Antonyuk v. James (1 Viewer)

[Toggle Almendro]

There's some pretty biting criticism in the lawsuit against New York's new concealed carry law.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-910/300925/20240220133931409_Antonyuk%20Petition%20for%20Cert%20final.pdf

"Moments after this Court issued N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), striking down New York's discretionary firearms licensing regime, New York politicians decried that decision as 'reprehensible,' vowing to resist the 'insanity' of 'gun culture' that 'possessed ... the Supreme Court.' Rather than following this Court's decision, New York sought to nullify it through a 'Concealed Carry Improvement Act' that makes it more difficult to exercise the right to bear arms in public than before Bruen was decided."

. . .

"'The Second Amendment's plain text ... presumptively guarantees ... a right to 'bear' arms in public for self-defense.' N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 33 (2022). But just days after that statement was made, New York defiantly enacted its 'Bruen response bill,' purporting to comport with this Court's decision, but instead seeking to nullify it. Intent on maintaining its de facto prohibition on public carry, New York decided that, if it must issue licenses to ordinary citizens after Bruen, it first would do whatever it could to discourage applicants by imposing novel and onerous licensing requirements, and then render any remaining licenses a practical nullity by prohibiting carry virtually everywhere in the State by declaring a multitude of brand new 'sensitive locations.'"

. . .

"If New York's challenged law was its 'Bruen response bill,' then the panel's decision represents the Second Circuit's 'Bruen response opinion.' Brazenly, the panel repeatedly justified wholesale rejection of Bruen's methodology, claiming that Bruen was an 'exceptional' case, and that in 'less exceptional' cases -- like this one, apparently -- courts are free to contrive their own approach. Audaciously, the panel repeatedly chastised the district court for having hewed too closely to Bruen. And in one instance, the panel faulted the district court for having 'failed to properly appreciate' a historical analogue that appears never to have existed."

 

[PoliSciPulse]

My understanding is that Supreme Court's rulings on concealed carry and other gun rights measures has made this way more of a legal mess than it should have been. General understanding is that this might take years to sort out.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

My understanding is that Supreme Court's rulings on concealed carry and other gun rights measures has made this way more of a legal mess than it should have been. General understanding is that this might take years to sort out.

There is no confusion. There are only extremist judges on the lower courts who are refusing to enforce the Constitution.

If the Supreme Court stomps hard on those lower court judges, they will straighten themselves out in no time.

 

[Cameron]

Just last week SCOTUS was forced to walk back Bruen.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

The Timothy McVeigh fanbois are getting tetchy.

 

[JMB1911A1]

Democrats would prefer that New York return to the days when the only people carrying guns were rich people who bribed the cops got carry permits (like Donald Trump) and criminals.

 

[rahl]

Just last week SCOTUS was forced to walk back Bruen.

Huh?

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Just last week SCOTUS was forced to walk back Bruen.

That is incorrect. Last week the Supreme Court confirmed and upheld Bruen.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Timothy McVeigh fanbois are getting tetchy.

Are you saying that progressives are fans of McVeigh?

 

[Rich2018]

The Timothy McVeigh fanbois are getting tetchy.

They think you have a right to build a bomb.

 

[Cameron]

That is incorrect. Last week the Supreme Court confirmed and upheld Bruen.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who do you think knows better, us or the guy who authored Bruen?

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Who do you think knows better, us or the guy who authored Bruen?

I certainly know better. I've read the ruling.

 

[Rich2018]

I certainly know better. I've read the ruling.

“One of the great challenges in this world is knowing enough about a subject to think you're right, but not enough about the subject to know you're wrong.”​

― Neil deGrasse Tyson

 

[Mungo Jerry]

My understanding is that Supreme Court's rulings on concealed carry and other gun rights measures has made this way more of a legal mess than it should have been. General understanding is that this might take years to sort out.

The "confusion" is willful and generally consists of liberal judges ignoring Bruen.

But... Kavanaugh recently mentioned that the court need to take up more 2A cases to provide more "clarity", so maybe we'll soon see more rulings...
... written slowly, and in crayon, so even the anti-gun left can understand them.

 

[Mungo Jerry]

Just last week SCOTUS was forced to walk back Bruen.

Rahimi was Bruen, working as intended.

 

[PoliSciPulse]

There is no confusion. There are only extremist judges on the lower courts who are refusing to enforce the Constitution.

If the Supreme Court stomps hard on those lower court judges, they will straighten themselves out in no time.

What I remember is that these decisions have a lot of "why's" and "wherefores" in them, so it's not as concrete as you may like it to be. Hence why SCOTUS feels the need to have more cases.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

What I remember is that these decisions have a lot of "why's" and "wherefores" in them, so it's not as concrete as you may like it to be.

Whys and wherefores are instructions telling the lower courts how they need to apply the Constitution. They are plenty concrete.

Hence why SCOTUS feels the need to have more cases.

The need for more cases is because the lower courts are defiantly disregarding the Supreme Court.

 

[Rich2018]

Rahimi was Bruen, working as intended.

Says who ?

 

[Mungo Jerry]

The need for more cases is because the lower courts are defiantly disregarding the Supreme Court.

And they go out of their way to do it.

 

[Cameron]

I certainly know better. I've read the ruling.

Forgive me, but people usually read what they want to read. Given the ridiculous number of concurrences issued, the justices themselves clearly don’t agree on what the law is, and Thomas certainly disagrees that the decision is consistent with Bruen, which he authored.

But you know best lol.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

But you know best lol.

Correct. I know best.

 

[Rich2018]

Correct. I know best.

The road to hell is paved with people who thought they knew best.

 

[natman]

My understanding is that Supreme Court's rulings on concealed carry and other gun rights measures has made this way more of a legal mess than it should have been. General understanding is that this might take years to sort out.

This is exactly backwards. Bruen is relatively straightforward.

It is New York's temper tantrum response that has made it a legal mess. They don't like Bruen, so they feel entitled to evade it by any means possible. For example, in Bruen SCOTUS wrote:

For example, courts can use analogies to “longstanding” laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings” to determine whether modern regulations are constitutionally permissible. ..... That said,
respondents’ attempt to characterize New York’s proper-cause requirement as a “sensitive-place” law lacks merit because there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan
a “sensitive place” simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department.

How did the state of New York respond? By turning virtually the entire state into a "sensitive place".

 

[PoliSciPulse]

This is exactly backwards. Bruen is relatively straightforward.

It is New York's temper tantrum response that has made it a legal mess. They don't like Bruen, so they feel entitled to evade it by any means possible. For example, in Bruen SCOTUS wrote:

For example, courts can use analogies to “longstanding” laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings” to determine whether modern regulations are constitutionally permissible. ..... That said,
respondents’ attempt to characterize New York’s proper-cause requirement as a “sensitive-place” law lacks merit because there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan
a “sensitive place” simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department.

How did the state of New York respond? By turning virtually the entire state into a "sensitive place".

Isn't that a why and wherefore? SCOTUS did not define what a "sensitive place" means.

EDIT: Meanwhile, in my state (SC), they took the exact opposite approach. They determined that basically anywhere federal law defines as a sensitive place (schools, etc.) is a sensitive place, and nothing else -- and in some cases, you can own a gun without a license. SC took the approach you want to take. Seems to me that there can be both state-specific and federal-specific sensitive places and still not ban guns everywhere.

I also find it interesting that you're zeroing in on the NYCPD, but there are areas of Long Island where what you said would not apply since Suffolk (or Nassau) County police protect the public. So you've zeroed in on a very small, albeit densely-packed, area as opposed to an entire state.

EDIT 2: And then we get into things like city organization. The way NYC is organized (I used to commute there) It's entirely possible for me to declare, say, banks and railways to be sensitive areas and almost restrict the entire thing, anyway -- at least till you get towards the Boroughs.

 

[natman]

Isn't that a why and wherefore? SCOTUS did not define what a "sensitive place" means.

EDIT: Meanwhile, in my state (SC), they took the exact opposite approach. They determined that basically anywhere federal law defines as a sensitive place (schools, etc.) is a sensitive place, and nothing else -- and in some cases, you can own a gun without a license. SC took the approach you want to take. Seems to me that there can be both state-specific and federal-specific sensitive places and still not ban guns everywhere.

I also find it interesting that you're zeroing in on the NYCPD, but there are areas of Long Island where what you said would not apply since Suffolk (or Nassau) County police protect the public. So you've zeroed in on a very small, albeit densely-packed, area as opposed to an entire state.

I'm not zeroing in on NYC, SCOTUS did. But it gives a clear example of what not to do, i.e. declare the entire island of Manhattan a sensitive place. New York State deliberately did the exactly what they were told not to do.

 

[PoliSciPulse]

I'm not zeroing in on NYC, SCOTUS did. But it gives a clear example of what not to do, i.e. declare the entire island of Manhattan a sensitive place. New York State deliberately did the exactly what they were told not to do.

So you're telling me that if I said that (For example) restaurants, banks, and railways were sensitive places -- and that just happens to cover the entire island of Manhattan -- you'd be okay with that?