Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

76
CDFingers wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 12:48 pm OK

CDFingers
Even though I agree with featureless, I’m not convinced the do something group won’t push through legislation that is utterly useless. On that light I would agree with you that perhaps we could shed light on what needs to be done. Pushing for root causes and mitigation, safety initiatives that are actually safety orientated and not useless gun “buy backs” which do little to nothing. Also advocating addressing inefficiencies in the current system and where it falls short. None of that should require new laws. But our presence would show we are concerned and responsible in our actions. It’s a lot better than the beto commercial I see every day where a Uvalde mother cries about the inaction from the republicans, essentially demanding that some law should have been passed so another tragedy would never happen. Problem is no new law would have helped. No law can change things about our society that are this fundamentally broken. It requires getting people at a table without agenda to address these issues as a community. Authoritarianism won’t work. Removing rights won’t keep people safe. It just increases authoritarianism and leads to more strife.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

77
sikacz wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 2:20 pm
CDFingers wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 12:48 pm OK

CDFingers
Even though I agree with featureless, I’m not convinced the do something group won’t push through legislation that is utterly useless. On that light I would agree with you that perhaps we could shed light on what needs to be done. Pushing for root causes and mitigation, safety initiatives that are actually safety orientated and not useless gun “buy backs” which do little to nothing. Also advocating addressing inefficiencies in the current system and where it falls short. None of that should require new laws. But our presence would show we are concerned and responsible in our actions. It’s a lot better than the beto commercial I see every day where a Uvalde mother cries about the inaction from the republicans, essentially demanding that some law should have been passed so another tragedy would never happen. Problem is no new law would have helped. No law can change things about our society that are this fundamentally broken. It requires getting people at a table without agenda to address these issues as a community. Authoritarianism won’t work. Removing rights won’t keep people safe. It just increases authoritarianism and leads to more strife.
All of this. I agree with you, CDFingers. We need to advocate. Root cause for the win. Unfortunately, nobody is interested in trying to make the world a better place at the moment.

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

82
Another Challenge to New York’s Gun Law: Sheriffs Who Won’t Enforce It

Some say the measure, which was passed after a Supreme Court opinion, ignores common sense, the Second Amendment and the way people live outside big cities.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/09/nyre ... riffs.html
https://archive.ph/RKeTp

It's revenge for the Bruen decision and written for New York City.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

83
Also come on, it’s an enormous stretch to think that we’ll reduce school shootings by doing social media scrutiny for carry permit applicants. Wanting a carry permit necessarily entails the applicants desire to abide by law. This will only lead to denied permits for law abiding people who happen to be somehow distasteful in their personal, social media expressions, seen from the perspective of the reviewer. It’s invasive and unlikely to accomplish its goal.

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

84
Northern wrote: Mon Oct 10, 2022 7:40 am Also come on, it’s an enormous stretch to think that we’ll reduce school shootings by doing social media scrutiny for carry permit applicants. Wanting a carry permit necessarily entails the applicants desire to abide by law. This will only lead to denied permits for law abiding people who happen to be somehow distasteful in their personal, social media expressions, seen from the perspective of the reviewer. It’s invasive and unlikely to accomplish its goal.
Just so. Accepting more and more subjective hurdles on the vanishingly small hope of catching someone planning a vanishingly rare (even if horrific) occurrence is, once again, treating law abiding people like criminals. It's just completely inline with the "gun owners are all latent homicidal maniacs" thinking.

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

85
Yes to most Democratic politicians, the Bloomie groups and other anti-gunners like Giffords, the assumption is "guns are evil and only evil people use guns". Mea culpa to David Yamane for paraphrasing his mantra. The right aren't the only ones with sheeple, blue states have plenty of them too. Again another reason for abolishing the two party system, they are the ones who have divided this country. They want to keep everyone thinking in black and white terms, life isn't black and white, it's gray but they don't like gray thinking.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

86
A federal judge in New York temporarily suspended many parts of the state's new gun restrictions on Monday to allow members of a gun-owners' rights group to continue their lawsuit challenging the new law as unconstitutional. Judge Glenn Suddaby of the U.S. District Court in Syracuse agreed to issue the order at the request of six New York residents who are members of Gun Owners of America, which competes with the National Rifle Association in political influence. New York's old gun license regime was thrown out by the U.S. Supreme Court in a landmark June ruling that established an individual right to carry weapons in public for self-defense, making it harder for lawmakers nationwide to regulate guns in a country where mass shootings are commonplace.

In Monday's preliminary injunction, Suddaby said New York officials could not compel people applying for a gun license to disclose the handles of their social media accounts or the names and contact details of everyone they live with, major provisions of the Concealed Carry Improvement Act which took effect on Sept. 1. Nor would applicants have to prove their "good moral character," Suddaby wrote in the 182-page order, a length he ascribed to the new law's "unprecedented constitutional violations." He also sharply pared back New York's new list of "sensitive places" where it is a new felony crime to possess a gun even with a license, writing that the state could not ban guns in theaters, bars and restaurants, parks, airports and other public places. The bans, however, can remain in some places, including schools, courthouses and polling stations. He also suspended enforcement of a new felony of having a gun on private premises without the express permission of the property owner or lessee.

The fate of New York's new law is being watched by leaders in California, Maryland and several other large states with gun regulations the Supreme Court found unconstitutional. The law is facing multiple legal challenges by gun owners: another federal judge last month agreed to suspend a provision making it a felony to have a gun in a place of religious worship.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/federal-j ... 022-11-07/

The Injunction
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 78.0_1.pdf
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

88
Some people at Reddit are very happy, "NY just got slapped the fuck down !".
https://www.reddit.com/r/Firearms/comme ... fuck_down/

No doubt NY AG Letitia James' lawyers are requesting a stay from the 2nd Circuit in NYC. SCOTUS overturned the 2nd Circuit in the Bruen case, so I expect they will take their time in considering a stay of this injunction.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

89
Y'know, while I can see most of the judge's order, I DAMN well don't want ANYONE other than a LEO coming on my property or into my home armed WITHOUT my express permission! (As for the LEOs, we know that we cannot block them from being armed when they come onto our property)
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

91
featureless wrote: Thu Dec 22, 2022 12:55 pm So, the injunction was appealed to CA2 who, of course, stayed it. That stay is now being appealed to SCOTUS. Apparently, CA2 provided zippo analysis to go along with their stay. I have no idea how frequently (if ever) SCOTUS intervenes in these things. The appeal is well written.

https://www.gunowners.org/wp-content/up ... -FINAL.pdf
Our judicial system is a joke. A supreme court means nothing if lower courts can continue to ignore rulings.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

92
sikacz wrote: Thu Dec 22, 2022 4:24 pm
Our judicial system is a joke. A supreme court means nothing if lower courts can continue to ignore rulings.
It's certainly looking that way.

Sometime after February 2023, judge Benitez will issue a ruling on mag bans, assault weapons and ammo background checks for the second time after those cases were remanded back to him by CA9 post Bruen. I'm sure he'll rule for the 2A again. What CA9 does then will most likely be what they have done in the past, side with the state with weak sauce rulings that are opposite of SCOTUS opinions. We'll see.

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

93
I assume that Sotomayor referred Antonyuk vs Negrelli to the full court like Roberts and Thomas have recently done with controversial cases. So we'll ultimately hear from the full Supremes. The 2nd Circuit hears cases from only three states, NY, CT and VT, but the vast majority of their cases probably come from the four New York district courts especially SDNY.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

95
Looks like a 2nd circuit judge stayed the district court ruling and sent the case to a motions panel, don't know if that panel will keep the case or just decide on the motions and pass it on to a panel that will decide the case. Only 13 judges on that circuit but it's only 3 states, the 9th Circuit covers 9 states and has 27 judges.

SCOTUS could vacate the stay and allow the case to proceed to full hearing in the 2nd Circuit and the losing party could eventually appeals to SCOTUS. Of course this NY state law was a poke in the eye to SCOTUS for the Bruen decision, SCOTUS could decide to poke back.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

97
featureless wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 11:09 am The appeal to SCOTUS was denied. CA2 sorta warned to explain itself and expedite. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 7_0pm1.pdf
With one exception, the Second Circuit issued a stay of the injunction in full, and in doing so did not provide any explanation for its ruling
Applicants should not be deterred by today’s order from again seeking relief if the Second Circuit does not, within a reasonable time, provide an explanation for its stay order or expedite consideration of the appeal.
Alito and Thomas slapped down the 2nd Circuit, good for them. The stay wasn't lifted, but hopefully the 2nd gets their shit together.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

98
The Supreme Court on Wednesday turned down a request from firearms dealers in New York to block parts of recent state laws that they said violated their Second Amendment rights. The court’s brief, unsigned order gave no reasons, which is typical when the justices act on emergency applications. On Jan. 11, the court, also without comment, rejected a request to block other provisions of one of the laws at issue in the new case. The two orders suggest that the justices will not immediately elaborate on the scope of its landmark decision in June establishing that the Second Amendment protects, as Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority, “an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.” That decision, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, struck down a New York law that required people seeking a license to carry a handgun in public to demonstrate that they had a “proper cause.” State lawmakers promptly passed a new law that they said protected public safety while complying with the Supreme Court’s decision.

The firearms dealers in the new case, Gazzola v. Hochul, No. 22A591, filed a lawsuit in November challenging provisions of that law and an earlier one enacted in June, before the Bruen decision, saying they violated the Constitution and conflicted with federal law. Judge Brenda K. Sannes of the Federal District Court in Syracuse rejected the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, and a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit refused to enter its own injunction while an appeal moved forward. The dealers then asked the Supreme Court to intervene.

The challenged measures include ones requiring security systems at gun stores, barring people under 18 from entering them unless they are with a parent or guardian, requiring workers to be at least 21 and requiring background checks for sales of ammunition. In their own Supreme Court brief, state officials said that the Supreme Court has indicated that it did not intend to cast doubt on, in the words of Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion in 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller, “laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., repeated the point in a concurring opinion in June in the Bruen decision, the state’s brief noted. “Thus,” lawyers for the state wrote, “this case does not involve any significant Second Amendment issue left open by Bruen that would warrant this court’s review.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/18/us/s ... -guns.html

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/cou ... r_2co3.pdf
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

99
Hawaii Senate bill 1230 on concealed carry post Bruen. It's full of location restrictions like NY and NJ. It doesn't say "good moral character" like CA's law, but just as subjective. They lost Young v Hawaii, guess they didn't learn their lesson.
Prohibits issuing authorities from issuing permits to acquire the ownership of a firearm to any person where the issuance would not be in the interest of the public health, safety, or welfare because the person is found to be lacking the essential character or temperament necessary to be entrusted with a firearm. Requires issuing authorities to consider the risks associated with firearms in the home and consider the likelihood an applicant would bring the firearm outside of the home to engage in violence or carry unlawfully in public. Increases requirements for applicants seeking a license to carry a firearm. Sets minimum requirements for applications for a license to carry a concealed firearm. Establishes the crime of carrying a firearm in a sensitive location. Defines sensitive location. Requires licenses to carry concealed firearms be revoked if certain conditions are met. Requires the Attorney General to publish an annual report on licenses to carry firearms. Requires firearms be kept in a locked container and out of plain view when in an unattended vehicle. Defines locked container and makes conforming amendments. Establishes penalties for violations.
PDF for bill.
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessions ... B1230_.pdf
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

100
highdesert wrote: Mon Oct 10, 2022 10:26 am Yes to most Democratic politicians, the Bloomie groups and other anti-gunners like Giffords, the assumption is "guns are evil and only evil people use guns". Mea culpa to David Yamane for paraphrasing his mantra. The right aren't the only ones with sheeple, blue states have plenty of them too. Again another reason for abolishing the two party system, they are the ones who have divided this country. They want to keep everyone thinking in black and white terms, life isn't black and white, it's gray but they don't like gray thinking.
Unfortunately, all too many 'legal gun owners' do stupid and criminal things with their 'legally obtained guns'. YT is full of instances of this. Daily, and since everybody has a camera, recorded.

Agree, but how does anybody or any group do that? A third or fourth party candidate? Been tried many times and failed, many times.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests