Well, New York has wasted no time whatsoever

A

Aguila Blanca

Staff
I skimmed through the NY decision. Most of it is well-reasoned. However, I disagree with the judge's discussion of the 18-hour training requirement. He says the reason for the historical requirement for militias to muster was to prevent militia members who weren't competent with a firearm from having one.

Which, of course, is nonsense. In those days, as he cited in his own discussion, the laws in colonial times required militia members to provide their own rifle. The weekly, bi-monthly, or monthly musters weren't limited to firearms training, and probably never even touched on it. Back then, it was assumed that every man who owned a rifle knew how to shoot it. That's how they put food on the table. The purpose of the musters was for training in military maneuvers -- learning to fight together as a coherent unit rather than as a rag-tag bunch of farmers.
 
M

Metal god

New member
Lots has been going on with this case , surprised there has been no updates . 2nd circuit put a stay on the lower courts injunction. Plaintiffs filed emergency appeal to SCOTUS to reverse or stay the 2nd circuits stay . The SCOTUS has ordered the state of NY to file a response to plaintiffs emergency appeal .
 
M

Metal god

New member
The obvious most interesting aspect to this case is that the NY concealed carry prohibition issue was just resolved by the supreme court just a few months ago . I have to assume that the Bruen case is very much at the top of the justices minds , even the decenter’s . That and the fact the state openly saying they were passing the new law because of the recent SCOTUS decision makes me think even the liberal/anti justice’s won’t like that . They may not have liked the Bruen “6-3” decision but it was “there teams” decision and having any state thumb there nose at it I’m sure does not sit well with any of the justices on the SCOTUS.

At this point I’m not sure if justice Sotomayor is reviewing this her self or if she has involved the rest of the court . Regardless this should still move pretty quickly . My guess is this will be worked out with in the next 7 to 10 days .
 
Last edited:
R

raimius

New member
It will be interesting to see what NY files, and how SCOTUS responds. This is a pretty clear thumbing of the nose to their decision. Justice Sotomayor has the first response to it, but if I understand correctly, if she declines the request, the rest of the court can decide to take it up.
 
M

Metal god

New member
I understand she has the 1st response but I don't know how it works from there. I don't know if she is the one and her alone That has requested the response from the state Or if it's the the full court or What . Is there a way to find out at what stage and or who asked for the response from the state ?

I know for example if she declines to hear it at that point the plaintiffs can then ask a different justice And I believe that would be of their choosing? I'm just curious as to where exactly this case lies at the supreme court ? Who specifically asked for the response and who all will hear it ?
 
4

44 AMP

Staff
with only a couple working days left before the New Year holiday (and many people on vacation as well) I wouldn't expect anything from the state of NY before late next week and probably as much later than that as they can get away with without being in contempt of court.
 
N

natman

New member
Metal god said:
I understand she has the 1st response but I don't know how it works from there. I don't know if she is the one and her alone That has requested the response from the state Or if it's the the full court or What . Is there a way to find out at what stage and or who asked for the response from the state ?
Click to expand...

Sotomayor asked the State of New York by 12/27 to have a response on Tues 1/3/23. That's a very short time period, especially over a holiday weekend. It could be taken as a sign that she's not happy about the stay.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22A557.html

Here's an excellent analysis by Mark Smith of the Four Boxes Diner:
https://youtu.be/S4qms5SUtG4

My take on this is that while Sotomayor would probably oppose a 2A lawsuit while it's within the Supreme Court, she's not going to put up with a state defying a Supreme Court decision once it's been made. If the states get away with doing that the word "Supreme" in the title won't mean anything.
 
Last edited:
4

44 AMP

Staff
My take on this is that while Sotomayor would probably oppose a 2A lawsuit while it's within the Supreme Court, she's not going to put up with a state defying a Supreme Court decision once it's been made. If the states get away with doing that the word "Supreme" in the title won't mean anything.
Click to expand...

I think you've got it right. For some, its not about protecting our rights because they are our rights, its about protecting their authority and jurisdiction.
 
M

Metal god

New member
Today was the day the state was required to turn in there brief . I read someone quoting the states brief from today ????? Are they public , how do I/we get them ? I’d like to see the plaintiffs as well .

I’m going to assume we will hear something from the SCOTUS by end of week . The 2nd circuit is scheduled to receive opening briefs for the case on the 9th of this month .
 
J

Japle

New member
Gotta love the nerve of those people.
"Second, the CCIA codified several “sensitive locations” in which carrying “a
firearm, rifle or shotgun” would not be allowed, including government buildings such
as courthouses; polling places; schools, colleges, and universities; nursery schools,
preschools, and playgrounds; places of worship; public transit; public parks and zoos;
shelters for the homeless and domestic-violence victims; sites of programs for the
disabled; health-care and drug-treatment facilities; entertainment venues such as
theaters and conference centers; venues serving alcohol; “gathering of individuals
to collectively express their constitutional rights to protest or assemble”; and Times
Square, if “identified with signage.”
So, New Yorkers have the right to carry a gun, but everywhere they might want to go is prohibited.
 
M

Metal god

New member
You forgot one , you can't carry in any private business unless there is a sign stating you can . So even if a business doesn't care if they don't specifically say it's ok it's illegal . That right there makes it a defacto ban in all areas without consent ? What happens when a strip mall says no but a business with in said mall says yes ?

Is there any other statutes that wok in reverse like that ? I'd think it would be ok unless otherwise stated you "do not" what the action being taken place in your business ?

I also heard the NJ law is pretty much the same . Saying something like the two main highways travel through areas restricted so you can't carry while driving on those highways .
k9Mqxo.jpg
 
4

44 AMP

Staff
Is there any other statutes that wok in reverse like that ?
Click to expand...

I would put the various "red flag" laws in that category. Presumption of guilt, and action taken, THEN, later, you get an opportunity to prove innocence.

Another one is, I think, longstanding in traffic laws where, if you refuse the breathalyzer, your license is automatically suspended/revoked.
I also put all the background checks and permit requirements into the same general group, you (or I) are required to prove out "good character" and legal qualifications before we are allowed to purchase, possess, carry, etc.

I'm sure there are other examples, as well. Situations where guilt is the assumption, and acted on prior to any proof, one way, or the other.

One point to note, about the NY "prohibited locations", is that it applies to NY PERMIT HOLDERS.

Now,. think about that, for a moment, permit holders, the ONE group of people that the state has checked out "six ways from sunday", and APPROVED, are not TRUSTED enough to be allowed to carry in those newly designated "sensitive" areas.

The requirements to get a pistol permit in NY a greater than the requirements to become a state legislator or even Governor. Or so it seems. :rolleyes:

And yet, the people who ought to be the most trusted because they ARE checked and approved by the state, are prohibited from carry in the new sensitive areas, under contention right now.....

meanwhile the cops carry there, all the time, since its part of their official duties.....

does that seem right, to you??
 
M

mehavey

New member
I would put the various "red flag" laws in that category. Presumption of guilt,
and action taken, THEN, later, you get an opportunity to prove innocence.
Click to expand...
"Civil" Forfeiture" is perhaps the most grievous of such practices -- which in practice has become de facto law.

There, your guilt/innocence is in fact largely irrelevant, even if you never get charged at all....
 
A

Aguila Blanca

Staff
44 AMP said:
Now,. think about that, for a moment, permit holders, the ONE group of people that the state has checked out "six ways from sunday", and APPROVED, are not TRUSTED enough to be allowed to carry in those newly designated "sensitive" areas.

The requirements to get a pistol permit in NY a greater than the requirements to become a state legislator or even Governor. Or so it seems.

And yet, the people who ought to be the most trusted because they ARE checked and approved by the state, are prohibited from carry in the new sensitive areas, under contention right now.....

meanwhile the cops carry there, all the time, since its part of their official duties.....
Click to expand...
More to the point (perhaps) ... the bad guys also carry there all the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top