GOA files Emergency app with USSC for PI in Antonyuk v Nigrelli

[pcfixer]

December 21, 2022
Washington, D.C. – Today, Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) filed an emergency application with the U.S. Supreme Court to halt the Second Circuit Court’s stay of a preliminary injunction in Antonyuk v. Nigrelli.
The case challenges New York’s misleadingly named “Concealed Carry Improvement Act,” which was enjoined by U.S. District Court Judge Glenn Suddaby in early November. However, the Second Circuit quickly halted this order, as they have with other successful challenges to the law, with a short, undetailed opinion.
Erich Pratt, GOA’s Senior Vice President, issued the following statement:
“Governor Hochul and state lawmakers wasted no time in passing legislation that completely contradicted the Bruen precedent, and we urge the High Court to once again hold the state accountable for violating the Second Amendment rights of their own citizens.”
Sam Paredes, on behalf of the Board of Directors for the Gun Owners Foundation, added:
“We have said it before and we’ll say it again: states must come into compliance with Bruen, or we will make you.”
GOA spokesmen are available for interviews. Gun Owners of America is a nonprofit grassroots lobbying organization dedicated to protecting the right to keep and bear arms without compromise. GOA represents over two million members and activists. For more information, visit GOA’s Press Center.

GOA Files Emergency Request with SCOTUS in NY Concealed Carry Case | GOA

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE December 21, 2022 Washington, D.C. – Today, Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) filed an emergency application with the U.S. Supreme Court to halt the Second Circuit Court’s stay of a preliminary injunction in Antonyuk v. Nigrelli. The case...

www.gunowners.org

 

[jcutonilli]

Response requested (Due 3 Jan)

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22a557.html

 

[Kharn]

New Years is cancelled for some staff attorney.
Just watch NY to request two 30 day extensions just because.

There's still time for Thomas to get really unhappy at NY's intentional disregard for his hard work, convince other Justices to treat the emergency application as a cert petition, grant it, receive merits briefs (45 and 30 days each), hear the case in the April sitting, and rule in June 2023. The chances are incredibly unlikely, but it could still happen.

 

[Inigoes]

New Years is cancelled for some staff attorney.
Just watch NY to request two 30 day extensions just because.

There's still time for Thomas to get really unhappy at NY's intentional disregard for his hard work, convince other Justices to treat the emergency application as a cert petition, grant it, receive merits briefs (45 and 30 days each), hear the case in the April sitting, and rule in June 2023. The chances are incredibly unlikely, but it could still happen.

What are the chances of GVR'ing the appeal on the spot?

That would make a grand slap down. Yes, I can dream...

 

[teratos]

What are the chances of GVR'ing the appeal on the spot?

That would make a grand slap down. Yes, I can dream...

I hope your dreams come true…

 

[ddestruel]

I don’t think so

Justice Sotomayor May not have the patience or humor deal with something she sees as resolved. Unless the state or ca2 can come up with a unique and convincing argument I’d read this as a shot across the bow of her patience has run out and there are better battles to try and win.

I might be wrong but I think the ca2 tried to rehash the battle of Gettysburg. A battle that the ca2 wants to pick but despite their desires and her desires she knows the high ground may already be defined and held.

 

[swinokur]

 

[Inigoes]

 

[Kharn]

What are the chances of GVR'ing the appeal on the spot?

That would make a grand slap down. Yes, I can dream...

Treating the application as a cert petition and granting cert on the same day would be the larger slap, and a huge warning to other states considering similar laws, but it's like 1:999 chances.
I'd say 70:30 chances of the SC voiding the 2nd's stay.

I don’t think so

Justice Sotomayor May not have the patience or humor deal with something she sees as resolved. Unless the state or ca2 can come up with a unique and convincing argument I’d read this as a shot across the bow of her patience has run out and there are better battles to try and win.

I might be wrong but I think the ca2 tried to rehash the battle of Gettysburg. A battle that the ca2 wants to pick but despite their desires and her desires she knows the high ground may already be defined and held.

And despite her normal leanings, she knows Thomas, Alito, etc, will be all over this case as soon as the full court hears of it.

 

[Blacksmith101]

The Justices who decided Bruen are very well aware of what NY did as well as what is happening in NJ, Montgomery County and elsewhere so they know that sooner or later something will have to be done to make Bruen "stick". This is very much like what happened after Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) with the decision in Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958).

"The Supreme Court held that the Brown decision "can neither be nullified openly and directly by state legislators or state executive or judicial officers nor nullified indirectly by them through evasive schemes for segregation."[16] Thus, Cooper v. Aaron held that state attempts to nullify federal law are ineffective.[15]

Moreover, since public officials are required to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution (as per Article VI, Clause 3), the officials who ignored the supremacy of the Court's precedent in the Brown case violated their oaths.[17]"

Cooper v. Aaron - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[CurlyDave]

...Justice Sotomayor May not have the patience or humor deal with something she sees as resolved. Unless the state or ca2 can come up with a unique and convincing argument I’d read this as a shot across the bow of her patience has run out and there are better battles to try and win...

I think she has darker motives. And many years of experience.

While seemingly giving defendants a short time frame, she gave them extra time -- if they are willing to work over the holiday. My take is that she is trying to keep this out of the hands of Justice Thomas. She will make as narrow a ruling as she can. She will seem to support 2A rights, but will somehow leave room for a future court to allow infringement. She is not our friend.

 

[motorcoachdoug]

This is taken from Wikipedia Cooper vs Aaron and I thought it was interesting as it can be used against New York trying to give the finger to SCOTUS.

More importantly, the Court held that since the Supremacy Clause of Article VI made the US Constitution the supreme law of the land and Marbury v. Madison (1803) made the Supreme Court the final interpreter of the Constitution,[12] the precedent set forth in Brown v. Board of Education is the supreme law of the land and is therefore binding on all the states, regardless of any state laws contradicting it.[13] The Court therefore rejected the contention that the Arkansas legislature and Governor were not bound by the Brown decision.[14] The Supreme Court also rejected the doctrines of nullification and interposition in this case, which had been invoked by segregationists.[15] Segregation supporters argued that the states have the power to nullify federal laws or court rulings that they believe to be unconstitutional and the states could use this power to nullify the Brown decision. The Arkansas laws that attempted to prevent desegregation were Arkansas' effort to nullify the Brown decision. The Supreme Court held that the Brown decision "can neither be nullified openly and directly by state legislators or state executive or judicial officers nor nullified indirectly by them through evasive schemes for segregation."[16] Thus, Cooper v. Aaron held that state attempts to nullify federal law are ineffective.[15]

Moreover, since public officials are required to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution (as per Article VI, Clause 3), the officials who ignored the supremacy of the Court's precedent in the Brown case violated their oaths.[17] Cooper also maintained that even though education is the responsibility of the state government, that responsibility must be carried out in a manner consistent with the requirements of the Constitution, particularly the Fourteenth Amendment.[18]

 

[lazarus]

I think she has darker motives. And many years of experience.

While seemingly giving defendants a short time frame, she gave them extra time -- if they are willing to work over the holiday. My take is that she is trying to keep this out of the hands of Justice Thomas. She will make as narrow a ruling as she can. She will seem to support 2A rights, but will somehow leave room for a future court to allow infringement. She is not our friend.

Either she grants the preliminary injunction or not. Or she refers it to the full court. Those are effectively her only options. There isn't really a "narrow" way she can do it. I'd guess about a 3 in 5 chance she rules on her own. Since she has requested briefs, I'd but it somewhat likely. And I think if she rules on her own, there is a solid chance she will grant the PI and overturn the 2CA decision.

As a couple of others have mentioned, she knows the winds. I know she doesn't agree with Bruen, but I think she also knows outright defiance of the court when she sees it and I don't think a single justice is willing to allow that. She knows if or when it gets to SCOTUS, they will overturn NY with a damned prejudice. Justices sometimes negotiate opinions and votes, so pretty much putting a stick in the eye of the other 6 justices by denying it and refusing to refer it to the full court sounds like a pretty good way to piss off her conservative colleagues. Just like some of Thomas decisions in regards to Trump. I don't think he personally would be inclined to side with DOJ over the Mar a Lago stuff, but I think he is also pretty aware he and maybe Alito might be the only ones to feel that way, so by the time it got back to the full court, they'd strike it down HARD and be pretty pissed all the while.

Justices often decide the way they think the greater court would, even if they don't personally like it. Unless they aren't very sure or they think the rest of the court really should hear and consider the petition. There are always exceptions to that. But they are exceptions.

 

[motorcoachdoug]

Plus Sotomayor knows that Thomas would be looking very hard over her shoulder and "encourage" her to rule against 2CA or if she does not want to take the wrath of NY then bring it before the full court and who knows mabe ,tho this is a long shot, they might do a Per Curiam against NY thus giving NY a sound spanking.

 

[Allen65]

SCOTUS can only rule on the issue before it, which for now is whether to issie an emergency order lifting 2CA's stay of the district court's PI in Antonyuk.

NY has made the issue much more than 2CA; with its new forearms law NY has made a facial challenge to SCOTUS's authority and the 14th Amendment, and Sotomayor can't ignore that no matter her opinion about 2A.

 

[whistlersmother]

SCOTUS can only rule on the issue before it, which for now is whether to issie an emergency order lifting 2CA's stay of the district court's PI in Antonyuk.

NY has made the issue much more than 2CA; with its new forearms law NY has made a facial challenge to SCOTUS's authority and the 14th Amendment, and Sotomayor can't ignore that no matter her opinion about 2A.

I disagree.

The left would burn everything, including SCOTUS authority, if the ends justify it.

If she upholds the stay, then we'll know just how far she's currently willing to go to have the ends justify the means. She may not be at that point, yet.

 

[Allen65]

I disagree.

The left would burn everything, including SCOTUS authority, if the ends justify it.

If she upholds the stay, then we'll know just how far she's currently willing to go to have the ends justify the means. She may not be at that point, yet.

The "Left" isn't a single entity with one uniform opinion on every issue. It's a spectrum of mix-and-match beliefs of varying stridency. And, yes, there are some on the far left who would, and some towards the sane center who would definitely not.

 

[normbal]

The "Left" isn't a single entity with one uniform opinion on every issue. It's a spectrum of mix-and-match beliefs of varying stridency. And, yes, there are some on the far left who would, and some towards the sane center who would definitely not.

“A wise person’s heart directs him toward the right, but the foolish person’s heart directs him toward the left.” Ecclesiastes 10:2

“The left”-

The Leftist Personality: Left-Wing ideology is a biological phenomenon

Countless studies have shown that physical and psychological characteristics closely align with political orientation. This article covers some of the most significant findings and explores the origins of the Leftist personality type.

biopolitics.substack.com

 

[Inigoes]

The "Left" isn't a single entity with one uniform opinion on every issue. It's a spectrum of mix-and-match beliefs of varying stridency. And, yes, there are some on the far left who would, and some towards the sane center who would definitely not.

Not when it comes to the 2A!

The left is in lock step to take away any power that can be used against their solidification of control.