Temporary Restaining Order Issued For Concealed Carry Improvement Act (merged thread)

[Saltwater60]

If SCOTUS vacates the stay, how will that affect the 2nd Circuit's ultimate ruling? I think that is important. They need to send this message quickly and clearly.

I’m not expert but I do t think it would matter much either way. Granting the stay may indicate they are slightly favorable to our position. Vacating the stay IMO does nothing and allows the 2nd circuit to drag their feet since the law is in effect then. If they grant the stay it could speed it up a bit because the 2nd would want to get it right and correct it the way they see fit. That way will not be what we want or desire would be my opinion.
The message sent will not be o e that we want IMO. That may come when this case is actually heard by the SC, but I don’t expect the 2nd to do that for us.

 

[Glock_USA]

I’m not expert but I do t think it would matter much either way. Granting the stay may indicate they are slightly favorable to our position. Vacating the stay IMO does nothing and allows the 2nd circuit to drag their feet since the law is in effect then. If they grant the stay it could speed it up a bit because the 2nd would want to get it right and correct it the way they see fit. That way will not be what we want or desire would be my opinion.
The message sent will not be o e that we want IMO. That may come when this case is actually heard by the SC, but I don’t expect the 2nd to do that for us.

I guess what I mean is I wouldn't expect there to just be a vacate on the stay and nothing else. I would expect them to issue a well worded and stern opinion or guidance to accompany their decision. That guidance would steer the lower courts on how to proceed further with these cases. The district courts enjoyed these laws and issued very long explanations on why its unconstitutional. Then the 2nd circuit issued 2 sentences just saying too bad its stayed. So SCOTUS wouldn't do the same in return. I would imagine they will say your stay is vacated and here is why and here is what Bruen says. Get with the program.

 

[maverick52]

I guess what I mean is I wouldn't expect there to just be a vacate on the stay and nothing else. I would expect them to issue a well worded and stern opinion or guidance to accompany their decision. That guidance would steer the lower courts on how to proceed further with these cases. The district courts enjoyed these laws and issued very long explanations on why its unconstitutional. Then the 2nd circuit issued 2 sentences just saying too bad its stayed. So SCOTUS wouldn't do the same in return. I would imagine they will say your stay is vacated and here is why and here is what Bruen says. Get with the program.

I hope so too

 

[Grimscale]

I would expect them to issue a well worded and stern opinion or guidance to accompany their decision.

Right now there is no them/their there. It is only sotomayor.
And she is clearly delaying as long as she thinks she can before having to make a decision.

I'm quite surprised she hasn't said "NY has until March 30th." Wasn't that around the time NY said they would need to find historians that would support their lies?

 

[Glock_USA]

Right now there is no them/their there. It is only sotomayor.
And she is clearly delaying as long as she thinks she can before having to make a decision.

I'm quite surprised she hasn't said "NY has until March 30th." Wasn't that around the time NY said they would need to find historians that would support their lies?

She has to make a decision soon in this type of situation from everything I've heard and the referring to the SCOTUS media guide. The date NY must respond is less than a week away which is also the date when she will make her decision I do believe. I say they/them because if she doesn't give us a favorable ruling we can and will have other justices review it. I think if she was just going to deny us she wouldn't be ordering the state to file a response. She would just say no.

 

[VietnamEraVet]

She has to make a decision soon in this type of situation from everything I've heard and the referring to the SCOTUS media guide. The date NY must respond is less than a week away which is also the date when she will make her decision I do believe. I say they/them because if she doesn't give us a favorable ruling we can and will have other justices review it. I think if she was just going to deny us she wouldn't be ordering the state to file a response. She would just say no.

I think the libs end goal in the 2A world is two fold at the moment: eliminate gun ownership by destroying the 2nd Amendment, and return SCOTUS to libtard control.

My prediction on this EA, is that Sotomayor will somehow send the case back to the 2nd Circuit while leaving most if not all of the Injunction against the plaintiffs in place, and then the 2nd Circuit will delay, delay, delay rendering ANY decision, in the hopes that Thomas or one of the other non-lib justices die so that they can appoint a lib replacement, or try to pack the Court.

Not trying to be Moriarity here (with the negative vibes), but I think this is just a classic case of BOHICA coming at gun owners. Yet again.

 

[Glock_USA]

I think the libs end goal in the 2A world is two fold at the moment: eliminate gun ownership by destroying the 2nd Amendment, and return SCOTUS to libtard control.

My prediction on this EA, is that Sotomayor will somehow send the case back to the 2nd Circuit while leaving most if not all of the Injunction against the plaintiffs in place, and then the 2nd Circuit will delay, delay, delay rendering ANY decision, in the hopes that Thomas or one of the other non-lib justices die so that they can appoint a lib replacement, or try to pack the Court.

Not trying to be a Debbie Downer here, but I think this is just a classic case of BOHICA coming at gun owners. Yet again.

My understanding is she can either have the case heard by the court or say no (which we then appeal to Thomas). I do not believe she can make a ruling on it by herself. She is only granting or denying to hear the case. If the case is heard, it is heard in front of all justices.

 

[Saltwater60]

My understanding is she can either have the case heard by the court or say no (which we then appeal to Thomas). I do not believe she can make a ruling on it by herself. She is only granting or denying to hear the case. If the case is heard, it is heard in front of all justices.

She will not hear it. She is afraid of it getting heard.

 

[Glock_USA]

She will not hear it. She is afraid of it getting heard.

Then by rule we can appeal to Thomas and every other justice. When the majority rule no only then is it a no.

 

[Truebeliever]

I think the libs end goal in the 2A world is two fold at the moment: eliminate gun ownership by destroying the 2nd Amendment, and return SCOTUS to libtard control.

My prediction on this EA, is that Sotomayor will somehow send the case back to the 2nd Circuit while leaving most if not all of the Injunction against the plaintiffs in place, and then the 2nd Circuit will delay, delay, delay rendering ANY decision, in the hopes that Thomas or one of the other non-lib justices die so that they can appoint a lib replacement, or try to pack the Court.

Not trying to be Moriarity here (with the negative vibes), but I think this is just a classic case of BOHICA coming at gun owners. Yet again.

. It’s a yes or no to each point on the stay on injunction while awaiting the appeal to be heard. She will let the appeals court decide on the actual injunction however . The injunction is against the defendant. The laws it blocks is against the plaintiffs— but I know what you meant and we agree

 

[Truebeliever]

Then by rule we can appeal to Thomas and every other justice. When the majority rule no only then is it a no.

I think she will hear it so she has control over it.

 

[Cippee]

She will prob refer it to the full court because it’s about a case they just ruled on.

 

[Glock_USA]

I think she will hear it so she has control over it.

The whole court hears it I think. She just has first chance to deny or approve it. She does not have to ability to change Bruen.

 

[Saltwater60]

She will prob refer it to the full court because it’s about a case they just ruled on.

Liberals follow no rules and get away with it.

 

[Truebeliever]

The whole court hears it I think. She just has first chance to deny or approve it. She does not have to ability to change Bruen.

She decides to grant, modify , or deny a stay while awaiting the appeal or until her denial appeal is sent to another SCOTUS justice . By SCOTUS rules , she gets first crack at it. The whole court doesn’t get involved yet

 

[Saltwater60]

She decides to grant, modify , or deny a stay while awaiting the appeal or until her denial appeal is sent to another SCOTUS justice . By SCOTUS rules , she gets first crack at it. The whole court doesn’t get involved yet

Yes and that is what Glock_USA has said in earlier posts.

 

[Dr. Evil]

It's Deja Vu all over again.

 

[Dr. Evil]

 

[Acer-m14]

 

[Grimscale]

It's Deja Vu all over again

yes, but again it is only one small aspect of this great big unConstitutional travesty.

"severability" should be ruled unConstitutional. If they can pass one Law that changes parts of many, then that one Law can be thrown out, nullifying each and every change they demanded.

Or they have to be required to pass a law to make each and every change they want.

 

[Saltwater60]

It's Deja Vu all over again.

I keep hearing an expedited hearing, but I keep hearing nothing of it.

 

[Saltwater60]

If anyone is surprised by this they haven’t been paying attention. Stock up now and large quantities of ammo are now already flagged by your credit card companies.

 

[camper4lyfe]

I keep hearing an expedited hearing, but I keep hearing nothing of it.

"expedited" means something entirely different to the court than it does to us peons.

 

[ManualF150]

If anyone is surprised by this they haven’t been paying attention. Stock up now and large quantities of ammo are now already flagged by your credit card companies.

NY is already forcing retailers to record ammo purchases. Technically NY is already got "bullet" control in place. You can't go to the shelf, select what YOU want, and then walk to the cashier and pay for it without giving your life history with quantity of ammo.

On top of that... it is NOT "bullet" control... it is "ammunition control". Sounds VERY uneducated.

Bullets are NOT ammo, it's just subset. I hate how people don't use the right terminology. It's just like when I hear people calling "clips" magazines... both hold ammo, but in a different subset.

 

[John Stark]

Breaking News coming out of 1776 and 1791!!!

"The Second Amendment is still the law of the land!" George Washington was quoted.

"Tyrants and wannabe despots can go to hell!!!" Thomas Jefferson reiterated while he attempted to stop spinning in his grave while loading his musket.






(sorry for the transcript version, they didn't have video in 1776 or 1791, and some authorities were telling me that the new technology isn't protected speech anyways!)

 

[GTN]

All this shit makes my head spin.
as of right now,am I a felon for CCing my edc in Walmart?

 

[GlockModel29]

All this shot makes my head spin.
as of right now am I a felon for CCing my edc in Walmart

Hypothetically speaking you mean lol

 

[camper4lyfe]

All this shot makes my head spin.
as of right now am I a felon for CCing my edc in Walmart

Wanda’s in Livonia is good to go

 

[Steal2B]

As of right now am I a felon for CCing my edc in Walmart?

Nope.

Disclaimer: I am not a current member of the NY Bar so the following should not be construed as legal advice


Hopefully, you were not in Walmart for date night. That would be a crime.



On the other hand ...

 

[Acer-m14]

RED FLAG LAW unconstitutional .

BREAKING 2A NEWS: NY "Red Flag Laws" DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL by NY Supreme Court Justice​

G.W. v C.N.

G.W. v C.N. - 2022 NY Slip Op 22392

law.justia.com

NEW YORK SUPREME COURT JUSTICE DEEMS NEW YORK'S RED FLAG LAWS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL — New York Criminal Attorney Blog — December 30, 2022

A New York State Supreme Court Justice ruled last week that New York's Extreme Risk Protection Order laws, often called Red Flag laws are unconstitutional — December 30, 2022

www.newyorkcriminalattorneyblog.com

NY "red flag" law struck down as unconstitutional

https://www.newyorkcriminalattorneyblog.com/new-york-supreme-court-justice-deems-new-yorks-red-flag-laws-are-unconstitutional/

nygunforum.com