mikeeycohen
.177 BB
Hi all, Just be aware that the GVR (and presumed reversion to the Prelim Injunction status) does not take effect until after 32 days from July 2 (Rule 45).
Antonyuk, Ivan Et Al. V. James Et Al. GVR'd by SCOTUS on 2 July 2024
- Thread starter US RIFLE M1A
- Start date
mikeeycohen
.177 BB
UPDATE: TUSH JAMES's office says injunctions not in effect - according to several news sources that are stating:
"In the Antonyuk matter, vacating the lower court ruling did not appear to automatically put Suddaby’s “sensitive locations” injunction back in place. Reached for comment on the matter, a spokesperson from James’s office said, “The law is still in effect, including the sensitive locations provision, and will be re-litigated in the Second Circuit.”
See: https://www.news10.com/news/ny-news/scotus-vacates-ny-circuit-court-gun-control-ruling/ and MSN
I believe she is wrong and just doing what she does best (being wrong), but this may mean that ADAs and police will be so instructed.
"In the Antonyuk matter, vacating the lower court ruling did not appear to automatically put Suddaby’s “sensitive locations” injunction back in place. Reached for comment on the matter, a spokesperson from James’s office said, “The law is still in effect, including the sensitive locations provision, and will be re-litigated in the Second Circuit.”
See: https://www.news10.com/news/ny-news/scotus-vacates-ny-circuit-court-gun-control-ruling/ and MSN
I believe she is wrong and just doing what she does best (being wrong), but this may mean that ADAs and police will be so instructed.
US RIFLE M1A
.45 acp
First off, these are the words of one of those pool reporters from a local rag. That's how they write things; they know nothing of the subject, they don't want to know, so they say things like 'did not appear to.'
And the article quotes an un-named and un-credentialed 'spokesperson' (who could be anyone, including the receptionist) who tosses out a partial truth about the law still being in effect. Yes, it is, for 32 days after the GVR.
Now if anyone involved in this relaying of information to the public via the lowest of communications channels (I would rather get my news from graffiti on the wall of a highway underpass than from one of those upstate rag newspapers) took a look at some REAL sources, they would find that there are some very specific legal facts at work here.
Now, getting into the legal specifics of the case:
- Antonyuk et al (Antonyuk) brought suit in federal district court (Suddaby) challenging the CCIA which was passed after Bruen in mid-2022.
- Suddaby issued a preliminary injunction (PI) against most of the CCIA in late 2022.
- The 2nd Circuit Court (2nd) issued a stay of Suddaby almost immediately, heard the state's appeal of Suddaby's injunction in early 2023, and over-turned most of it by late 2023, thereby reverting back to most of the CCIA.
- Antonyuk filed for Certorarai (cert) to the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in early 2024. In his filing, he specifically praised Suddaby's decision (for an important reason).
- In July 2024, SCOTUS granted cert, vacated the 2nd, and remanded back to the 2nd in light of Rahimi.
- Rahimi specifically states that Bruen applies to all members of 'the people' who are not adjudicated as dangerous to have 2A rights.
Now understand that in law, you are required in your pleadings to include everything you are asking for; because you will not get anything you do not ask for. So...
- In Antonyuk's application for Cert (and at other various places before that) he specifically cites Suddaby as a model of decision making vis a vis the CCIA.
- Therefore, Antonyuk is positioning Sudaby as the default if he wins at SCOTUS.
Then...
- On July 2, 2024 - ANTONYUK WINS (this round, at least) which is a huge victory. Rarely does SCOTUS grant cert on a case that has not reached final adjudication, this case is in the preliminary injunction phase.
So, in law, when you win, you get part or all of what you ask for.
The key here is that by winning, Antonyuk gets what he asked for (or some of it) but nothing he does not ask for.
- Antonyuk asked for and was granted what he asked for which was to have the decision of the 2nd VACATED.
- And by praising Suddaby, he also asks to have that decision as the operative law in effect until the next phase of the litigation. No, AG James (or and unkown 'spokes' person) - Judge Suddaby's decision is NOT the baby that gets thrown out with the bath water - it is now law.
Please read the above again. Thank you.
(A review of Suddaby's PI, a review of Antonyuk's app. for cert, and a review of the GVR, they line up perfectly to return to Suddaby's decision as operative law.)
By any logical train of thought, and a smattering of common sense, barring some arcane maneuvering by the state and the 2nd (who are in cahoots at least in ideology), Judge Suddaby's ruling of late 2022 becomes the law that we as lawfully armed citizens live by for now.
I am not a lawyer, the above is not legal advice.
And the article quotes an un-named and un-credentialed 'spokesperson' (who could be anyone, including the receptionist) who tosses out a partial truth about the law still being in effect. Yes, it is, for 32 days after the GVR.
Now if anyone involved in this relaying of information to the public via the lowest of communications channels (I would rather get my news from graffiti on the wall of a highway underpass than from one of those upstate rag newspapers) took a look at some REAL sources, they would find that there are some very specific legal facts at work here.
Now, getting into the legal specifics of the case:
- Antonyuk et al (Antonyuk) brought suit in federal district court (Suddaby) challenging the CCIA which was passed after Bruen in mid-2022.
- Suddaby issued a preliminary injunction (PI) against most of the CCIA in late 2022.
- The 2nd Circuit Court (2nd) issued a stay of Suddaby almost immediately, heard the state's appeal of Suddaby's injunction in early 2023, and over-turned most of it by late 2023, thereby reverting back to most of the CCIA.
- Antonyuk filed for Certorarai (cert) to the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in early 2024. In his filing, he specifically praised Suddaby's decision (for an important reason).
- In July 2024, SCOTUS granted cert, vacated the 2nd, and remanded back to the 2nd in light of Rahimi.
- Rahimi specifically states that Bruen applies to all members of 'the people' who are not adjudicated as dangerous to have 2A rights.
Now understand that in law, you are required in your pleadings to include everything you are asking for; because you will not get anything you do not ask for. So...
- In Antonyuk's application for Cert (and at other various places before that) he specifically cites Suddaby as a model of decision making vis a vis the CCIA.
- Therefore, Antonyuk is positioning Sudaby as the default if he wins at SCOTUS.
Then...
- On July 2, 2024 - ANTONYUK WINS (this round, at least) which is a huge victory. Rarely does SCOTUS grant cert on a case that has not reached final adjudication, this case is in the preliminary injunction phase.
So, in law, when you win, you get part or all of what you ask for.
The key here is that by winning, Antonyuk gets what he asked for (or some of it) but nothing he does not ask for.
- Antonyuk asked for and was granted what he asked for which was to have the decision of the 2nd VACATED.
- And by praising Suddaby, he also asks to have that decision as the operative law in effect until the next phase of the litigation. No, AG James (or and unkown 'spokes' person) - Judge Suddaby's decision is NOT the baby that gets thrown out with the bath water - it is now law.
Please read the above again. Thank you.
(A review of Suddaby's PI, a review of Antonyuk's app. for cert, and a review of the GVR, they line up perfectly to return to Suddaby's decision as operative law.)
By any logical train of thought, and a smattering of common sense, barring some arcane maneuvering by the state and the 2nd (who are in cahoots at least in ideology), Judge Suddaby's ruling of late 2022 becomes the law that we as lawfully armed citizens live by for now.
I am not a lawyer, the above is not legal advice.
Last edited:
US RIFLE M1A
.45 acp
EXCERPTS FROM:
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI - FEB 20,2024
ANTONYUK V. JAMES
Page 8 - Key concepts here are 'granting preliminary relief' which means 'we got what we asked for' and in effect 'could I have that back, please.' This is to demonstrate to SCOTUS that if I win, this is what I want to go back to.
Page 9 - Again including praise for Suddaby, this time invoking the words of two SCOTUS Justices.
Page 18 - Isolating the 2nd Circuit as the party who issued improper rulings, as opposed to Suddaby's proper ruling.
Over and over again, Antonyuk takes issue with the 2nd Circuit and how they over-ruled Bruen from below. Antonyuk also praises Suddaby as having given the relief asked for.
THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE 2ND CIRCUIT HAS BEEN VACATED BY SCOTUS, AS ASKED FOR BY THE PETITIONER (ANTONYUK).
THE PETITIONER ALSO POINTS TO SUDDABY AS THE PROPER RULING.
THE GVR ISSUED BY SCOTUS DOES NOT VACATE SUDDABY'S DECISION, IN FACT IT FOLLOWS ANTONYUK'S LEAD IN VERIFYING IT AS PROPER.
THEREFORE SUDDABY STANDS.
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI - FEB 20,2024
ANTONYUK V. JAMES
Page 8 - Key concepts here are 'granting preliminary relief' which means 'we got what we asked for' and in effect 'could I have that back, please.' This is to demonstrate to SCOTUS that if I win, this is what I want to go back to.
Page 9 - Again including praise for Suddaby, this time invoking the words of two SCOTUS Justices.
Page 18 - Isolating the 2nd Circuit as the party who issued improper rulings, as opposed to Suddaby's proper ruling.
Over and over again, Antonyuk takes issue with the 2nd Circuit and how they over-ruled Bruen from below. Antonyuk also praises Suddaby as having given the relief asked for.
THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE 2ND CIRCUIT HAS BEEN VACATED BY SCOTUS, AS ASKED FOR BY THE PETITIONER (ANTONYUK).
THE PETITIONER ALSO POINTS TO SUDDABY AS THE PROPER RULING.
THE GVR ISSUED BY SCOTUS DOES NOT VACATE SUDDABY'S DECISION, IN FACT IT FOLLOWS ANTONYUK'S LEAD IN VERIFYING IT AS PROPER.
THEREFORE SUDDABY STANDS.
Last edited:
Saltwater60
.950 JDJ
I hope it gets settled but this is a bit odd because the 2nd gave us some rights back but now that it is vacated does that mean our rights that we got back will be gone again. So I guess what I’m asking is will the entire CCIA be put back in place until the second makes up their minds? The Supreme Court screwed us on this and yes I know in the end it will be better…… but the Supreme Court should have just slapped them down and said here is our ruling and let’s expand on this. What a joke.
US RIFLE M1A
.45 acp
Did you read anything I wrote above? I am not a lawyer, but what I posted was researched and cited using impeccable logic. Hand wringing and blanket statements such as 'we are so screwed' do nothing positive. Know the law and act accordingly.
Read Antonyuk's Petition for Grant of Ceriorari
^^^^^^ THIS IS WHAT WAS GRANTED. ^^^^^^
Writ of Certiorari GRANTED. Read the petition for the Writ of Certiorari. They (SCOTUS) read it, and they granted it. That means they agreed with what was in the petition. That means they agreed with Antonyuk, hated what the 2nd wrote, and agreed again with Antonyuk that Suddaby was proper. What is so difficult to understand?
LIKE GETTING AN A++ ON A COLLEGE PAPER. That means everything in it is really good.
I have given you enough to go on, but then again so does a new toilet.
(Give you something to go on, that is)
IANAL
Last edited:
That_FNG
6.5 Creedmoor
What about the other court cases (the Christian VS nys and the Hardway VS nys). Even if the entire antoyak case went poof from existence don’t we still have those cases?
US RIFLE M1A
.45 acp
I have not looked into it, because the tires do not hit the road with those cases, and I am not getting paid as an attorney. Antonyuk affects our carry rights in real time.
mikeeycohen
.177 BB
I believe you are correct, technically. But it also useful to know what the state is saying, and how it will be directing LEO/DAs, since in this state it is common to be arrested, booked, jailed overnight and arraigned all on gun BS. So people need to know what the consequences/costs may be. BTW the Rule 45 delay exist partly for this reason (to allow the dust to settle and consequences of a ruling be determined). I am hoping the mandated 10-day-after-ruling status report to Suddaby will clear thing up better.
RedBreast21
.223 Rem
Just for context about SCOTUS smack downs on lower courts. The 2000 presidential election saw SCOTUS send back to the 11th circuit 3 times, I believe, their violations of the 14th amendment in that courts ruling in Gore vs Bush. SCOTUS had to then take the case and overturn. So don't expect the 2nd circuit court to do anything but waste time and drag this out until SCOTUS steps in to rule. After that, NY state legislature will draft and pass another law violating the same provision laid out by SCOTUS within one week of that ruling.
Left wing progressive States and governors in this country have no respect for the highest court in the land. Not even "democracy" has a chance of working under that practice.
Left wing progressive States and governors in this country have no respect for the highest court in the land. Not even "democracy" has a chance of working under that practice.
mikeeycohen
.177 BB
We do. In March (us) and May (NYS) both sides moved for Summary Judgement. Last entry on docket was June 3 (technical order). I am sure Justice Sinatra has been waiting for the Antonyuk SCOTUS case, and will also wait for the 10-day-status-report to be filed first in that case. But Antonyuk did not 'go poof'.
US RIFLE M1A
.45 acp
Not familiar with this.
mikeeycohen
.177 BB
I believe you are correct, technically. But it also useful to know what he state is saying, and how it will be directing LEO/DAs, since in this state it is common to be arrested, booked, jailed overnight and arraigned all on gun BS. So people need to know what the consequences may be.
Last entry in Antonyuk case (district court)
US RIFLE M1A
.45 acp
OK, well that's good. Judge Suddaby will issue a ruling, however temporary, in Antonyuk's favor, sometime after he gets the status report and prior to the 2nd Circuit decision expiring as per the mandate from SCOTUS.
In the mean time, I can still carry in Home Depot.
In the mean time, I can still carry in Home Depot.