NYC Gun Policy Gets Revue by USA Supreme Court...possibly

[Brickjectivity]

This is about the case: N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol ***’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022)

Following the June 23, 2022 Bruen decision, NYC and New York's governor immediately took action to undermine the Supreme Court's decision about a law limiting concealed gun licenses. They went around it, creating new red tape to effect the same thing.

Some people filed a suit: Applicants are Ivan Antonyuk, Corey Johnson, Alfred Terrille, Joseph Mann, Leslie Leman, and Lawrence Sloan

They filed with the Supreme Court in a filing which began with:

"Without providing any analysis or explanation, the Second Circuit has stayed a preliminary injunction issued by a federal district court in New York that was carefully designed to limit New York’s enforcement of a sweeping gun control statute, enacted as retaliation against New York gun owners for having prevailed in this Court’s decision in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol ***’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022..."​

So let those who find such matters interesting be made aware that such appeal has been filed. A reply is expected on May 9 by NY. Its possible the Supreme Court will strike down whatever NYC is doing. Its very obvious the city disobeyed the Supreme Court, so doing nothing would probably look lame. It would not "Add to the prestige of the court" and could make judges Marshal and Blackstone turn in their graves.

I couldn't post this in 'General Politics', because I didn't have permissions to create a thread there; so I put it into N. American Political debates. I'm pretty sure it will devolve into another marxists vs capitalists debate thread, by which time I will no longer be participating. I pay attention to the first few pages and then leave. I like the mountain, but if it erupts I don't stick around for the beautiful lava, since it sticks too well to me.

 

[Pogo]

This is about the case: N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol ***’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022)

Following the June 23, 2022 Bruen decision, NYC and New York's governor immediately took action to undermine the Supreme Court's decision about a law limiting concealed gun licenses. They went around it, creating new red tape to effect the same thing.

Some people filed a suit: Applicants are Ivan Antonyuk, Corey Johnson, Alfred Terrille, Joseph Mann, Leslie Leman, and Lawrence Sloan

They filed with the Supreme Court in a filing which began with:

"Without providing any analysis or explanation, the Second Circuit has stayed a preliminary injunction issued by a federal district court in New York that was carefully designed to limit New York’s enforcement of a sweeping gun control statute, enacted as retaliation against New York gun owners for having prevailed in this Court’s decision in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol ***’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022..."​

So let those who find such matters interesting be made aware that such appeal has been filed. A reply is expected on May 9 by NY. Its possible the Supreme Court will strike down whatever NYC is doing. Its very obvious the city disobeyed the Supreme Court, so doing nothing would probably look lame. It would not "Add to the prestige of the court" and could make judges Marshal and Blackstone turn in their graves.

I couldn't post this in 'General Politics', because I didn't have permissions to create a thread there; so I put it into N. American Political debates. I'm pretty sure it will devolve into another marxists vs capitalists debate thread, by which time I will no longer be participating. I pay attention to the first few pages and then leave. I like the mountain, but if it erupts I don't stick around for the beautiful lava, since it sticks too well to me.

Some more links so I can put my socialist libertarian mind into Marxist/capitalist mode.
Found this https://www.gunowners.org/wp-content/uploads/Antonyuk-Petition-for-Cert-final.pdf

 

[Pogo]

This is about the case: N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol ***’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022)

Following the June 23, 2022 Bruen decision, NYC and New York's governor immediately took action to undermine the Supreme Court's decision about a law limiting concealed gun licenses. They went around it, creating new red tape to effect the same thing.

Some people filed a suit: Applicants are Ivan Antonyuk, Corey Johnson, Alfred Terrille, Joseph Mann, Leslie Leman, and Lawrence Sloan

They filed with the Supreme Court in a filing which began with:

"Without providing any analysis or explanation, the Second Circuit has stayed a preliminary injunction issued by a federal district court in New York that was carefully designed to limit New York’s enforcement of a sweeping gun control statute, enacted as retaliation against New York gun owners for having prevailed in this Court’s decision in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol ***’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022..."​

So let those who find such matters interesting be made aware that such appeal has been filed. A reply is expected on May 9 by NY. Its possible the Supreme Court will strike down whatever NYC is doing. Its very obvious the city disobeyed the Supreme Court, so doing nothing would probably look lame. It would not "Add to the prestige of the court" and could make judges Marshal and Blackstone turn in their graves.

I couldn't post this in 'General Politics', because I didn't have permissions to create a thread there; so I put it into N. American Political debates. I'm pretty sure it will devolve into another marxists vs capitalists debate thread, by which time I will no longer be participating. I pay attention to the first few pages and then leave. I like the mountain, but if it erupts I don't stick around for the beautiful lava, since it sticks too well to me.

Not to destroy your OP, but is this another of the recent arguments between the so called literalist originalists and the evolving standards groups that seems to correspond significantly with opinions on Genesis and Science?

ETA, your brain is safe from rain only so long as you are unplugged.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Not to destroy your OP, but is this another of the recent arguments between the so called literalist originalists and the evolving standards groups that seems to correspond significantly with opinions on Genesis and Science?

ETA, your brain is safe from rain only so long as you are unplugged.

Hi, Pogo! I don't know where you fall in the spectrum; but I was long ago a young earth creationist believer. I read some things, and I changed my mind over time. I became someone who acknowledged the evidence for evolution.

As for the gun control issue I am not able to parse the law, however I think people do have a right to self defense. In USA we have large empty areas like countryside, and we have crowded areas like cities. We have a responsible citizenry that do things like obey traffic laws, driving 60+ in opposite directions at deadly speeds yet do not die. There are SO many ways to die and hurt ourselves, and I don't support extreme gun bans like Australias. I buy the argument that when government says you don't need a gun you need a gun.

I'm on the fence about automatic weapons on display and being driven about, however I think garage-kept or closet kept is a right. I'm in favor of trusting the public more than we do currently.

I've also seen gun control advocates caught skewing facts about handguns, and so I don't listen to them so much. That doesn't mean they have nothing worth saying. What it means is that typically there is a lot of misinformation that attempts to grab my attention, and it is not worth listening to. But court cases are a different matter. If I read about gun control, then perhaps the best material will be found in court cases.

 

[Pogo]

Hi, Pogo! I don't know where you fall in the spectrum; but I was long ago a young earth creationist believer. I read some things, and I changed my mind over time. I became someone who acknowledged the evidence for evolution.

As for the gun control issue I am not able to parse the law, however I think people do have a right to self defense. In USA we have large empty areas like countryside, and we have crowded areas like cities. We have a responsible citizenry that do things like obey traffic laws, driving 60+ in opposite directions at deadly speeds yet do not die. There are SO many ways to die and hurt ourselves, and I don't support extreme gun bans like Australias. I buy the argument that when government says you don't need a gun you need a gun.

I'm on the fence about automatic weapons on display and being driven about, however I think garage-kept or closet kept is a right. I'm in favor of trusting the public more than we do currently.

I've also seen gun control advocates caught skewing facts about handguns, and so I don't listen to them so much. That doesn't mean they have nothing worth saying. What it means is that typically there is a lot of misinformation that attempts to grab my attention, and it is not worth listening to. But court cases are a different matter. If I read about gun control, then perhaps the best material will be found in court cases.

Well, I think ultimately we come down on similar sides. The people who wrote the Constitution where not ultimately arguing for an unrestricted freedom, but a freedom that recognized their position. That they did not limit gun rights was not the object given current capabilities, but that there needed to be discussions of what gun rights meant. Pretending that their opinions related to the current reality is ( I can only use the word) Absurd.

BTW, are you the progeny of flying toasters and an AI?

 

[Revoltingest]

Violating the Constitution (as interpreted by SCOTUS)
by indirect artful means is generally frowned upon.
For example, cops can't operate secretly by charging
prohibitive fees for documents to comply with a FOIA
request.

 

[Pogo]

Hi, Pogo! I don't know where you fall in the spectrum; but I was long ago a young earth creationist believer. I read some things, and I changed my mind over time. I became someone who acknowledged the evidence for evolution.

As for the gun control issue I am not able to parse the law, however I think people do have a right to self defense. In USA we have large empty areas like countryside, and we have crowded areas like cities. We have a responsible citizenry that do things like obey traffic laws, driving 60+ in opposite directions at deadly speeds yet do not die. There are SO many ways to die and hurt ourselves, and I don't support extreme gun bans like Australias. I buy the argument that when government says you don't need a gun you need a gun.

I'm on the fence about automatic weapons on display and being driven about, however I think garage-kept or closet kept is a right. I'm in favor of trusting the public more than we do currently.

I've also seen gun control advocates caught skewing facts about handguns, and so I don't listen to them so much. That doesn't mean they have nothing worth saying. What it means is that typically there is a lot of misinformation that attempts to grab my attention, and it is not worth listening to. But court cases are a different matter. If I read about gun control, then perhaps the best material will be found in court cases.

Basically what the second amendment said, we have the right to protect ourselves individually, but when in confluence with others, we need to be organized and organization requires organization with subservience to the greater organization.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have barely scanned the issue, but if you ask me it does not look good for New York State. A judge twice put an injunction against the New York State law, but twice he was overturned by a higher court. I think that in the long run he will be shown to be right. The ruling of the USSC that set this up is rather clear and New York State appears to be running afoul of it. I do not even know why they wrote such a law at a time like this. They would need to replace at least two conservative judges before they would have a chance.