Updates on Antonyuk v. Bruen

[US RIFLE M1A]

You can’t reason with liberals. I tried and you’ll fail every time. They put their opinion in and disregard all facts.

This.

A case like this does not hinge on finding a perfect litigant, it hinges on avoiding being assigned to a liberal activist judge. Antonyuk has standing in NDNY, which, presumably, is somewhat less liberal than the downstate cesspools. There, we don't stand a chance, even with the theoretical ideal plaintiff.

I disagree that a liberal judge can be persuaded into a pro 2A decision with an ideal plaintiff. Besides, we don't know how it really went because we were not there.

We are dwelling on reported word-fuckery, not facts or law, which a judge will see coming from a distance. A liberal judge will use it to trash the case, a conservative judge will consider it along with all the rest.

 

[speedkills27]

I made the Reddit post. This is the correct take. I recounted the events best I remember them but the exact details of the line of questioning Antonyuk responded to is lost to my memory. The exact details will determine what impact if any the responses have on the outcome. In addition, as this post points out, precedent set under Bruen likely makes the response irrelevant. At this point GOA's lawyer saying that the hearing went well is the best indicator we have.


I made a disclaimer on my Reddit post but the internet does what it does and got laser focused on this one bullet point. I will consider how and if I will provide updates from the courtroom in the future.

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

 

[arp228]

I made the Reddit post. This is the correct take. I recounted the events best I remember them but the exact details of the line of questioning Antonyuk responded to is lost to my memory. The exact details will determine what impact if any the responses have on the outcome. In addition, as this post points out, precedent set under Bruen likely makes the response irrelevant. At this point GOA's lawyer saying that the hearing went well is the best indicator we have.


I made a disclaimer on my Reddit post but the internet does what it does and got laser focused on this one bullet point. I will consider how and if I will provide updates from the courtroom in the future.

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]

I was not talking about changing a liberal mind at a cocktail party or reunion.

I was talking about pressuring a liberal politician or judge to abandon their own personal bias and do the right thing in part because of competing liberal biases.

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]

Especially with something as discretionary as a temporary stay on a law passes by liberals. "It's a big club..."

 

[Slacker43]

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.

 

[Saltwater60]

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.

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]

This is why I tried to keep that portion of your post in the screen shot

This is appreciated.

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

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.

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]

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.

Welcome to the internet. That's one thing that is not avoidable

 

[Edwardteach72]

GOA making a small statement/update on yesterday

 

[Saltwater60]

GOA making a small statement/update on yesterday View attachment 170470

It’s great when the government asshole doesn’t know the law.

 

[spat]

It’s great when the government asshole doesn’t know the law.

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.

 

[fresch]

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.

They vote as how they are told to.
If not you get Mike Bragmaned. Booted out.

 

[FP1201]

It’s great when the government asshole doesn’t know the law.

The irony is they are the first to tell you that ignorance of the law is no excuse.

 

[Edwardteach72]

Just some more, from GOA

 

[minderasr]

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]

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?

Actually it's in addition to asking permission of our government....

 

[Saltwater60]

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

 

[fresch]

Like I said before, if they can do this to the 2nd, can slavery be too far from being brought back?

 

[Dr. Evil]

Like I said before, if they can do this to the 2nd, can slavery be too far from being brought back?

I would argue it's already here.

 

[Jem45472]

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.

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.

 

[Jem45472]

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]

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.

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]

Like I said before, if they can do this to the 2nd, can slavery be too far from being brought back?

I would argue it's already here.

white slavery

 

[subsonic]

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.

 

[drowhawk]

Wasn't there supposed to be a ruling on the injunction today?

 

[ROBBARTLEY]

Wasn't there supposed to be a ruling on the injunction today?

The judge said before 01 Sep.

 

[Edwardteach72]

Wasn't there supposed to be a ruling on the injunction today?

Still a few days left before September 1st

 

[drowhawk]

My bad. I had it in my head that today was they day it was supposed to be decided on.

 

[Jchrisls]

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.