Possible SCOTUS case that address NYS and CA new laws

[Truebeliever]

A case is up for review before the court where Washington DC revoked a permit on subjective grounds then when they were going to lose the court case, granted him his permit at the last second to make the case moot. He is still appealing to SCOTUS. It might effect NYS and CA new laws

 

[spat]

A case is up for review before the court where Washington DC revoked a permit on subjective grounds then when they were going to lose the court case, granted him his permit at the last second to make the case moot. He is still appealing to SCOTUS. It might effect NYS and CA new laws

People need to tack on a dollar amount for damages in all these cases.

Then even if the state tries to moot the case it's not done if they didn't get paid off too.


"Sure, you can give the guy his permit so your whole corrupt scheme doesn't get ruled unconstitutional, but it's going to cost you "$100M".

They can afford the $100M, but they can't afford to fight the 1000 new cases that would be filed the minute that check got signed LOL.

 

[VietnamEraVet]

Here is a link to an article on Scotusblog with more detailed information on this potential case before SCOTUS.

Another gun case waits in the wings - SCOTUSblog

The Petitions of the Week column highlights a selection of cert petitions recently filed in the Supreme Court. A list of all petitions we’re watching is available here. On Thursday, the court issued its first major ruling on the Second Amendment in over a decade, striking down a New York gun regu

www.scotusblog.com

I find it interesting that after holding him and his family members for over 3 hours but ultimately NOT arresting them (since they had no legal basis to do so), the pricks nevertheless refused to return his legally owned firearm to him! And then, when he attempted to simply buy a replacement firearm rather than sue the bastards for its' return, they then revoked his CCW permit!

Then when he sued them over his permit, they finally returned his permit to him (but still not his original firearm), and they then "mooted" his lawsuit by changing the law. But there is nothing to prevent them from fucking him or anyone else over that again, so he has sued and now the case is under consideration to see if SCOTUS will take it. Quite similar in the mootness aspect to NY's law against taking legal firearms outside NYC to the range.

Hopefully SCOTUS takes it and puts a ruling in place to stop some of the additional unconstitutional bullshit the states including NY and CA are pulling.

 

[Phazer]

I appreciate the portion of the suit that challenges states' strategy of claiming cases are moot only after the states find themselves in losing positions. Progressive states keep infringing on rights, apparently knowingly, and then just change the laws if they think that they will lose a specific suit so as to avoid a SCOTUS admonishment. These Progressive states cannot be allowed to continue to play judicial rope-a-dope with law-abiding citizens' rights.

 

[Celt]

Watched that this morning. Lets see how it goes. Like everyone, Im tired of leftist states back tracking on their infringements to avoid a higher court ruling. They cant be allowed to "moot"a case in this manner unless the platiff agrees.

 

[Uninformed and Compliant]

People need to tack on a dollar amount for damages in all these cases.

Then even if the state tries to moot the case it's not done if they didn't get paid off too.


"Sure, you can give the guy his permit so your whole corrupt scheme doesn't get ruled unconstitutional, but it's going to cost you "$100M".

They can afford the $100M, but they can't afford to fight the 1000 new cases that would be filed the minute that check got signed LOL.

Nice idea. Also inform the judge that you're seeking criminal charges against all those involved if the law / act in question turns out to be invalid.

No way can a judge moot that case, then.

 

[Truebeliever]

What are going to be the court’s remedy to all these states and judges intentionally going against their ruling?
This judge went against their ruling :

They could appoint a “special judge” to enforce their decision if the courts continue their revolt.
One judge of the appeals court who ruled correctly on the case threatened to declare constitutional carry if Chicago continued their nonsense. The court could do something like that .

 

[dsdmmat]

Problem is without the executive branch enforcing the Supreme Court rulings they are meaningless. When the law becomes a joke, the rule of law is irrelevant.

 

[Saltwater60]

Why aren’t they being charged with theft? They stole his rightfully owned property.

 

[99cummins]

Problem is without the executive branch enforcing the Supreme Court rulings they are meaningless. When the law becomes a joke, the rule of law is irrelevant.

Pretty well sums up how I feel about all these laws.

 

[Acer-m14]

the seal i picked says Liberty and Justice for All ..

 

[spat]

What are going to be the court’s remedy to all these states and judges intentionally going against their ruling?
This judge went against their ruling :

They could appoint a “special judge” to enforce their decision if the courts continue their revolt.
One judge of the appeals court who ruled correctly on the case threatened to declare constitutional carry if Chicago continued their nonsense. The court could do something like that .

SCOTUS has the power to remove judges from office if they misbehave.

Maybe they should start doing that.

Imagine shitcanning all the activists right before a Trump/DeSantis ticket wins 2024 and the senate gets a massive red wave....

 

[SonOfSun]

Why aren’t they being charged with theft? They stole his rightfully owned property.

Consider it a new class of civil asset forfeiture, you know... when cops take your property on a "hunch" and make you sue them to get it back - and that's if you are lucky, all without charging you with a crime.

 

[spat]

Nice idea. Also inform the judge that you're seeking criminal charges against all those involved if the law / act in question turns out to be invalid.

No way can a judge moot that case, then.

Criminal charges won't fly.

They've all granted themselves immunity.

 

[Grimscale]

They've all granted themselves immunity.

Which is the first thing that should be ruled unConstitutional.

Let's see the S.C. declare that "qualified immunity" doesn't count when the politician knowingly and willingly violate a S.C. decision, and have it morph later into any time they infringe a protected Right.

When politicians are arrested and sued over and over for their egregious behavior eventually they'll either run out of money or get locked up for life. Either way, they'll be out of our hair and the next crop might think twice before being stupid.

It's a hope, at least. The alternative could be a lot less nice.

 

[spat]

Which is the first thing that should be ruled unConstitutional.

Let's see the S.C. declare that "qualified immunity" doesn't count when the politician knowingly and willingly violate a S.C. decision, and have it morph later into any time they infringe a protected Right.

When politicians are arrested and sued over and over for their egregious behavior eventually they'll either run out of money or get locked up for life. Either way, they'll be out of our hair and the next crop might think twice before being stupid.

It's a hope, at least. The alternative could be a lot less nice.

Cops get qualified immunity. Legislators just plain have immunity.

They could pass a law re-instating prima-nocta and nothing would happen.

What's worse is that there are cops who'd come to drag your new wife off and say "tell it to the judge".

 

[gun_slinger_boy]

At this point I'm questioning if Bruen did anything. I mean really did anything. After the decision states have gotten even more bold with gun control and the only way to fight it is to take it to court which we all know takes years to make any meaningful progress. But at the end, and if it is in our favor you're literally just back to square 1. There still haven't been any wins though either. I guess you could call the EPA thing a win but the ATF seems to be as tyrannical as ever. We can sit back now and say oh that's a good case and that's a cool one but until there are wins and actual enforcement of those decisions we really haven't progressed.

 

[VietnamEraVet]

At this point I'm questioning if Bruen did anything. I mean really did anything. After the decision states have gotten even more bold with gun control and the only way to fight it is to take it to court which we all know takes years to make any meaningful progress. But at the end, and if it is in our favor you're literally just back to square 1. There still haven't been any wins though either. I guess you could call the EPA thing a win but the ATF seems to be as tyrannical as ever. We can sit back now and say oh that's a good case and that's a cool one but until there are wins and actual enforcement of those decisions we really haven't progressed.

I am viewing the Bruen decision as Round 1 of a protracted fight. And in some respects it has been pretty good. First, they have struck down the two step scrutiny bullshit, and that has already paid some dividends. Some of the other states have cleaned up their laws as a result. And various other laws and decisions have been sent back for revision based on the ending of intermediate scrutiny and such.

I think many of the unconstitutional laws we suffer under will be falling by the wayside, - and sooner rather than later. Also, in light of the absolute horseshit law passed and signed into law in NY, there are already additional cases headed toward SCOTUS that will slap their asses down.

Sure, what they have done will potentially make CCW permit holders (and new applicants particularly) lives unpleasant and painful, however I think we will see this shit cleaned up in good time (by legal standards anyway).

I did not expect NYS to fold their tent and go away without putting up a fight, did you?

Now, it is on to Round 2.

 

[gun_slinger_boy]

I think many of the unconstitutional laws we suffer under will be falling by the wayside, - and sooner rather than later. Also, in light of the absolute horseshit law passed and signed into law in NY, there are already additional cases headed toward SCOTUS that will slap their asses down.

Right. I agree with what you wrote but this in particular is what I was getting at. There are new cases going up the chain everyday seemingly. But what does "slapping them down" really do? They have been slapped down already. And some states in particular keep defying them. While these cases are crawling through the court systems unconstitutional law is still considered illegal activity in the state. The citizens of the state still have to worry about going to jail for what is deemed "illegal". At the same time there is no mechanism to punish the enforcement of these unconstitutional laws. In other words there is no enforcement for the enforcement.

 

[US RIFLE M1A]

Right. I agree with what you wrote but this in particular is what I was getting at. There are new cases going up the chain everyday seemingly. But what does "slapping them down" really do? They have been slapped down already. And some states in particular keep defying them. While these cases are crawling through the court systems unconstitutional law is still considered illegal activity in the state. The citizens of the state still have to worry about going to jail for what is deemed "illegal". At the same time there is no mechanism to punish the enforcement of these unconstitutional laws. In other words there is no enforcement for the enforcement.

A printed document such as the Constitution has no validity unless all involved have at least some respect for the rules. Pro-Life states could have put up many roadblocks to harass those seeking abortion after Roe, but they said OK that's what the Court says, so be it.

A court decision has little to no validity in face of a lawless regime such as what New York has proven itself to be. Especially if both the federal and state attorneys general hate both the decision (Bruen) and the court itself.

A state that passes boldly unConstitutional laws immediately after a court decision telling them specifically not to do that is a state which has gone rogue. Without the usual guardrails of mutual respect for the law and the courts, there is not much anyone can do about it, other than haul everyone back to court.

But those guardrails are held in place by a mutual respect for the courts, the Constitution, and the rule of law. Without that respect, the state government is nothing more than a cabal of armed thugs.

The so-called CCIA was a direct attempt to nullify not only the SCOTUS decision, but the decisions of all courts that may rule on anything in the future that NY does not agree with. In effect, they have attempted to eviscerate the entire judicial branch.

 

[Phazer]

A printed document such as the Constitution has no validity unless all involved have at least some respect for the rules. Pro-Life states could have put up many roadblocks to harass those seeking abortion after Roe, but they said OK that's what the Court says, so be it.

A court decision has little to no validity in face of a lawless regime such as what New York has proven itself to be. Especially if both the federal and state attorneys general hate both the decision (Bruen) and the court itself.

A state that passes boldly unConstitutional laws immediately after a court decision telling them specifically not to do that is a state which has gone rogue. Without the usual guardrails of mutual respect for the law and the courts, there is not much anyone can do about it, other than haul everyone back to court.

But those guardrails are held in place by a mutual respect for the courts, the Constitution, and the rule of law. Without that respect, the state government is nothing more than a cabal of armed thugs.

The so-called CCIA was a direct attempt to nullify not only the SCOTUS decision, but the decisions of all courts that may rule on anything in the future that NY does not agree with. In effect, they have attempted to eviscerate the entire judicial branch.

We need a federal apolitical force that exits to serve Writs of Mandamus on officials that refuse to comply with Supreme Court rulings. Use some of those new 87K IRS agents to exact fiscal penalties upon those non-compliant officials.

 

[Uninformed and Compliant]

At the same time there is no mechanism to punish the enforcement of these unconstitutional laws. In other words there is no enforcement for the enforcement.

That's not correct.
People get civil immunity if they execute the role of their office in good faith. That's the entire premise of the immunity.

What you are referring to is the opinion of a bunch of congressional lawyers, who said that the willful violation of a constitutional limit carries no penalty. THAT is the source of the "nothing we can do" pre-defeated-before-you-even-start horse shit that people keep spewing.

Those lawyers are half wrong.

There's no explicit criminal penalty for violating the limits or procedures, but the "law" they pass doesn't actually exist if they do so.

They are shielded from civil court if they pass such a law, so you cannot sue them.

If they take an action under that false color of law that is itself a crime, then they HAVE committed a crime. They are NOT shielded from CRIMINAL court. That's the part that the talking heads always leave out and distract away from. "WE HAVE IMMUNITY!" Civil, perhaps. But not criminal.

Meanwhile, everyone deliberately conflates the two.

If they exceed the limits of their office, then they are NOT WITHIN their office when they commit a crime.
They do NOT get criminal immunity. Their lawyers can jibber jabber, confuse, mislead and distract all they want. They do NOT get criminal immunity. The immunity assumes a good faith best effort to "do the right thing," as they say, and it is focused on civil repercussions.

It is mostly true that a person could be tried, convicted and jailed for an egregious act, while simultaneously being immune to civil lawsuits for it.

>They could pass a law re-instating prima-nocta and nothing would happen.

That example of defeatism is my favorite example. That law would be invalid, as granting the State that particular power is not within any branch's ability. Obviously, that's the entire point of that example.

Passing that law wouldn't necessarily be a crime. The instant they move to fuck someone, it'd be rape, and there's a criminal law for that. So yes, that person would be prosecuted, and no, they would not have criminal immunity. I pity what'd happen to any cop or prosecutor who didn't pursue it with fanatically vindictive zeal. That rape would also be a stoppable act, and "stopping" it would be wholly reasonable. Because, despite that false color of law, the act is a crime. And I pity the entire fucking bloodline of any cop or prosecutor who'd interfere with that stop, or say the stop was unreasonable.

Seriously? A legislator rapes and murders your wife, and people insist he'd have immunity because he was "on the clock"? He may or may not have civil immunity, but criminal immunity?

Utterly ridiculous.
People need to stop letting criminals tell you what the rules are.
They are doing shit that they are explicitly forbidden from doing, deliberately.
Their actions are deliberately not within the scope of their office, and not in good faith.
Criminal Immunity is neither present nor reasonable in such a case.
I mean, the criminal will tell you they have it, but... they'll say anything, it doesn't make it true.

People looking to civil court to fix this shit are doing it wrong. CRIMINAL court fixes this shit. Every person reading this drivel has standing to file multiple criminal complaints against these people, and their staff.

People love to defeat themselves, for some reason.

 

[gun_slinger_boy]

What you are referring to is the opinion of a bunch of congressional lawyers, who said that the willful violation of a constitutional limit carries no penalty. THAT is the source of the "nothing we can do" pre-defeated-before-you-even-start horse shit that people keep spewing.

Those lawyers are half wrong.

There's no explicit criminal penalty for violating the limits or procedures, but the "law" they pass doesn't actually exist if they do so.

They are shielded from civil court if they pass such a law, so you cannot sue them.

I knew you'd see it my way. I'm at least half right on this one.

 

[Acer-m14]

 

[Acer-m14]

That's not correct.
People get civil immunity if they execute the role of their office in good faith. That's the entire premise of the immunity.

What you are referring to is the opinion of a bunch of congressional lawyers, who said that the willful violation of a constitutional limit carries no penalty. THAT is the source of the "nothing we can do" pre-defeated-before-you-even-start horse shit that people keep spewing.

Those lawyers are half wrong.

There's no explicit criminal penalty for violating the limits or procedures, but the "law" they pass doesn't actually exist if they do so.

They are shielded from civil court if they pass such a law, so you cannot sue them.

If they take an action under that false color of law that is itself a crime, then they HAVE committed a crime. They are NOT shielded from CRIMINAL court. That's the part that the talking heads always leave out and distract away from. "WE HAVE IMMUNITY!" Civil, perhaps. But not criminal.

Meanwhile, everyone deliberately conflates the two.

If they exceed the limits of their office, then they are NOT WITHIN their office when they commit a crime.
They do NOT get criminal immunity. Their lawyers can jibber jabber, confuse, mislead and distract all they want. They do NOT get criminal immunity. The immunity assumes a good faith best effort to "do the right thing," as they say, and it is focused on civil repercussions.

It is mostly true that a person could be tried, convicted and jailed for an egregious act, while simultaneously being immune to civil lawsuits for it.

>They could pass a law re-instating prima-nocta and nothing would happen.

That example of defeatism is my favorite example. That law would be invalid, as granting the State that particular power is not within any branch's ability. Obviously, that's the entire point of that example.

Passing that law wouldn't necessarily be a crime. The instant they move to fuck someone, it'd be rape, and there's a criminal law for that. So yes, that person would be prosecuted, and no, they would not have criminal immunity. I pity what'd happen to any cop or prosecutor who didn't pursue it with fanatically vindictive zeal. That rape would also be a stoppable act, and "stopping" it would be wholly reasonable. Because, despite that false color of law, the act is a crime. And I pity the entire fucking bloodline of any cop or prosecutor who'd interfere with that stop, or say the stop was unreasonable.

Seriously? A legislator rapes and murders your wife, and people insist he'd have immunity because he was "on the clock"? He may or may not have civil immunity, but criminal immunity?

Utterly ridiculous.
People need to stop letting criminals tell you what the rules are.
They are doing shit that they are explicitly forbidden from doing, deliberately.
Their actions are deliberately not within the scope of their office, and not in good faith.
Criminal Immunity is neither present nor reasonable in such a case.
I mean, the criminal will tell you they have it, but... they'll say anything, it doesn't make it true.

People looking to civil court to fix this shit are doing it wrong. CRIMINAL court fixes this shit. Every person reading this drivel has standing to file multiple criminal complaints against these people, and their staff.

People love to defeat themselves, for some reason.

18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[spat]

That's not correct.
People get civil immunity if they execute the role of their office in good faith. That's the entire premise of the immunity.

What you are referring to is the opinion of a bunch of congressional lawyers, who said that the willful violation of a constitutional limit carries no penalty. THAT is the source of the "nothing we can do" pre-defeated-before-you-even-start horse shit that people keep spewing.

Those lawyers are half wrong.

There's no explicit criminal penalty for violating the limits or procedures, but the "law" they pass doesn't actually exist if they do so.

They are shielded from civil court if they pass such a law, so you cannot sue them.

If they take an action under that false color of law that is itself a crime, then they HAVE committed a crime. They are NOT shielded from CRIMINAL court. That's the part that the talking heads always leave out and distract away from. "WE HAVE IMMUNITY!" Civil, perhaps. But not criminal.

Meanwhile, everyone deliberately conflates the two.

If they exceed the limits of their office, then they are NOT WITHIN their office when they commit a crime.
They do NOT get criminal immunity. Their lawyers can jibber jabber, confuse, mislead and distract all they want. They do NOT get criminal immunity. The immunity assumes a good faith best effort to "do the right thing," as they say, and it is focused on civil repercussions.

It is mostly true that a person could be tried, convicted and jailed for an egregious act, while simultaneously being immune to civil lawsuits for it.

>They could pass a law re-instating prima-nocta and nothing would happen.

That example of defeatism is my favorite example. That law would be invalid, as granting the State that particular power is not within any branch's ability. Obviously, that's the entire point of that example.

Passing that law wouldn't necessarily be a crime. The instant they move to fuck someone, it'd be rape, and there's a criminal law for that. So yes, that person would be prosecuted, and no, they would not have criminal immunity. I pity what'd happen to any cop or prosecutor who didn't pursue it with fanatically vindictive zeal. That rape would also be a stoppable act, and "stopping" it would be wholly reasonable. Because, despite that false color of law, the act is a crime. And I pity the entire fucking bloodline of any cop or prosecutor who'd interfere with that stop, or say the stop was unreasonable.

Seriously? A legislator rapes and murders your wife, and people insist he'd have immunity because he was "on the clock"? He may or may not have civil immunity, but criminal immunity?

Utterly ridiculous.
People need to stop letting criminals tell you what the rules are.
They are doing shit that they are explicitly forbidden from doing, deliberately.
Their actions are deliberately not within the scope of their office, and not in good faith.
Criminal Immunity is neither present nor reasonable in such a case.
I mean, the criminal will tell you they have it, but... they'll say anything, it doesn't make it true.

People looking to civil court to fix this shit are doing it wrong. CRIMINAL court fixes this shit. Every person reading this drivel has standing to file multiple criminal complaints against these people, and their staff.

People love to defeat themselves, for some reason.

If nobody will stop him, then the legislator has defacto immunity.

The cops show up with a warrant for your wife, do you shoot them, or let them take her ?

If you shoot them, do you think anyone in our current government is going to say "they had it coming" ?

If he rapes her, but the prosecutor refuses to indict, what do you do ?

 

[Grimscale]

So no lawsuits to stop the ammo background checks?
no lawsuits to stop the new recertification requirements, including the 1st amendment infringements and prohibitively expensive and time consuming "training"?

 

[VietnamEraVet]

So no lawsuits to stop the ammo background checks?
no lawsuits to stop the new recertification requirements, including the 1st amendment infringements and prohibitively expensive and time consuming "training"?

I do not recall at this moment without going back and rereading it again re the ammo database, but GOA filed this lawsuit to pretty much go after all of the shit they threw into their new CCIA law. NY has filed their response, and now IIRC, the court is due to have a hearing on this on this suit this coming Tuesday, 08/23, and then hopefully issue an injunction prior to it taking effect on 09/01/2022.

We shall see. Personally, I am hopeful re our chances.

https://www.gunowners.org/wp-content/uploads/Complaint-with-exhibits.pdf

 

[Grimscale]

I do not recall at this moment without going back and rereading it again re the ammo database, but GOA filed this lawsuit to pretty much go after all of the shit they threw into their new CCIA law. NY has filed their response, and now IIRC, the court is due to have a hearing on this on this suit this coming Tuesday, 08/23, and then hopefully issue an injunction prior to it taking effect on 09/01/2022.

We shall see. Personally, I am hopeful re our chances.

https://www.gunowners.org/wp-content/uploads/Complaint-with-exhibits.pdf

that was an interesting read. i didn't see where they were challenging the ammo background checks, but they are, at least, challenging the ridiculous requirements for permits and recertifications.

 

[John Stark]

At the same time there is no mechanism to punish the enforcement of these unconstitutional laws.

In the United States there has always been a "mechanism to punish the enforcement of these unconstitutional laws."

The Founders of this nation gave it to us, just in case we needed it, and it is in fact the law.

When our voice will not be heard on a matter, and when our political remedies fail; when legal remedies are found (even those that uphold our Law) are fruitless and purpoely frustrated and ignored; and when the ballot box has been rendered moot, or worse, corrupted; there are still remedies.

While it has never been a remedy to take lightly, it is staring everyone in this godless, lawless, failed nation state right in the face. However, it is a reflection we do not want to acknowledge, as it points to our pwn responsibility to put a stop to it and restore own nation.