NY ordered to answer to SCOTUS

[krucam]

This guy thinks it went bad. Good, as the next appeal is SCOTUS…it will be fun to see how they’d take it being a case that spun off one they GVR’d last summer.

 

[csanc123]

The defense was 'ready'...they countered almost every point made by the plaintiffs AND judges...

The plaintiff lawyers were not as polished and it showed.

I definitely agree...the judges seemed to side with defense. They stretched out what in their minds could be possible with Bruen...almost laying the groundwork for the defense themselves. To be somewhat fair...the judges did ask pointed questions of the defense but the attorneys were ready and quick with responses.

 

[motorcoachdoug]

2CA seemed to go for the defense so I guess they did not care if SCOTUS overturned their decision which is odd because most CA's do not like to their decisions overturned made to look like a fool on the other hand 2CA has drunk so much kool aid they do not care and or do not want to take the responsibility of telling NY to go stuff it and take a hike as they figure SCOTUS judges do not live in NY and NY could not give them heck or I really hate to think this of the 2CA but how much gifts did NY give them in the pass and or NY is calling in their "favors". I want to give 2CA the befit of doubt but with the way they were asking questions did not go well for our side IMHO.

 

[csanc123]

2CA seemed to go for the defense so I guess they did not care if SCOTUS overturned their decision which is odd because most CA's do not like to their decisions overturned made to look like a fool on the other hand 2CA has drunk so much kool aid they do not care and or do not want to take the responsibility of telling NY to go stuff it and take a hike as they figure SCOTUS judges do not live in NY and NY could not give them heck or I really hate to think this of the 2CA but how much gifts did NY give them in the pass and or NY is calling in their "favors". I want to give 2CA the befit of doubt but with the way they were asking questions did not go well for our side IMHO.

Agree here. The judges line of inquiry almost made it seem they had deference for the defense. (although some of the ramblings from the plaintiffs didn't help). Numerous occasions where the judges ask the plaintiffs to stay on target and get to the point.

 

[lazarus]

Caught part of the guns/churches by worshippers (next is clergy, starting next)

i predict this will be found in favor of state. At least one judge used the pro2a lawyers time to make the states arguments.

this is the resistance. And Thomas should have been much more blunt. Same problem scalia had with vague wording.

imho, if the state doesn’t provide security, and accept liability when it fails (forfeiting castle rock, immunity) then the place in question ain’t sensitive.

the states list would get real short real fast.

I wouldn't think it would need to be the state. A private entity supplying it seems like it would probably be fine too.

 

[Woodnickel]

Just caught this on twitter. If it’s not old:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-622/260240/20230329172905689_22-622%20Brief%20for%20Respondents.pdf

 

[Blacksmith101]

In the case of Gazzola v Hochul the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari Before Judgement has been DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/21/2023

Link to the Supreme Court Docket case number 22-622

Search

 

[delaware_export]

Just saw your reply. there was no attorney for private parties, just the state. or that’s how the audio sounded to my laymen ears. So the focus of my statement.

But I agree with you. Anyone wishing to designate their place as sensitive would have to be responsible for failure and liable for damage inflicted on all inside for failure to protect. Gov or private. Would shorten the list. Quickly!

I wouldn't think it would need to be the state. A private entity supplying it seems like it would probably be fine too.

 

[IronEye]

In the case of Gazzola v Hochul the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari Before Judgement has been DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/21/2023

Link to the Supreme Court Docket case number 22-622

Search

Is it possible that SCOTUS is going to remind the lower courts that the Bruen decision cannot be flaunted by imposing endless delays?

 

[pcfixer]

Is it possible that SCOTUS is going to remind the lower courts that the Bruen decision cannot be flaunted by imposing endless delays?

DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/21/2023. Will be interesting for sure. https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/2023TermCourtCalendar.pdf When will a response to petition?

 

[Allen65]

Is it possible that SCOTUS is going to remind the lower courts that the Bruen decision cannot be flaunted by imposing endless delays?

SCOTUS made it clear when they denied the emergency request to vacate 2CA's stay on the District Court PI against the NY law that the request was being denied only on procedural grounds and without prejudice, and that the Antonyuk plaintiffs were free to come back to SCOTUS again later if 2CA did not treat the issue with the sense of urgency which was due to it. The wording used was very much "Drag your feet, 2CA, and we're standing by to smack you HARD." And in the same document, SCOTUS noted that the District Court Judge's original decision to overturn the NY law was "well-reasoned". Even to us non-lawyers, that's a pretty strong clue of what SCOTUS is expecting to see from 2CA when there is a decision.

It actually might be in our interest if 2CA decides to overturn the District decision, so Antonyuk can appeal directly to SCOTUS and avoid an en banc that will do nothing more than drain the plaintiffs' pockets and add delay to the final SCOTUS outcome. If they uphold the District finding, then NYAG can request an en banc, which has no real purpose in this process other than adding delay and cost because Antonyuk is likely to be heard by SCOTUS eventually, no matter what 2CA does.

 

[pcfixer]

@Allen65

 

[Mister F]

SCOTUS made it clear when they denied the emergency request to vacate 2CA's stay on the District Court PI against the NY law that the request was being denied only on procedural grounds and without prejudice, and that the Antonyuk plaintiffs were free to come back to SCOTUS again later if 2CA did not treat the issue with the sense of urgency which was due to it. The wording used was very much "Drag your feet, 2CA, and we're standing by to smack you HARD." And in the same document, SCOTUS noted that the District Court Judge's original decision to overturn the NY law was "well-reasoned". Even to us non-lawyers, that's a pretty strong clue of what SCOTUS is expecting to see from 2CA when there is a decision.

It actually might be in our interest if 2CA decides to overturn the District decision, so Antonyuk can appeal directly to SCOTUS and avoid an en banc that will do nothing more than drain the plaintiffs' pockets and add delay to the final SCOTUS outcome. If they uphold the District finding, then NYAG can request an en banc, which has no real purpose in this process other than adding delay and cost because Antonyuk is likely to be heard by SCOTUS eventually, no matter what 2CA does.

I continue to be surprised that people didn’t know that what is defined as “sensitive places” would be the next front of the litigation. I saw this coming….just post McDonald v Chicago. Though with all the cert denials for 2A outside-the-home over the years I wondered when the ball would move. It almost didn’t. People just need to be patient. The system needs to work. What is nice, for the overwhelming majority of the country, their states have acted properly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lazarus]

I continue to be surprised that people didn’t know that what is defined as “sensitive places” would be the next front of the litigation. I saw this coming….just post McDonald v Chicago. Though with all the cert denials for 2A outside-the-home over the years I wondered when the ball would move. It almost didn’t. People just need to be patient. The system needs to work. What is nice, for the overwhelming majority of the country, their states have acted properly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I bet real quick it’ll be AWB. Once appeals courts start ruling on them and SCOTUS gets their hands on them, I highly expect states to try to weasel around court rulings on bans.

 

[Allen65]

I bet real quick it’ll be AWB. Once appeals courts start ruling on them and SCOTUS gets their hands on them, I highly expect states to try to weasel around court rulings on bans.

Possibly, but my money would be on the antis trying new approaches that don't have any significant litigation behind them yet, like ammo controls or draconian zoning and other commerce-related regulations on dealers that make their businesses unprofitable or untenable but don't directly implicate 2A. The idea would be to throw entirely new issues to District courts to get challenges bogged down in discovery for as long as possible, while depending on "reliable" appellate circuits like 2CA and 9CA to stay any PIs District Court judges may issue.

Exercise of 2A requires a supporting commercial ecosystem. And as the core right gets better defined in law by courts and therefore restrictions easier to overturn, the attack surface for that commercial infrastructure will start gathering more attention like we've already seen with county regs on 2A-related businesses in AACO, BaltCo, and MoCo.

Both sides see the fight over private ownership and carry of firearms as an existential conflict. They aren't giving up, we're not giving up. They're not going away, nor are we. It's going to be a perpetual, ever-evolving battle.

 

[Worsley]

if she rules against, then New York becoming another Chicago will be in the range of likely outcomes. For Democrat entitlement policies to remain relevant there has to be poverty, death and disease.

 

[lazarus]

Possibly, but my money would be on the antis trying new approaches that don't have any significant litigation behind them at all, like ammo controls or draconian zoning and other commerce-related regulations on dealers that make their businesses unprofitable or untenable but don't directly implicate 2A. The idea would be to throw entirely new issues to District courts to get challenges bogged down in discovery for as long as possible, while depending on "reliable" appellate circuits like 2CA and 9CA to stay any PIs District Court judges may issue.

Exercise of 2A requires a supporting commercial ecosystem. And as the core right gets better defined in law by courts and therefore restrictions easier to overturn, the attack surface for that commercial infrastructure will start gathering more attention like we've already seen with county regs on 2A-related businesses in AACO, BaltCo, and MoCo.

Both sides see the fight over private ownership and carry of firearms as an existential conflict. They aren't giving up, we're not giving up. They're not going away, nor are we. It's going to be a perpetual, ever-evolving battle.

I wish I could disagree with you, but you are probably right. But I would not expect them to take this a bite at a time. We saw this year in MD they pushed safe storage, licensing changes, over criminalizing lawful owners, as well as making every structure in the state a prohibited place.

Ammo controls probably are next. And I'd bet worse than California. Licenses/background checks to buy ammo, online order bans, gun show bans (possibly of ammo, possibly just of gun shows like allowing ammunition and firearms to only be sold by a licensed FFL at the address of their license or some such crap), purchase limits.

But it wouldn't surprise me that they'll attempt to weasel around any AWB court decisions anyway they can. As creative as manufacturers are in working around AWBs, I expect the more extreme liberal legislatures to be just as creative. Thomas/SCOTUS is going to have to make real sure judicial opinions are awfully airtight.

 

[Lafayette]

I wish I could disagree with you, but you are probably right. But I would not expect them to take this a bite at a time. We saw this year in MD they pushed safe storage, licensing changes, over criminalizing lawful owners, as well as making every structure in the state a prohibited place.

Ammo controls probably are next. And I'd bet worse than California. Licenses/background checks to buy ammo, online order bans, gun show bans (possibly of ammo, possibly just of gun shows like allowing ammunition and firearms to only be sold by a licensed FFL at the address of their license or some such crap), purchase limits.

But it wouldn't surprise me that they'll attempt to weasel around any AWB court decisions anyway they can. As creative as manufacturers are in working around AWBs, I expect the more extreme liberal legislatures to be just as creative. Thomas/SCOTUS is going to have to make real sure judicial opinions are awfully airtight.

This is depressingly prescient.

I think that’s why I’m interested in the magazine ban decisions; will the courts recognize that an item necessary to the function of a firearm is a protected “arm” as well? Of course even if they do, I’m sure they’ll leave wiggle room for “reasonable” restrictions like ID to purchase ammo, limits on quantities, etc. and that makes me sad. One man’s “reasonable” is another's prelude to tyranny.

 

[lazarus]

This is depressingly prescient.

I think that’s why I’m interested in the magazine ban decisions; will the courts recognize that an item necessary to the function of a firearm is a protected “arm” as well? Of course even if they do, I’m sure they’ll leave wiggle room for “reasonable” restrictions like ID to purchase ammo, limits on quantities, etc. and that makes me sad. One man’s “reasonable” is another's prelude to tyranny.

In my mind, the only reasonableness is that if it is constitutional to age restrict firearms, and the answer is probably, then it is likely reasonable to age restrict ammunition. And thus okay to require a proof of age to purchase ammunition. That seems to be the only thing I can think of that might meet THT for ammunition restrictions.

THT, age restrictions on ammunitions or guns don't have a direct historical precedent on THEM specifically, but there is THT on rights in general being age restricted. Such as right to vote. Age to join the militia. Etc. THT would also likely mean, when you are old enough to vote, you are old enough to have all other rights accorded to you (so none of this 21 BS).

 

[Blacksmith101]

In my mind, the only reasonableness is that if it is constitutional to age restrict firearms, and the answer is probably, then it is likely reasonable to age restrict ammunition. And thus okay to require a proof of age to purchase ammunition. That seems to be the only thing I can think of that might meet THT for ammunition restrictions.

THT, age restrictions on ammunitions or guns don't have a direct historical precedent on THEM specifically, but there is THT on rights in general being age restricted. Such as right to vote. Age to join the militia. Etc. THT would also likely mean, when you are old enough to vote, you are old enough to have all other rights accorded to you (so none of this 21 BS).

The historical age to have a firearm is at least 18 according to the Militia Act of 1792:

Link to The Four Boxes Diner skip to the 13:00 minute mark for the age for a militia member who is supposed to show up for duty with their own firearm and ammunition: