You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Well, New York has wasted no time whatsoever
- Thread starter csmsss
- Start date
This is getting a tad confusing, but if I'm reading it correctly, The District Court issued an injunction against sections of the NY law, and provided their reasoning for doing so.
Then, the 2nd Circuit placed a
"stay" on that injunction, which results in the law being in effect until litigation on the law is completed. And did not give their reasoning for doing so.
"Relief" was sought from the Supreme Court to set aside the 2nd Circuit's ruling and that request has been denied.
My take on the linked information from the high court is that they aren't happy with the Circuit court ruling, because there is no explanation (and no supporing arguments) for that ruling, but are not "stepping in to overrule the circuit court decision at this time, and so have denied the request to vacate that ruling.
That being said, I think its important to consider the final portion of the linked text, which is.
From what it looks like to me, SCOTUS is hoping (possibly requiring) the Second Circuit to take care of its own mess (by providing the basis for their ruling) to the high court's satisfaction, and if they don't, THEN SCOTUS could (and hopefully will) step in.
Again, this is all procedural crap inside the court system, about how to handle things while the legality of the NY law is being litigated.
Are people going to be harmed by allowing the NY law to be enforced before the legal challenges are resolved? I believe so. Can those people be "made whole" (compensated) for the harm? Possibly, in some cases, in others, possibly not. The District court that issued the initial injunction apparently believes that less harm would result from having the law's enforcement suspended until the legal challenges are resolved. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals apparently believes differently, but hasn't explained WHY to the satisfaction of either the people, or SCOTUS.
It APPEARS that SCOTUS expects that explanation and isn't going to step in and overrule the 2nd Circuit until they see that explanation and decide if they need to overrule 2nd Circuit, or not, based on the arguments and reasoning they expect that explanation to provide. And they specifically said that if that explanation isn't given "in a reasonable time" that application for relief from the 2nd Circuit's ruling could be applied for, again.
so, get your popcorn ready, and try and keep a lid on your frustration as this can of worms slowly empties....
Then, the 2nd Circuit placed a
"stay" on that injunction, which results in the law being in effect until litigation on the law is completed. And did not give their reasoning for doing so.
"Relief" was sought from the Supreme Court to set aside the 2nd Circuit's ruling and that request has been denied.
My take on the linked information from the high court is that they aren't happy with the Circuit court ruling, because there is no explanation (and no supporing arguments) for that ruling, but are not "stepping in to overrule the circuit court decision at this time, and so have denied the request to vacate that ruling.
That being said, I think its important to consider the final portion of the linked text, which is.
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
From what it looks like to me, SCOTUS is hoping (possibly requiring) the Second Circuit to take care of its own mess (by providing the basis for their ruling) to the high court's satisfaction, and if they don't, THEN SCOTUS could (and hopefully will) step in.
Again, this is all procedural crap inside the court system, about how to handle things while the legality of the NY law is being litigated.
Are people going to be harmed by allowing the NY law to be enforced before the legal challenges are resolved? I believe so. Can those people be "made whole" (compensated) for the harm? Possibly, in some cases, in others, possibly not. The District court that issued the initial injunction apparently believes that less harm would result from having the law's enforcement suspended until the legal challenges are resolved. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals apparently believes differently, but hasn't explained WHY to the satisfaction of either the people, or SCOTUS.
It APPEARS that SCOTUS expects that explanation and isn't going to step in and overrule the 2nd Circuit until they see that explanation and decide if they need to overrule 2nd Circuit, or not, based on the arguments and reasoning they expect that explanation to provide. And they specifically said that if that explanation isn't given "in a reasonable time" that application for relief from the 2nd Circuit's ruling could be applied for, again.
so, get your popcorn ready, and try and keep a lid on your frustration as this can of worms slowly empties....
Spats McGee
Administrator
Correct.This is getting a tad confusing, but if I'm reading it correctly, The District Court issued an injunction against sections of the NY law, and provided their reasoning for doing so.
Then, the 2nd Circuit placed a
"stay" on that injunction, which results in the law being in effect until litigation on the law is completed. And did not give their reasoning for doing so.
"Relief" was sought from the Supreme Court to set aside the 2nd Circuit's ruling and that request has been denied.
I write to express my concurrence in 44AMP's opinion... I'm sure there have been other times when a SCOTUS denial has a note appended to it like this, but I cannot recall having seen it, at the moment. Someone took the time to write this for Alito and Thomas, it and was done for a reason.My take on the linked information from the high court is that they aren't happy with the Circuit court ruling, because there is no explanation (and no supporing arguments) for that ruling, but are not "stepping in to overrule the circuit court decision at this time, and so have denied the request to vacate that ruling.
That being said, I think its important to consider the final portion of the linked text, which is.
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
From what it looks like to me, SCOTUS is hoping (possibly requiring) the Second Circuit to take care of its own mess (by providing the basis for their ruling) to the high court's satisfaction, and if they don't, THEN SCOTUS could (and hopefully will) step in.
Again, this is all procedural crap inside the court system, about how to handle things while the legality of the NY law is being litigated.
Are people going to be harmed by allowing the NY law to be enforced before the legal challenges are resolved? I believe so. Can those people be "made whole" (compensated) for the harm? Possibly, in some cases, in others, possibly not. The District court that issued the initial injunction apparently believes that less harm would result from having the law's enforcement suspended until the legal challenges are resolved. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals apparently believes differently, but hasn't explained WHY to the satisfaction of either the people, or SCOTUS.
It APPEARS that SCOTUS expects that explanation and isn't going to step in and overrule the 2nd Circuit until they see that explanation and decide if they need to overrule 2nd Circuit, or not, based on the arguments and reasoning they expect that explanation to provide. And they specifically said that if that explanation isn't given "in a reasonable time" that application for relief from the 2nd Circuit's ruling could be applied for, again.
so, get your popcorn ready, and try and keep a lid on your frustration as this can of worms slowly empties....
Frank Ettin
Administrator
I agree with 44AMP and Spats.
I believe that on occasion SCOTUS will give an errant court of appeal a chance to correct its decision, and it might do so if required to try to explain its decision.
Or if the Second Circuit's explanation is specious, it will give SCOTUS an opportunity to dismantle it and thus further clarify the rules.
I believe that on occasion SCOTUS will give an errant court of appeal a chance to correct its decision, and it might do so if required to try to explain its decision.
Or if the Second Circuit's explanation is specious, it will give SCOTUS an opportunity to dismantle it and thus further clarify the rules.
I agree with 44AMP and Spats.
I believe that on occasion SCOTUS will give an errant court of appeal a chance to correct its decision, and it might do so if required to try to explain its decision.
Or if the Second Circuit's explanation is specious, it will give SCOTUS an opportunity to dismantle it and thus further clarify the rules.
SCOTUS is being extremely courteous, especially since the law in question was written to flount a Supreme Court decision. I'm hoping that this is to give the Second Circuit every possible chance to do the right thing before SCOTUS smacks them down flat for not doing it. A per curium decision, such as was used in Caetano v Mass would be appropriate. That's where SCOTUS overturns a lower court decision without even hearing arguments, because the lower court decision is so obviously wrong.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
I disagree. The politicians in New York do not know they will eventually lose. They are counting on the Second Circuit to cover their backs and, so far, the Second Circuit has done exactly that. And will continue to do so unless the SCOTUS steps in and rules decisively.ViperJon said:New York is going to be dragged into compliance kicking and screaming (and delaying) but eventually they will lose. They know it.
mikejonestkd
New member
New York is going to be dragged into compliance kicking and screaming (and delaying) but eventually they will lose. They know it.
I appreciate your positive vibes. But, the state has been winning every case for over 100 years, with a little help occasionally from the 2nd circuit court.
With a little help from the cases in CA now , hopefully that will change . The court there ( in 4 separate cases ) required the state to submit a spread sheet of every law restricting the RKBA from the founding to 20yrs after the 14th amendment. This I believe “ good or bad “ will be what courts will turn to in the future as to the historical evidence to support there rulings based on the Bruen text and tradition new standard . Judge for your self if there is a tradition of firearm/s restrictions in the US
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.642089/gov.uscourts.casd.642089.163.1.pdf
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.642089/gov.uscourts.casd.642089.163.1.pdf
Last edited:
But, the state has been winning every case for over 100 years, with a little help occasionally from the 2nd circuit court.
Has NY state even had a firearms case that involved the Supreme Court in the past hundred years???
I don't know of any, but then I haven't extensively researched the matter...
Do you know of any?
mikejonestkd
New member
Bruen is the only case that I can think of that even made it to the Supreme Court chambers.
The only other one was a transportation case a few years ago, and NYC changed their law at the last moment, so the Court did not rule on the case.
The only other one was a transportation case a few years ago, and NYC changed their law at the last moment, so the Court did not rule on the case.
I disagree. The politicians in New York do not know they will eventually lose. They are counting on the Second Circuit to cover their backs and, so far, the Second Circuit has done exactly that. And will continue to do so unless the SCOTUS steps in and rules decisively.
I appreciate your positive vibes. But, the state has been winning every case for over 100 years, with a little help occasionally from the 2nd circuit court.
I have no idea what altered reality NY politicians live in, but they know they are going to lose. They know that NYSRPA v Bruen specifically forbids what they are doing, but they plan on stalling as long as they can in the hope that the composition of the court changes. If it doesn't and their unconstitutional laws are overturned, they'll make political hay out of it by saying "We tried to keep your children safe, but those rascally Republicans on the court wouldn't let us."
That's why SCOTUS is keeping an eye on this case and insisting on it progressing rapidly.
I think some courts are not going to fall for repealing a law to avoid litigation anymore. I know there were a few during the lockdowns that said “just because you repealed the law doesn’t make the case moot” , reason being was the courts knew they could reimplement the law any time in the future.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
You are just confirming that they don't know they will lose. They didn't lose with the blatantly unconstitutional SAFE Act they they passed in the middle of the night after the Sandy Hook school shooting. That case got as far as the 2nd Circuit, and the 2nd Circuit upheld the law. That case didn't make it to the Supreme Court because neither faction on the SCOTUS was certain of a win, so both sides preferred to dodge the issue and decline cert.natman said:I have no idea what altered reality NY politicians live in, but they know they are going to lose. They know that NYSRPA v Bruen specifically forbids what they are doing, but they plan on stalling as long as they can in the hope that the composition of the court changes.
And with the new law the 2nd Circuit has again sided with the state. If it gets to the SCOTUS as the high court is currently constituted, the law will probably be shot down. If the state and the 2nd Circuit can keep the ball in play long enough for the makeup of the SCOTUS to shift, there's a good chance the law will withstand an appeal.
It's an ugly game, but it is NOT a game the state knows they will lose.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
Aguila Blanca said:It's an ugly game, but it is NOT a game the state knows they will lose.
In fact, it's a game they hardly could lose, at least until SCOTUS gets serious about slapping around courts that ignore their rulings and politicians wise up that these laws won't last... both of which are exceedingly unlikely.
I've said for years that the major problem with our system (in relation to this particular topic) is that it was never designed for politicians who *intentionally* pass unconstitutional laws.
It was intended to more like "verify", or correct an error. When politicians are intentionally passing laws designed to side step the system, there are no real checks and balances to stop it from happening.
The pols don't care about dealing honestly, they care about their agenda and they know that no matter what they can just change a line or two and it's a "new" law that has to go through the whole process over again, which can take years and even if they "lose" they just change a few lines and do it again... so they never really "lose".
One of the things frequently overlooked (or "underlooked"??) is the fact that enforcement of SCOTUS rulings is NOT a function of the Supreme Court. That function is reserved to other branches of government.
So, when people say "why doesn't the Supreme Court fix this?" when the politicians pass laws that appear to be in contradiction to SCOTUS rulings, the honest answer is simply, "that isn't their job".
To ask why the politicians do such things, its because they don't KNOW they will ultimately fail, (though the more practical ones might expect that, now) but because until/unless there is a ruling against what they did, they count is as a win.
So, when people say "why doesn't the Supreme Court fix this?" when the politicians pass laws that appear to be in contradiction to SCOTUS rulings, the honest answer is simply, "that isn't their job".
To ask why the politicians do such things, its because they don't KNOW they will ultimately fail, (though the more practical ones might expect that, now) but because until/unless there is a ruling against what they did, they count is as a win.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Sometimes, though, they do know they will fail, and they proceed anyway because they want to convey an appearance of DOING SOMETHING.44 AMP said:To ask why the politicians do such things, its because they don't KNOW they will ultimately fail, (though the more practical ones might expect that, now) but because until/unless there is a ruling against what they did, they count is as a win.
I've never been able to find it again, but several years ago I saw on YouTube a video of a meeting of some governing body. I think it was a county board of commissioners. They were debating passage of a new anti-gun law. A member of the audience stood up and pointed out that if they passed the law it could not be enforced, because in that state the state had a preemption statute reserving the power to enact firearms laws to the state itself.
And one of the commissioners then got up and stated that he didn't care if the law couldn't be enforced, he was going to vote for it anyway ... "because we've got to do something."
Aguila Blanca said:Sometimes, though, they do know they will fail, and they proceed anyway because they want to convey an appearance of DOING SOMETHING.
If they represent their voters and they gain the loyalty of their constituents, are re-elected and have a nice pension, have they failed?
Let's not forget the voters afflicted by lack of foresight, envy, greed and the rest of the human condition who vote. If you live in NY and wonder why your rights are held in contempt, the answer is found in how your neighbors vote.