Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

Emergency application to SCOTUS from NY - Emergency Application to SCOTUS to vacate stay issued by Second Circuit ----

"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 Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022). The district court’s injunction was supported by a detailed 184-page opinion, meticulously tailored to follow this Court’s framework established in Bruen."
 
doxdsgn said:
Emergency application to SCOTUS from NY - Emergency Application to SCOTUS to vacate stay issued by Second Circuit ----

"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 Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022). The district court’s injunction was supported by a detailed 184-page opinion, meticulously tailored to follow this Court’s framework established in Bruen."
Click to expand...
I've read more tortured sentences, but not many. (Not your fault; you're just the messenger.)

So, NY passed their new law. A district court judge issued an injunction to prevent its enforcement until the case has been tried, and offered 184 pages of explanation about why that was appropriate. The Second Circuit stayed that injunction, empowering NY to enforce the law, basically "because reasons." This application is being sent to SCOTUS to overturn the 2nd Circuit. (I'm probably using some of the language imperfectly.)

Worst case, SCOTUS says no thanks, and the law is enforceable until it completes review in the district court. Tea leaves say we win initially, then NY appeals and seeks a stay until the 2nd finds in favor of the state, again "because reasons." Eventually, the appeals process continues up to SCOTUS, who may or may not actually accept the case.

Best case, SCOTUS says the 2nd is all wet, and we return to the injunction from teh district level.
 
Mesatchornug said:
I've read more tortured sentences, but not many. (Not your fault; you're just the messenger.)

So, NY passed their new law. A district court judge issued an injunction to prevent its enforcement until the case has been tried, and offered 184 pages of explanation about why that was appropriate. The Second Circuit stayed that injunction, empowering NY to enforce the law, basically "because reasons." This application is being sent to SCOTUS to overturn the 2nd Circuit. (I'm probably using some of the language imperfectly.)

Worst case, SCOTUS says no thanks, and the law is enforceable until it completes review in the district court. Tea leaves say we win initially, then NY appeals and seeks a stay until the 2nd finds in favor of the state, again "because reasons." Eventually, the appeals process continues up to SCOTUS, who may or may not actually accept the case.

Best case, SCOTUS says the 2nd is all wet, and we return to the injunction from teh district level.
Click to expand...

If SCOTUS says, we said in Bruen we really meant it in Heller, but let’s see if the Circuits line up with or against us again - I give up… Do they need 5 Justices to stay 2ndC’s stay?
 
 
Hoover said:
When the cases started up again in august after the NYSRPA vs bruen, the state of California has been trying to delay things. They proposed an extremely slow schedule because they realize they don’t have any facts on their side and the current SCOTUS won’t be helpful. All the anti states are basically trying to stall things for years and hope the composition of SCOTUS changes, it’s their only hope
Click to expand...
Ive seen more than a few news articles recently where the left is suggesting Kagan and Sotomayor retire now.
 
Sotomayor can act on her own. If she does act on her own, and the plaintiffs don't like what she says, they can then shop another justice, most likely Thomas, for relief from the larger court.

Note: events in this "Shadow Docket" move very quickly. Days or even hours in some cases.

-JR
 
Dennis in MA said:
Ok, Lord Boudrie. [rofl] [rofl] [rofl]
Click to expand...
If I don't contribute anything , how much of your money should I be able to vote myself ?
You good with a fourth of it , how about half ? Maybe 70 percent?
The sky is the limit when I need a new flat screen.

My friend worked at the MA. welfare department .
He had people coming in that were third generation on welfare. And their kids will never work, and the kids kids will never work.
You happy with then deciding how much of a cut of what you worked for they get ?
You are a generous man to give so much .
Guess your family doesn't need it .
 
Picton said:
There’s another solution, and historically it’s the one that’s always happened: a long, slow march through the courts, letting them sort things out organically.
Click to expand...
Hoover said:
The states in these cases, particularly California, really want to slow things down
Click to expand...
milktree said:
The fact that it hasn't happened yet is just because the court system is slow.
Click to expand...
JFR2 said:
Note: events in this "Shadow Docket" move very quickly. Days or even hours in some cases.
Click to expand...

So, is it FAST or SLOW?
 
CatSnoutSoup said:
They might want Sotomayor to retire because she is stupid.

🐯
Click to expand...

Sotomayor is very dumb (Jackson is right there btw, listen to her questions this term, she’s a moron) but they want sotomayor and kagan to retire because they fear another Ginsburg. If trump is not the nominee in 2024, it’s likely the GOP wins the senate and POTUS. If DeSantis wins, he’s likely to serve two terms so that would take him to 2032 and the left is worried one of those two die before then.

If one dies, it’s a 7-2 court for decades, if both, it’s an 8-1. It’s likely the next GOP POTUS leads to Alito and Thomas retiring. All of this comes back to Obama, reid, Schumer, warren, etc. they were so obsessed with stacking the DC circuit court of appeals that they changed the filibuster rules for judges. If they never did that, the GOP would have been stuck filling SCOTUS seats with moderates who could get 60 votes.
 
I haven't read much on these NY or NJ cases outside of this thread, but it seems the Appeals courts across the country are chuck full of anti-gun Democrats, which means they will legislate from the bench and it will be up to the Supreme Court to correct them.

I know that SCOTUS has been squishy on 2A cases for decades, but I've yet to see other than Kavanaugh and his mooting of the transportation case in NY a few years ago the GOP appointed justices rule against 2A. Perhaps they just haven't been given enough opportunities, but I think with a 6-3 court we have moved beyond the era of cert denials. SCOTUS is going to have to smack NY/NJ/MA/CA over and over and over again until the states are bluer than they already are because the appeals courts have all gone rogue.

It will be interesting to see how the Appeals courts will respond to more major issues like AWB, mag capacities, etc. because they know above them is a 6-3 court that will likely strike down the laws and make them nationally binding, so we may see those things struck down at the appeals level and states not appeal to SCOTUS because they know it would be a losing proposition.

How SCOTUS will react to splits between appellate courts will be interesting as well. I've always thought that there was supposed to be an automatic SCOTUS review if say the 9th Circuit says mag capacity laws are unconstitutional, but the 1st circuit says they are, but that may not be the case.

It doesn't jive with the 14th Amendment tho.
 
nypost.com

Suing Big Guns and Big Oil is just cynical political posturing

Again, the hope here is that ideology will triumph in the courts where it hasn’t when it comes to writing laws. Lawyers get some work, politicians get to wax indignant — and they can all hope…
nypost.com nypost.com

Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown announced last week that the Queen City had filed a “first of its kind” lawsuit targeting and blaming firearms manufacturers for the rising gun violence there. It’s not remotely the first, despite invoking a new “public nuisance” state law, and it’ll fail: Suits against Big Guns over crime, like those targeting Big Oil over climate, are just lawyer-enriching, and posturing-pol-promoting, bunk.

“The City of Buffalo is not going to let these gun industry members continue to flood our city with illegally possessed guns. We must hold them accountable,” Brown declared of the case against such gunmakers as Beretta, Smith & Wesson, etc., as well as distributors and local gun shops — plus, ghost-gun retailers like Polymer 80.
Click to expand...
 
Nothing stops until the politicians, judges, cops and prosecutors passing and enforcing these laws go to jail and can be sued in civil court after.

If there is no punishment for passing unconstitutional laws, they will just keep passing them.

And SCOTUS needs to fast track taking these cases on. Not make people wait 3-5 years for a resolution. It's bullshit.
 
T-Unit said:
I know that SCOTUS has been squishy on 2A cases for decades,
Click to expand...
Most of the post Meller/McDonald cases were around the "edge" of what the decision means, not outright definance.

NOBODY is a position of power likes having the authoritah challenged. I hope the supremes are pissed enough about being ignored to take action.

images
 
T-Unit said:
It doesn't jive with the 14th Amendment tho.
Click to expand...

Seems this should cover a LOT:

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Click to expand...
 

Similar threads

Garland v. VanDerStok
Replies
0
Views
113
lutstribe
L
Supreme Court decision on rifle bans
Replies
9
Views
738
Tartakovsky
Tartakovsky
Supreme Court ending permits
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
Worcester State Court Gun Policy
Replies
12
Views
453
Mark from ?
M
Is it time yet for a "Why is there even a dealer classifieds" Megathread?
Replies
12
Views
266
Individualist
Individualist
Back
Top Bottom