heres the thing though. I haven’t looked at Bianchi, and I can’t remember if it went to En Banc or not. But the same justices that ruled on it the first time. Get to go again. Meaning, that they can’t change our one or more of them in favor of another. UNLESS one retires, or has died.

 

[BeoBill]

Never interfere with your adversary when they are self-destructing. NY's actions, which are contempt both of and for court, may poison the judicial well for the remainder of the holdout states that were hoping to keep some "reasonable" restrictions and permitting standards.

Thomas anticipated some pushback, but I doubt he expected a Governor to say to the TV cameras that she was doubling down on outright defiance of a very specific directive from the Supreme Court to her state. And that may annoy and even scare center-left judges who may have previously entertained ideas of creative interpretations of Bruen in favor of maintaining some state restrictions.

I suspect Frosh is watching NY VERY closely before deciding whether to put his fanny on the line in a similar manner. He never was a risk taker (i.e., he's an abject coward and bully).

 

[Texasgrillchef]

That's why several of us here think MGA may do a special session to moot Call, Bianchi, and the new MSI case by removing the offending language from the Public Safety Article, but adding new requirements that will make ownership of semiautomatics and any sort of outside the home carry onerous and legally hazardous, and which will require new cases seeking relief that start from scratch. The effort may ultimately fail, but from the anti's POV it gives them some breathing room to get past the election and devise a long-term strategy.

The Legislature can come down and write new laws, and then those will have to be challenged.

however, do not forget that if the court does not decide correctly or. Adequately, Bianchi still has a right to file an appeal for another pet of cert. in which case SCOTUS will issue a mandate.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

If MGA removed the sections of the statute that relief was sought for, wouldn't that moot the case? There wouldn't be an issue for the court other than 1988 fees. I don't remember the complaint in Bianchi asking for damages for past injury.

Bianchi can’t be mooted at this point. The panel has to issue their ruling an order. Thereby limiting or even controlling what May or may not have been mooted.

If the change is exactly what the court has ordered. Then everything stand as is.

If whatever change was made doesnt meet what the court has ordered then what the court orders is what stands.

Because of this they won’t make changes to try and moot the case. It’s pointless.

 

[jcutonilli]

If I understand a lawsuit being GVR'd by SCOTUS, Maryland's AWB has technically been ruled Unconstitutional by SCOTUS and sent back to the 4th Circuit to be rewritten accordingly due to Bruen. So it would have to be some very extreme fuckery to even pass.

You don't understand what a GVR means. All it really means is that the lower court should reconsider the case based on the newly cited precedent. Theoretically the lower court could adopt their previous reasoning and explain why the new precedent is not really applicable. The lower court could also make changes based on the new precedent. MD's AWB has not technically been ruled unconstitutional.

Based on my understanding, the lower court will have to make some changes. It is unclear exactly how many changes. Bruen technically does not address AWBs directly.

 

[jcutonilli]

If it doesn’t, Bianchi still has a right to take it back to SCOTUS. If history tells us anything if it goes back to SCOTUS. Then it ends up getting a mandate like SCOTUS wants. The courts know that. So they have to be very careful about what they do.

Depending on what judge or justices are making the final decision. Assuming the worst, they will try to limit the damage as much as possible. That’s assuming that all 3 or even all 11 justices are on the liberal side of things. If we have even one conservative Justice. They will help limit some of the damage.

Heres the thing though. I haven’t looked at Bianchi, and I can’t remember if it went to En Banc or not. But the same justices that ruled on it the first time. Get to go again. Meaning, that they can’t change our one or more of them in favor of another. UNLESS one retires, or has died.

Bianchi did not go en banc, but Kolbe did. Bianchi was decided based on Kolbe.

 

[BeoBill]

I agree with you 110%.

While I am from the south, they were always loosing a fighting battle. They were never smart enough to realize it. They still lost in the end. They tried fighting the cival rights in the 60’s too and lost again.

Like I said. This is just the start of the bigger battle. SCOTUS is prepared. While I may not like Trump for many other reasons. One thing he did for us the most, is give us the final call to everything with a super majority in SCOTUS

On an ancillary note: They are resurrecting the civil rights battles of the 1960s again. The reason then is the reason now: To divide the country, this time along racial lines again and retain power by courting the "minority communities". I foresee this as the main battle supported by the relatively new "Lawfare" weapon, with the 2A civil rights and parents' rights taking a secondary role.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

Yes and No.

Bianchi always retains the right to file a new petition for cert if they are NOT satisfied with the lower courts new ruling.

Yes it is true. The lower court could fully refuse to follow the directions of SCOTUS, and do exactly what they did before and write something to justify their reasons for doing so. They absolutely could.

Yet again though Bianchi still retains the right to file for cert again.

If they do, and the lower court didnt make a ruling to the liking of SCOTUS. That is exactly when SCOTUS could come back and issue a mandate. If they issue a mandate, that will tie the hands of the lower court even more.

What the lower court has to do now, is that they have to decide on the case using THT standards. So if they will have to come up with a good and satisfactory reason under THT to rule the AWB constitutional. I find it very hard for them to be able to do that.

Also keep in mind that the lower court, and Frosh both know that Bianchi can still file another pet for cert.

One other thing to remember. If the lower court rules perfectly in our favor. Frosh could still file a pet for cert as well. Yet if he has half a brain. He will know our very conservative super majority Supreme court will deny his cert.

Now I will admit, their is a level of stupidity running through that side of the crowd. But I still believe that the justices have a few more brain cells and see the writing on the wall.

I also think we are jumping the gun too. And not giving some of our courts the benefit of the doubt.

Let actually see what some of the courts are actually going to do with some of these GVR’d cases, as well as some of the similar ones.

Since June 23rd, not a single lower court has yet to make any ruling.

The exception to that is Rupp v Bonta. Which Rupp lost on the 3 panel review. That 3 panel review just vacated and remanded In light of Bruen. So that’s one positive sign. Read Bumatays dissent though.

 

[BeoBill]

I really don't see them doing a special session for the gun laws, although I do believe that is what the delay is. Frosh is trying to get enough support for one, but I don't believe it is there. There are still enough Democrats that have some amount of common sense to understand what the ramifications will be if they over step on any new restrictions. One of those, and the most powerful in the discussion and the process is the Chair of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee (Senator "Fresh Prince" Smith).
While he is a Democrat, he does listen, somewhat and like his predecessor, he does understand the legal and Constitutional ramifications of the Legislatures actions.

I agree that Frosh is desperately trying to find a way out from under Bruen, but don't forget that he's competing with other more powerful and better funded interests in his quest for MGA support. I don't think Bloomberg et. al. are willing to try to outspend the Planned Parenthood Machine or the LGBTQ+ Coalition for printed inches or social media blog posts just to throw Frosh a bone. I think the Hysterical Moms will duly show up with their preprinted testimony as always, but I suspect the financial and political pressure will be directed elsewhere.