Antonyuk and Gun Owners of America vs Bruen

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • BurkeM

    Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 8, 2014
    889
    Baltimore
    GOA and a plaintiff named Antonyuk have sued NY (in the person of the now infamous Kevin Bruen, Superintendent of NY State Police.

    The suit will probably result in a Temporary or Permanent Injunction based on Justice Thomas’s clear declaration that the 2nd and 14th Amendments are not amenable to new Infringement by State and local legislators.

    This will almost certainly affect the future of the Maryland General Assembly, and should shoot down (pun intended) many existing Maryland restrictions on possessing firearms (parks and sensitive places) and preventing future restrictions from Annapolis.

    Read the complaint here, and consider the implications for Maryland.

    (Folks may wish to support the costs of this litigation by donating to GOA and GOF.)


     

    BurkeM

    Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 8, 2014
    889
    Baltimore
    Another complaint against Gov Hochul herself-

    Corbett v Hochul

    This case has the potential to seriously reduce or eliminate any “training requirements” and “references” relating to Handgun Permits- everywhere.

    This section (his third complaint) relates directly to Maryland law on training.

    69C5993E-9DD6-42CB-930A-B9CDB948391B.png

     
    Last edited:

    press1280

    Active Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    6,852
    WV
    Definitely of interest to those looking at a MD wear & carry. The 2013 law and this NY law were both hastily rammed through after court losses begging the question (for the court) of why it was all of a sudden necessary and what studies & evidence were presented through legislative hearings.
    I know NY didn't have any as it took them less than a week to create a bill and pass it all the way through the Governor.
    Did MD do any of that? My recollection is no.
     
    Oct 29, 2021
    740
    Dallas, texas
    Definitely of interest to those looking at a MD wear & carry. The 2013 law and this NY law were both hastily rammed through after court losses begging the question (for the court) of why it was all of a sudden necessary and what studies & evidence were presented through legislative hearings.
    I know NY didn't have any as it took them less than a week to create a bill and pass it all the way through the Governor.
    Did MD do any of that? My recollection is no.

    Well most Of the previous shall issue states are watching the Two New York cases on their new law very closely just to see what NY can get away with Doing. Mostly Hawaii and California, probably New Jersey as well, and possibly Maryland. Delaware, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island while all technically were shall-issue were all borderline in how they actually issued. Acting like shall-issue for the most part and we’re far easier to obtain then NY, NJ, HI, and CA.

    It’s been interesting to see the effects of the Bruen Case on all these states. Not quite what I had anticipated or envisioned. Even counting the backlash, and efforts to fight it And how they are going about it, and by who was quite unexpected from my POV.

    That being said, NY has not a chance in Hell in winning. How long it will take though is another matter.

    Hawaii has a pretty severe bill pending on Carry permitting that will come into play in their next legislative session. It limits permits to 6 months before needing to be renewed and a 16 hour renewal class every time. No exemptions for instructors.

    Im not worried about them winning, I know they won’t. It’s how long it will take to get final resolution, and the possibility, of other states jumping on the band wanton before final disposition of the case is given. Which IMHO is stupid of any other state to do before a decision has been given.

    Sadly like I keep saying. This is an election year. Politicians do stupid things during election years.
     

    DC-W

    Active Member
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 23, 2013
    25,293
    ️‍
    Oh this oughta be interesting.
    The additional space is necessary in order for New York to properly address the historical precedent for each challenged aspect in the statute, all of which are firmly grounded in the historical Anglo-American tradition of protecting individuals from those who would use guns to harm others.

     

    csanc123

    Active Member
    Aug 26, 2009
    3,580
    Montgomery County
    Oh this oughta be interesting.



    Love to hear what they come up...this is borderline hilarious and insane:

    Their words..they (NY) want time to "... properly address the historical precedent for each challenged aspect in the statute, [BOLD] all of which are firmly grounded in the historical Anglo-American tradition of protecting individuals from those who would use guns to harm others." [/BOLD]

    In what world, in the past, was 18 hours training required (or even equivalent training)...in what world was one to require 'character references'...in what world was any review of an equivalent 'social media' required (back then there was NO equivalent besides the lips and ears of your neighbor...totally scuttlebutt)....the mental gymnastics they need to go through to address this is going to be fascinating.
     

    94hokie

    Member
    Mar 29, 2015
    796
    Severna Park, MD
    The whole premise of their argument seems to be that gun owners all want to cause harm and they have to protect everyone else from lawful gun owners.
     

    Boxcab

    MSI EM
    Feb 22, 2007
    6,995
    AA County
    Love to hear what they come up...this is borderline hilarious and insane:

    Their words..they (NY) want time to "... properly address the historical precedent for each challenged aspect in the statute, [BOLD] all of which are firmly grounded in the historical Anglo-American tradition of protecting individuals from those who would use guns to harm others." [/BOLD]

    JUDGE: "OK NY, you took one week to craft the legislation, I'll give you one week to gather those freshly used notes together and present them."



    .

    Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk
     

    Boondock Saint

    W&C Application Data: https://tinyurl.com/42xwvkht
    Dec 11, 2008
    22,068
    White Marsh
    I cannot imagine in good conscience trying to defend a ridiculous law that boldly aims to infringe the rights of citizens by citing older laws that were written specifically to disenfranchise certain citizens due to their creed.

    That is lamentable. Anyone who puts in work to defend the new law should have the decency to resign first.

    Shame, and a pox, on them all.
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 22, 2009
    50,456
    Bel Air
    I cannot imagine in good conscience trying to defend a ridiculous law that boldly aims to infringe the rights of citizens by citing older laws that were written specifically to disenfranchise certain citizens due to their creed.

    That is lamentable. Anyone who puts in work to defend the new law should have the decency to resign first.

    Shame, and a pox, on them all.
    The pox is here. They just want to rename it.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    261,394
    Messages
    6,663,890
    Members
    30,470
    Latest member
    slick mick

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom