speedkills27
6.5 Creedmoor
Thanks for being there and writing the update for us who couldn't be. I've seen the friendly fire aspect of doing something like this when the SAFE Act was a hot topic. Don't let it get you down
Updates on Antonyuk v. Bruen
- Thread starter US RIFLE M1A
- Start date
arp228
.38 Special
Thank you for attending and giving the update. I don't think any of the comments were directed towards you. I know mine sure wasn't.
Saltwater60
20×102mm Vulcan
I don’t feel that’s possible either and that’s why I provided details. Judges have a great superiority complex, greater than your average liberal. This can be seen at the Supreme Court level regularly since the liberal justices never side with any conservative issue. It won’t happen.
Now I’m not saying we won’t get anything sided in our favor, but if there is any wiggle room for a liberal to go left on a court decision they will and it’s been done repeatedly in recent years and decades.
US RIFLE M1A
.45 acp
Especially with something as discretionary as a temporary stay on a law passes by liberals. "It's a big club..."
Slacker43
.40 S&W
Just thinking out loud. If this judge is bound by the supreme court decision in Bruen then they must rule with the history and traditions of the 2A at its founding. As long as the judge can find standing to rule then he is somewhat locked in by this. This is the best we can hope for.
When I read the synopsis of the hearing I immediately grabbed on to the negative. It is so easy to do when we have lived this for so long. Standing back and processing it with an objective mind I realized that I don't have any of the context of the questioning nor the overall picture of the hearing. We who have been wronged by this state over and over tend to zero in on the worst possible scenario and beat it like a dead horse.
I do have my reservations on this going our way but I also have the hope that this judge will rule as required by the Bruen decision and we will have some vindication of our rights.
When I read the synopsis of the hearing I immediately grabbed on to the negative. It is so easy to do when we have lived this for so long. Standing back and processing it with an objective mind I realized that I don't have any of the context of the questioning nor the overall picture of the hearing. We who have been wronged by this state over and over tend to zero in on the worst possible scenario and beat it like a dead horse.
I do have my reservations on this going our way but I also have the hope that this judge will rule as required by the Bruen decision and we will have some vindication of our rights.
Saltwater60
20×102mm Vulcan
I agree with you, but lower court decisions get it wrong all the time. I have no faith in the legal system these days. To me and you it’s pretty clear. Time will tell and we should know soon. Also the judge can only rule on the case before him and if the notes are correct then the private business ban is off the table.
m1_ping
9mm
This is appreciated.
Thanks for the support. My concern is of the few posts that jumped to conclusions that went beyond what my post can support. I don't like that something I posted started a discussion that lead to possible misinformation even with what I posted as disclaimed being my true and best description. In the future I would like to present information in a way that minimizes this which I acknowledge may be impossible. I'm going to give it some thought.
camper4lyfe
.308 Win
Welcome to the internet. That's one thing that is not avoidable
GOA making a small statement/update on yesterday
Saltwater60
20×102mm Vulcan
It’s great when the government asshole doesn’t know the law.
spat
.950 JDJ
Nobody knows the law when it comes to gun control in NY because they are little better than word salad.
They take a bunch of buzzwords and taking points drop them in a blender and vote on the contents sight unseen.
How else do you explain half of what they write.
The irony is they are the first to tell you that ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Just some more, from GOA
minderasr
6.5 Creedmoor
Forgive my ignorance here, but in a nutshell instead of asking permission from our government overlords to exercise a constitutional right we have to ask permission of each and every establishment we frequent?
US RIFLE M1A
.45 acp
Actually it's in addition to asking permission of our government....
Saltwater60
20×102mm Vulcan
Here a write up saying the sensitive places portion is was challenged on Tuesday.
Gun rights group asks judge to block NY gun ban in Times Square, other ‘sensitive’ places
A Second Amendment advocacy group on Tuesday asked a federal judge to block a New York state law that bans the carry of firearms in certain “sensitive locations” such as stadiums, hospi…
thehill.com
Dr. Evil
20×102mm Vulcan
I would argue it's already here.
I'm way too busy this year to keep track of things. I assumed this was part of the case. If not, then it's very disturbing, this is the worst fucking part of the new law.
Speaking of which, the fudds are no help, so I'd like to see equal treatment of leo, they are no different than I.
Saltwater60
20×102mm Vulcan
I posted an article and it seems it is or was, but who knows. There’s so much shit out there I’m lost as well.
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
subsonic
.44 mag
A few things…
The summary of the hearing probably just indicates that the defense attorney got the individual plaintiff to concede under cross examination that simply saying the words to ask a proprietor if they can carry is not in itself burdensome. That’s damaging and if it came across that way indicates a skillful cross and poor witness prep by the plaintiffs, and hopefully they cleaned that up on redirect and summation. What it does not do is “take it off the table.” The lawyers would have to explicitly ask for that, and nothing in the minutes suggests that happened. Also judges don’t hear and listen to witnesses the same way that lay observers do.
The judge is a GWB appointee from Glen Falls who went to Plattsburgh and Syracuse for law.
Severability has been favored by the Supreme Court since Marbury v Madison and part of the entire history of constitutional law in the United States. So if you think it is unconstitutional you are wrong, and if you go back all the way to overturning Marbury then you lose judicial review; no more suing to overturn unconstitutional laws.
In this case the plaintiff only challenged certain provisions of the CCIA, not the whole thing much less the whole package of new laws. But, they challenged a lot of the CCIA including several preexisting requirements, including “good moral character” and four references. And other challenges will hopefully address other issues, especially based on how this turns out.
The summary of the hearing probably just indicates that the defense attorney got the individual plaintiff to concede under cross examination that simply saying the words to ask a proprietor if they can carry is not in itself burdensome. That’s damaging and if it came across that way indicates a skillful cross and poor witness prep by the plaintiffs, and hopefully they cleaned that up on redirect and summation. What it does not do is “take it off the table.” The lawyers would have to explicitly ask for that, and nothing in the minutes suggests that happened. Also judges don’t hear and listen to witnesses the same way that lay observers do.
The judge is a GWB appointee from Glen Falls who went to Plattsburgh and Syracuse for law.
Severability has been favored by the Supreme Court since Marbury v Madison and part of the entire history of constitutional law in the United States. So if you think it is unconstitutional you are wrong, and if you go back all the way to overturning Marbury then you lose judicial review; no more suing to overturn unconstitutional laws.
In this case the plaintiff only challenged certain provisions of the CCIA, not the whole thing much less the whole package of new laws. But, they challenged a lot of the CCIA including several preexisting requirements, including “good moral character” and four references. And other challenges will hopefully address other issues, especially based on how this turns out.
drowhawk
.44 mag
Wasn't there supposed to be a ruling on the injunction today?
ROBBARTLEY
22lr
The judge said before 01 Sep.
Still a few days left before September 1st
drowhawk
.44 mag
My bad. I had it in my head that today was they day it was supposed to be decided on.
Not much longer. Looking forward honestly to @Edwardteach72 s breakdown of the ruling. Usually very in depth.
I'm thinking we won't get to much other than if the stay is or isn't granted at this point
But more importantly.. Monday. Judge Benitez (District Court Judge in California) has set the first court date in Miller V Bonta. California AWB.
So that could be nothing more than going over some procedural house keeping, or it could be a very big day in California