Summary?

Yes it is tough. Trying to parse it out myself. I know, he's a lawyer, and what could be said in 7 minutes takes 15 minutes Rather than spell out exactly what is going on, takes the most twisted circuitous route to arrive at an explanation.

Explains why billable hours are so high

The state's response is utter bullshit as expected.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-910.html

If I was an anti gun NYer, I'd be pissed my tax dollars were going to such pitiful lawyers with such idiotic arguments.

Yeah I read it last night and my take was it was a flowery bouquet of bullshit.

Arguments:

1. You shouldn't take up this case because you usually don't take up interlocutory motions and the 2nd Circuit hasn't issued a ruling so it is premature - despite the fact that they telegrapher what they intend to do by first completely agreeing with the state without any written opinion, and when forced to give reasons they themselves put up hundreds of pages of nonsense to reaffirm 90% of what they previously said.

2. We should definitely use reconstruction era history as our guide, which by the way just happens to coincide with the first gun restrictions which were race based and themselves would be deemed unconstitutional - but that's different.

Hopefully Thomas and Alito go to town!

To point 1.  SCOTUS goes to great pains to "follow the process" meaning no they don't typically rule on interlocutory motions.  I wouldn't be totally shocked if that becomes what happens.

I hope not but that would be consistent with SCOTUS behavior.

Close to two years in and we are scant closer to any resolution. Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers, if not more, live with the prospect of becoming felons for doing what was allowed one day and a felony the next.

If ever there was a time to break from tradition, now is it.

I totally agree.

I think one reason they MIGHT act is Hochul used a completely contorted and false analysis of Bruen to push the CCIA, claiming they did it to comply with Bruen. The purpose of bruen was to reign in arbitrary abuses of the second amendment and Karen HoCUNT essentially said, "hold my baby blood latte and watch this!"

True, but there are a half-dozen nearly identical assault weapon/mag ban cases from different circuits all up for review at the same time.  That *could* justify bundling them for review as there is a clear constitutional controversy in the lower courts that needs to be resolved by SCOTUS.

The problem is the Roberts court is frequently paralyzed by perceived procedural issue bullshit so it's a long shot.

Another factor that seems to get their attention is the constant threat to add more Justices to the court by the Democrat's. They have yet to muster the votes to do it but it is only an issue in the Senate with the filibuster stopping it. That overt letter from RI Senator Whitehouse a few years ago threatening the court "behave" is a good example.

Having read that brief little blurb in the Constitution titled "Article III " several times, it seems there is a lot of leeway for the court to fight back against "court packing" if they so choose. There is nothing that says all Justices have to hear and rule on a case. In fact there is nothing about how the court is to conduct its operations. I cannot see any reason why, if Congress eventually adds four or six more Justices, Roberts could not structure the court like a Circuit Court and decide to have just nine of the full compliment of Justices hear and rule on a case (which would give him the power to pick Justices for a case he knows will rule the way he wants - a massive increase in power for the Chief Justice). They could distribute the workload to groups of nine Justices. Of course Congress might also pass laws dictating how the court should operate but then that would set up a case for the court actually ruling on the constitutionality of a law affecting it.

Separation of powers. You'd need an amendment for something that significant.

It's an amazing system. Anything is possible yet it's very stable.

Those dudes from back in the day had their shit together.

Looks like @nolocontendere replied to NYs ridiculous argument yesterday!

@hiramranger

Fingers crossed scotus picks this up...because it'll further clarify that ALL of NYs gun laws are unconstitutional.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-910.html

Go Nolo!

Another excellent read from Nolo.

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday declined, for now, to hear a challenge to a Maryland law banning certain semi-automatic firearms commonly referred to as assault weapons.

The court did not elaborate on the denial, as is typical. It would have been unusual for the justices to take up a case at this point, since a lower court is still weighing it. The Supreme Court is also considering an appeal over a similar law in Illinois. It did not act Monday on that case, which could be another avenue to take up the issue.

--- Not NY - but don't hold your breath on Clarence and Thomas riding to the rescue. Maybe Mrs. Thomas?

Did I miss the joke?  It's Clarence Thomas...one dude.

Must be you missed this part.

Yeah I mean unfortunately Antonyuk is mid stream too...it still needs to go to a full trial at the federal district court level...then to the 2nd circus...then SCOTUS. All this stuff that has already happened has just been hearings about stays and injunctions.

But...it has a higher chance because it is dealing with NYs direct response (The CCIA) to Bruen, which clearly spits in the face of SCOTUS.

Disappointing, but not unexpected:

And the case this thread is about has been distributed for conference on June 6.

Let's just hope this little tid bit from Bruen holds true...



How about 1 year waits, $500-$1000 18 hour 2 day training courses that are non existent, and tons of other hoops to jump through?