User Panel
|
|
Ad Lucem: Towards Light
This information is a general statement of law and procedure and not a substitute for specific legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction. |
Originally Posted By AdLucem: Originally Posted By GTwannabe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4rl3PUSP5U Summary? 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. |
|
|
Originally Posted By DaveM4P99: 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. View Quote 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! |
|
The duty of a patriot is to protect his nation from its government.
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" |
Originally Posted By HiramRanger: 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! View Quote I hope not but that would be consistent with SCOTUS behavior. |
|
|
Originally Posted By xd341: 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. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By xd341: Originally Posted By HiramRanger: 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! 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. |
|
The duty of a patriot is to protect his nation from its government.
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" |
Originally Posted By HiramRanger: 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. View Quote |
|
|
Originally Posted By xd341: Originally Posted By HiramRanger: 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 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!" |
|
The duty of a patriot is to protect his nation from its government.
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" |
Originally Posted By xd341: 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. View Quote 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. |
|
If it's horrible, it exists. If it's beautiful, you're imagining it.
|
Originally Posted By GTwannabe: The problem is the Roberts court is frequently paralyzed by perceived procedural issue bullshit so it's a long shot. View Quote 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. |
|
|
Originally Posted By Aardvark: 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. View Quote 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. |
|
|
|
Go Nolo!
|
|
|
Originally Posted By DaveM4P99: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-910.html View Quote 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? |
|
|
Originally Posted By EXSUNY: 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? View Quote |
|
|
Originally Posted By EXSUNY: 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? View Quote Must be you missed this part. |
|
|
Originally Posted By Crash1433: Must be you missed this part. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By Crash1433: Originally Posted By EXSUNY: 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? 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:
BREAKING JUST NOW: U.S. SUPREME COURT ISSUES MAJOR ORDER IN ASSAULT WEAPON BAN CASE |
|
If it's horrible, it exists. If it's beautiful, you're imagining it.
|
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...
That said, because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry. View Quote 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? |
|
|
A summary in advance of todays proceedings
Scotusblog summary Antonyuk |
|
|
So scheduled for conference today. When will we know if it is granted cert?
And guys...this is more than just the CCIA. This case asks for clarification on when the historical test should look to. As we know, it should look to the late 1700s. If that's the decision, then NYs gun laws go bye bye. Not just the CCIA. |
|
|
Originally Posted By DaveM4P99: So scheduled for conference today. When will we know if it is granted cert? And guys...this is more than just the CCIA. This case asks for clarification on when the historical test should look to. As we know, it should look to the late 1700s. If that's the decision, then NYs gun laws go bye bye. Not just the CCIA. View Quote The NY legislature, the governor, the courts, and the 2nd circus will never comply and continue dragging everything out |
|
|
Originally Posted By crwdplsr: The NY legislature, the governor, the courts, and the 2nd circus will never comply and continue dragging everything out View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By crwdplsr: Originally Posted By DaveM4P99: So scheduled for conference today. When will we know if it is granted cert? And guys...this is more than just the CCIA. This case asks for clarification on when the historical test should look to. As we know, it should look to the late 1700s. If that's the decision, then NYs gun laws go bye bye. Not just the CCIA. The NY legislature, the governor, the courts, and the 2nd circus will never comply and continue dragging everything out Well obviously. But we are chipping away at what they can successfully prosecute for. And gaining ground on laws we know we can ignore due to them being unconstitutional. |
|
|
Originally Posted By DaveM4P99: So scheduled for conference today. When will we know if it is granted cert? And guys...this is more than just the CCIA. This case asks for clarification on when the historical test should look to. As we know, it should look to the late 1700s. If that's the decision, then NYs gun laws go bye bye. Not just the CCIA. View Quote Spoke with Nolo this morning, he is not expecting to hear anything until Monday and they might decide to schedule another conference after this one. What I take from that (my opinion) is some justices might wish to go back, have their clerks do some research after today's conference and come together again to debate. I think it is an incredibly strong sign that they took this to conference. That leads me to believe that there are Justices who are pissed the fuck off. |
|
The duty of a patriot is to protect his nation from its government.
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" |
Originally Posted By HiramRanger: Spoke with Nolo this morning, he is not expecting to hear anything until Monday and they might decide to schedule another conference after this one. What I take from that (my opinion) is some justices might wish to go back, have their clerks do some research after today's conference and come together again to debate. I think it is an incredibly strong sign that they took this to conference. That leads me to believe that there are Justices who are pissed the fuck off. View Quote Thanks Hiram. And yeah NY, NYC and the 2nd circus have been thumbing their noses at SCOTUS for a long time now. The NYPD licensing division changing that transportation rule the second SCOTUS granted cert, to moot the case? And before that the Kachalsky case against Proper Cause. And plenty other examples of laws and court cases going directly against SCOTUS / Heller/McDonald / Bruen. It's time NY got slapped hard. Again. Bruen was only the first strike. Otherwise SCOTUS is just a paper tiger. |
|
|
Originally Posted By HiramRanger: Spoke with Nolo this morning, he is not expecting to hear anything until Monday and they might decide to schedule another conference after this one. What I take from that (my opinion) is some justices might wish to go back, have their clerks do some research after today's conference and come together again to debate. I think it is an incredibly strong sign that they took this to conference. That leads me to believe that there are Justices who are pissed the fuck off. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By HiramRanger: Originally Posted By DaveM4P99: So scheduled for conference today. When will we know if it is granted cert? And guys...this is more than just the CCIA. This case asks for clarification on when the historical test should look to. As we know, it should look to the late 1700s. If that's the decision, then NYs gun laws go bye bye. Not just the CCIA. Spoke with Nolo this morning, he is not expecting to hear anything until Monday and they might decide to schedule another conference after this one. What I take from that (my opinion) is some justices might wish to go back, have their clerks do some research after today's conference and come together again to debate. I think it is an incredibly strong sign that they took this to conference. That leads me to believe that there are Justices who are pissed the fuck off. Thank you for the update. |
|
|
Thanks Hiram!
|
|
|
Originally Posted By DaveM4P99: Thanks Hiram. And yeah NY, NYC and the 2nd circus have been thumbing their noses at SCOTUS for a long time now. The NYPD licensing division changing that transportation rule the second SCOTUS granted cert, to moot the case? And before that the Kachalsky case against Proper Cause. And plenty other examples of laws and court cases going directly against SCOTUS / Heller/McDonald / Bruen. It's time NY got slapped hard. Again. Bruen was only the first strike. Otherwise SCOTUS is just a paper tiger. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By DaveM4P99: Originally Posted By HiramRanger: Spoke with Nolo this morning, he is not expecting to hear anything until Monday and they might decide to schedule another conference after this one. What I take from that (my opinion) is some justices might wish to go back, have their clerks do some research after today's conference and come together again to debate. I think it is an incredibly strong sign that they took this to conference. That leads me to believe that there are Justices who are pissed the fuck off. Thanks Hiram. And yeah NY, NYC and the 2nd circus have been thumbing their noses at SCOTUS for a long time now. The NYPD licensing division changing that transportation rule the second SCOTUS granted cert, to moot the case? And before that the Kachalsky case against Proper Cause. And plenty other examples of laws and court cases going directly against SCOTUS / Heller/McDonald / Bruen. It's time NY got slapped hard. Again. Bruen was only the first strike. Otherwise SCOTUS is just a paper tiger. Yes. Slapped hard……Supreme court needs to just say: fuck you NY you’re done playing your game….every gun law is struck down period……constitutional carry it is. |
|
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.