NYSRPA v Bruen 2

[press1280]

This looks like a clone of the Antyok case. Hopefully they have standing.

 

[CrueChief]

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.

They do this so they can't be held accountable to the voters, they can simple point to the term limited executive or nameless/faceless bureaucrats. While winning re-election time and again.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

This looks like a clone of the Antyok case. Hopefully they have standing.

yep, they do, the problem antyok had was he allready has his permit, so the only real think he can challenge is location. Where as the group NYSPRA as a group has members without permits. So different level of standing.

In addition NY will have a touch time explaining why they don’t have standing now, when SCOTUS said they did for Bruen 1. However keep in mind one major thing. In Bruen 1, the case was DISMISSED as well as for standing too. They appealed up… NY wanted SCOTUS to remand back to district court to continue the case. And rule that they had standing. SCOTUS decided they didn’t want that, because they knew it would be back in front of them anyways.

So NY will either have to accept NYSPRA has standing… or they know what will happen anyways. They just want to delay it as much as possible.

Either way… this case will end up back in front of SCOTUS. It may take 3 years to get there and get a decision. but it will get there.

NY is hoping if they delay it long enough Thomas may not be there anymore.

 

[jcutonilli]

yep, they do, the problem antyok had was he allready has his permit, so the only real think he can challenge is location. Where as the group NYSPRA as a group has members without permits. So different level of standing.

In addition NY will have a touch time explaining why they don’t have standing now, when SCOTUS said they did for Bruen 1. However keep in mind one major thing. In Bruen 1, the case was DISMISSED as well as for standing too. They appealed up… NY wanted SCOTUS to remand back to district court to continue the case. And rule that they had standing. SCOTUS decided they didn’t want that, because they knew it would be back in front of them anyways.

So NY will either have to accept NYSPRA has standing… or they know what will happen anyways. They just want to delay it as much as possible.

Either way… this case will end up back in front of SCOTUS. It may take 3 years to get there and get a decision. but it will get there.

NY is hoping if they delay it long enough Thomas may not be there anymore.

Bruen 1 as you call it was NOT dismissed for standing. It was dismissed for failure to state a claim. There was no standing issue in Bruen 1.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/164031/20201217110236046_2020-12-17%20NRA%20Corlett%20Appendix%20FINAL.pdf

 

[Allen65]

Either way… this case will end up back in front of SCOTUS. It may take 3 years to get there and get a decision. but it will get there.

Probably more than 3 years. Look at what HI managed to do to 2A cases. But this time around if a TRO is issued and sustained, running out the clock wouldn't be in NY's favor. I can see one being granted at District level, but 2CA is overwhelmingly, irredeemably anti-2A based on past rulings, so the TRO probably wouldn't survive at CA level. And any emergency appeal of 2CA's denial of a TRO would then go to Justice Sotomayor. Anybody want to guess what she'd do with that TRO appeal?

NY is hoping if they delay it long enough Thomas may not be there anymore.

Yup. And we'll probably see the same thing with MD in Bianchi. Delay, delay, delay until there's a friendlier SCOTUS.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

Probably more than 3 years. Look at what HI managed to do to 2A cases. But this time around if a TRO is issued and sustained, running out the clock wouldn't be in NY's favor. I can see one being granted at District level, but 2CA is overwhelmingly, irredeemably anti-2A based on past rulings, so the TRO probably wouldn't survive at CA level. And any emergency appeal of 2CA's denial of a TRO would then go to Justice Sotomayor. Anybody want to guess what she'd do with that TRO appeal?


Yup. And we'll probably see the same thing with MD in Bianchi. Delay, delay, delay until there's a friendlier SCOTUS.

Yea it could take more then 3 years. Young has been ing n for over 10 years, but the first Bren took about 3 years for a decision with SCOTUS. Bianchi and NYSRA. As well as Duncan and young, would probably get granted under the shadow docket and quiepquickly if they made it back to SCOTUS for a second time. sCOTUS doesn’t take to kindly to things making back to them a second time, especially when the courts are not following their intended plans in The first Place. However if we win at the En Banc level, and the state petitions for cert. then it would get denied.

Unless SCOTUS changes, I am pretty confident we will win when we get there.

The big trick many people forget, is it isn’t as much about the issue, as the facts surrounding that issue, and where the issue is originating As well.

 

[dblas]

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

his is basic middle school civics, they don't have qualified immunity, they have Constitutional protection. Pretty much every state has copied the verbiage in Article 1, Section 6 of the US Constitution.

"

Section. 6.​

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

And don't be the guy to bring up Treason...again, simple middle school civics.

 

[dblas]

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.

Article 1, Section 6 of the Constitution, and the associated verbiage in the NY State Constitution, trumps 42 USC 1983.

 

[Blacksmith101]

Article 1, Section 6 of the Constitution, and the associated verbiage in the NY State Constitution, trumps 42 USC 1983.

Section. 6.​

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

I don't see any mention of protection for unconstitutional VOTES or protection from arrest when the legislature is not in session or any protection from personal liability for illegal actions they commit.

 

[dblas]

Section. 6.​

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

I don't see any mention of protection for unconstitutional VOTES or protection from arrest when the legislature is not in session or any protection from personal liability for illegal actions they commit.

Votes are considered speech for the purposes of this article, and thus protected, and cannot be arrested or sued for doing so.

 

[Blacksmith101]

Votes are considered speech for the purposes of this article, and thus protected, and cannot be arrested or sued for doing so.

Would unconstitutional votes be grounds for impeachment?

 

[Abuck]

Would unconstitutional votes be grounds for impeachment?

According to the link below, yes they could be. But very unlikely.
The other way to attack it would be to go after the funding of enforcement of an unconstitutional bill.
This is an interesting read. But leaves little recourse to rogue legislators.

“Constitutionally Unconstitutional? When State Legislatures Pass Laws Contrary to Supreme Court Precedent”

https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/online/53/files/53-online-Bakst.pdf