NYSRPA v Bruen 2

[ToneGrail]

Let the smackdown begin.

View attachment gov.uscourts.nynd.134455.1.0.pdf

Sent from my KFMAWI using Tapatalk

 

[Mike]

There needs to be a significant penalty for unfaithful legislators and governors so they are personally in severe jeopardy for trying to make unconstitutional laws.

 

[john_bud]

There needs to be a significant penalty for unfaithful legislators and governors so they are personally in severe jeopardy for trying to make unconstitutional laws.

Can legislators be held in contempt of the supreme court?

 

[Doctor_M]

Penalty should involve hot tar and chicken down.

 

[gamer_jim]

There needs to be a significant penalty for unfaithful legislators and governors so they are personally in severe jeopardy for trying to make unconstitutional laws.

We do, it's called voting them out of office.
Until more people care about their government we'll keep getting horrible people like this in office.
I think something we can do, as those who care, is to remind those in our circles of friends and family about how important informed voting is. Particularly at the local and state level.

 

[JollyPedro]

Also, CA's law mimicking NY's didn't pass!!!!

 

[Garet Jax]

Come on SCOTUS smack these f'ers down.

 

[safegunners]

There needs to be a significant penalty for unfaithful legislators and governors so they are personally in severe jeopardy for trying to make unconstitutional laws.

Every NY legislator that voted for this act should be charged with a civil rights violation.

Any Politician who claims to provide common-sense "gun control" solutions by depriving and diminishing law abiding citizens rights to keep and bear arms with a premise to thwart actions carried out by criminals who deliberately and blatantly otherwise disregard the law is not providing common-sense at all. These politicians are propagandizing their own failed policies while producing perfect opportunities for criminals to thrive and commit crimes while leaving law abiding citizens defenseless.

 

[Doctor_M]

So what's the earliest we could possibly see Revenge of Clarence Thomas... The SCOTUS Strikes Back.

 

[Nobody]

Two weeks

 

[FFBWMD]

Two weeks

I wish..

 

[Abuck]

Every NY legislator that voted for this act should be charged with a civil rights violation.

Any Politician who claims to provide common-sense "gun control" solutions by depriving and diminishing law abiding citizens rights to keep and bear arms with a premise to thwart actions carried out by criminals who deliberately and blatantly otherwise disregard the law is not providing common-sense at all. These politicians are propagandizing their own failed policies while producing perfect opportunities for criminals to thrive and commit crimes while leaving law abiding citizens defenseless.

This. They are knowingly continuing to violate our civil rights. Qualified immunity should be gone for them.

 

[teratos]

This. They are knowingly continuing to violate our civil rights. Qualified immunity should be gone for them.

Just like it is for the police when they KNOWINGLY deprive you of a civil right.
This should be a referendum.

 

[Abuck]

Just like it is for the police when they KNOWINGLY deprive you of a civil right.
This should be a referendum.

Yup. They should be pulled right from their state assembly and charged. Or at least everyone who voted yes should be served with Papers for 42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights, right there at the scene of their crime.

Edit: The plaintiffs in the case should legally go after these criminal legislators directly. Might wake a few up.

 

[safegunners]

This. They are knowingly continuing to violate our civil rights. Qualified immunity should be gone for them.

Definitely, I have yet to understand how you can take an oath to uphold the constitution and blatantly disregard it. It also really amazes me how much power the legislatures have given to the executive branch. Administrative rules makeup a large portion of what people otherwise would perceive as law. The general populous has no idea how government works, nor do they care to take the time to know.

 

[Blacksmith101]

Well each of the six counts references "42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action for Deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Rights under U.S. CONST."

So it looks like someone will be held personally liable.

 

[jcutonilli]

Well each of the six counts references "42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action for Deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Rights under U.S. CONST."

So it looks like someone will be held personally liable.

That is typical for 2A cases. Rarely is anyone held personally liable. The defendants are typically sued in their official capacity. You see individuals listed as defendants as a legal fiction to get around so called sovereign immunity and a misreading of the 11th amendment.
It is based on Ex parte Young https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Young

 

[Abuck]

That is typical for 2A cases. Rarely is anyone held personally liable. The defendants are typically sued in their official capacity. You see individuals listed as defendants as a legal fiction to get around so called sovereign immunity and a misreading of the 11th amendment.
It is based on Ex parte Young https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Young

So according to this, it seems like someone arrested under the new law would have standing, and could file a 1983 claim against those who passed, or try’s to enforce, what should eventually be ruled unconstitutional? They passed the new laws after, and contrary to the Bruen ruling.

“Young contended that he was merely acting for the state of Minnesota when he sought to enforce its laws. The Court disagreed, holding that when a state official does something that is unconstitutional, the official cannot possibly be doing it in the name of the state, because the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution means that the Constitution overrides all the laws of the states, invalidating any contrary laws. Therefore, when a state official attempts to enforce an unconstitutional law, that individual is stripped of his official character. He becomes merely another citizen who can constitutionally be brought before a court by a party seeking injunctive relief.”

 

[motorcoachdoug]

That could be very useful down that road not only in CA but mabe against members of the MGA as well?

 

[Boxcab]

That is typical for 2A cases. Rarely is anyone held personally liable. The defendants are typically sued in their official capacity. You see individuals listed as defendants as a legal fiction to get around so called sovereign immunity and a misreading of the 11th amendment.
It is based on Ex parte Young https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Young

This needs to happen.

It was a very blatant attack of 2A Rights with no allowance of public input or consideration. They went after gun owners .

What will it take to get this underway?




.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk