Updates on Antonyuk v. Bruen

[US RIFLE M1A]

The above court text said much more than the summary on Reddit (see post 44 this thread), but again, with all due respect to the writer who attended the hearing in person and posted that summary.

I was under the general idea that Bruen was a placeholder name for the state. However this court text acknowledges that he was a specifically a witness who was expected to appear, either in person or remote, and he did neither. Then a subpeona for Bruen was offered to the plaintiff and they declined.

Judges like when things move along. Now he can take time to consider the decision without waiting (or hearing from) Bruen himself.

That's a good thing.

 

[Dr. Evil]

View attachment 170419

What exactly does this mean?

 

[US RIFLE M1A]

What exactly does this mean?

See my post above. Bruen was expected to testify and did not. That's a good thing. I would not want to be a lawyer who is defending a witness (albeit in his professional capacity) who is a no-show. Sucks to be them.

Edit to add: It's also a good thing when terms such as 'subpeona' are used in reference to your legal adversary. Makes them look like they have a crappy case and/or are afraid of something.

I wonder if 'Bruen' is tired of knowing his name will be forever associated with a tyrannical NY state losing court case after court case.

 

[Edwardteach72]

Not to kill anyone's vibe but

If true

 

[Dr. Evil]

Not to kill anyone's vibe but

If true
View attachment 170421

Never granted injunctive relief in any case dealing with fundamental rights under the constitution? What, did he sleep in during the constitution class in law school?

 

[Saltwater60]

Never granted injunctive relief in any case dealing with fundamental rights under the constitution? What, did he sleep in during the constitution class in law school?

Just a commie.

 

[spat]

Never granted injunctive relief in any case dealing with fundamental rights under the constitution? What, did he sleep in during the constitution class in law school?

The other side of that question is:

"How many times has he declined to grant injunctive relief for fundamental rights when given the opportunity".

Could be it's only been an option a couple times, and maybe it was the right call in those cases.

 

[Dr. Evil]

The other side of that question is:

"How many times has he declined to grant injunctive relief for fundamental rights when given the opportunity".

Could be it's only been an option a couple times, and maybe it was the right call in those cases.

Guess we'll find out shortly.

 

[Beerman]

I’m afraid if this ends up enjoined, all pistol permit processing will be halted by the petulant State, but if it’s NOT enjoined then the State will do everything it can to continue to curb stomp the Second Amendment until there’s nothing left. Who’s gonna stop em? We need judges big swingin’ brass and solid cases brought by lawyers with fury. Shock and awe, shock and awe.

 

[spat]

I’m afraid if this ends up enjoined, all pistol permit processing will be halted by the petulant State, but if it’s NOT enjoined then the State will do everything it can to continue to curb stomp the Second Amendment until there’s nothing left. Who’s gonna stop em? We need judges big swingin’ brass and solid cases brought by lawyers with fury. Shock and awe, shock and awe.

If they stop all processing, then the judge should say "if you're not processing them, then you can't require them and NYS is constitutional carry until further notice".

They would start processing them very quickly after that LOL.

 

[Edwardteach72]

I’m afraid if this ends up enjoined, all pistol permit processing will be halted by the petulant State, but if it’s NOT enjoined then the State will do everything it can to continue to curb stomp the Second Amendment until there’s nothing left. Who’s gonna stop em? We need judges big swingin’ brass and solid cases brought by lawyers with fury. Shock and awe, shock and awe.

If they stop processing them, then well they'd have plenty of other new lawsuits to deal with

 

[Acer-m14]

all this law talk and written in Latin Law speak ..

and the 2A was written in old English a 8 yr old could read then ..

 

[livingston]

 

[m1_ping]

I agree.

The summary shown above (post 44) dated today (23 August) - which originally appeared on Reddit NY Guns - is NOT the document to over-analyze and become emotionally invested in. While I have respect that the writer of that very brief and generalized summary was in the courtroom at the time, the person admits that he is not a lawyer, and more importantly, was entirely flummoxed by much of the verbiage at the beginning of testimony.

There is an expression in law (IANAL) which goes: "Facts on your side? Pound the facts. Law on your side? Pound the law. Neither? Pound the table."

The state is pounding the only fact they have - that no matter who the plaintiff was in this case - unless they were arrested under CC!A, their claim of standing is contestable. That is what they are going after here. Other than that, they are pounding the table, because the law is certainly not on their side.

So far, we have a historical Supreme Court decision and two excellent briefs on our side. Not to mention the 2A itself. Two consistent facts of life in an adversarial setting is that the enemy gets a vote and that no plans survive contact with said enemy.

I have no idea how we can be made aware of the actual Q&A that took place today, when the transcripts will become available and how to get them... but absent that, it is a waiting game for the next step in the process. Even if we had the transcripts, it is still a waiting game.

What we do know is that the game ultimately ends with us winning, because we already have won, under the real Bruen. The real mystery is why the state is dragging everyone through an argument they already lost.

However, during that very serious game, the adversary will score some hits. As far as today's hearing, some think the the adversary scored hits. But not only do we not know for sure if they did, more importantly, both the facts and the law of this case are still on our side.

None of that changed today.

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.

 

[Steal2B]

I offered much stronger candidates to GOA and FPC with much more compelling and urgent cases whose lives may likely well be endangered by the new carry prohibitions. Color me disillusioned.

 

[Steal2B]

I offered much stronger candidates to GOA and FPC with much more compelling and urgent cases whose lives may likely well be endangered by the new carry prohibitions. Color me disillusioned.

 

[US RIFLE M1A]

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.

Unfortunately the post started a firestorm which may go on for a while. Trying to remember two hours of testimony of a topic which we are all highly invested in is impossible. Analyzing the testimony would not even be much easier if we had the transcripts directly in front of us, because a high-stakes in-person hearing is a cross between a poker game and a gladiatorial arena. Some of what goes on can be taken on face value, and other parts are filled with deception and trickery.

Losing lawyers often resort to sentence-construction word games, and toss-out seemingly throwaway questions that they actually intend to make huge points with.

What the state is trying to do is to pass draconian legislation and then shrug it off as a minor inconvenience. "Would it really be that much of a burden to ask your local deli owner if you could carry there on your way home from work?" "Umm, no, I guess not." is supposed to justify cordoning off the entire Adirondack Park as a no-go zone.

Trickery, just trickery, and in the stress of the moment, a non-professional on the stand will fall for it.

If it did not happen that the witness got tricked, and the witness was as skilled and smooth as a judo expert, actually then we would be surprised. Nothing to worry about, not because we want it to happen, but because it happens. It just does.

If the judge is solid, he will see it coming a mile away. If he is a liberal activist, he will use it to his advantage.

It really all comes down to that.

 

[Edwardteach72]

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.

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

 

[Steal2B]

What the state is trying to do is to pass draconian legislation and then shrug it off as a minor inconvenience.

I am disillusioned that the champions of 2A freedoms hitched wagons to a case that did not feature a passionate litigant who conceal carries in part to protect their lives from a documented threat unresolved by law enforcement.

 

[US RIFLE M1A]

I am disillusioned that the champions of 2A freedoms hitched wagons to a case that did not feature a passionate litigant who conceal carries in part to protect their lives from a documented threat unresolved by law enforcement.

Everyone should also keep in mind that a judge will appreciate honesty. A plaintiff/witness who is being forthright when he answers questions such as "asking one deli owner to carry in his shop is not burdensome" will also become more believable when the big questions are asked. Having a nervous, occasionally stumbling, honest witness is more effective than a smooth talker who has a canned answer for everything.

Especially where 2A is concerned. A 'documented threat' makes the gun owner a special case, similar to the old Sullivan Law which was found NoGo. What was needed was a regular guy who just carried because it is his right, just like the rest of us do. We got that and have to see what happens.

Remember, we already won, but for some reason a sadistic government official wants us to play the same game over again just for kicks.

 

[fresch]

How do you ask, if you are carrying, without breaking the law in the first place?
Will all shop owners need lockable cubbies, they can not touch a handgun without a permit.

 

[Steal2B]

I am disillusioned that the champions of 2A freedoms hitched wagons to a case that did not feature a passionate litigant who conceal carries in part to protect their lives from a documented threat unresolved by law enforcement.

Everyone should also keep in mind that a judge will appreciate honesty. A plaintiff/witness who is being forthright when he answers that asking one deli owner to carry in his shop is not big deal, will also become more believable when the big questions are asked. Having a nervous, stumbling, honest witness is more effective than a smooth talker who has a canned answer for everything.

I agree but that element is not lost with a litigant who conceal carries and passionately understands their second amendment right is their path to shed victim status. Much better litigants were available.

 

[US RIFLE M1A]

How do you ask, if you are carrying, without breaking the law in the first place?
Will all shop owners need lockable cubbies, they can not touch a handgun without a permit.

Go in the shop, come back out, holster-up right on Main Street* and go back in the shop.

*In plain view of dozens of witnesses, all with cell-phones and cameras.

The lawyers did a phenomenal job of pointing out how insane this all is. Shopping, the Adirondacks, transportation, etc.

If the judge is solid, we will win this round. If not, we were never destined to win it anyway, even if we had a witness sent directly by either God or Clarence Thomas.

 

[Steal2B]

A 'documented threat' makes the gun owner a special case,

That is a major point of urgency lost in this case. The new restrictions strip all those who were granted a concealed carry permit in part to protect their lives from the second amendment ability to protect their lives. The second amendment is not just for Fudds.

 

[US RIFLE M1A]

I agree but that element is not lost with a litigant who conceal carries and passionately understands their second amendment right is their path to shed victim status. Much better litigants were available.

That is a major point of urgency lost in this case. The new restrictions strip all those who were granted a concealed carry permit in part to protect their lives from the second amendment ability to protect their lives.

No witness is ideal. Even the best get tripped up, and we don't have any idea how it really went, because our in-house court watcher admits to being overwhelmed with details.

There are many would-be victims and high-risk professionals who could use the protection they will be denied if this goes through as passed. DAs, judges, couriers, business owners, security personnel, etc. will all be affected by this.

And each of has their own peculiar circumstance, from going shopping on the way home from the range to a security guard taking public transit to work to a resident driving through the Adirondacks.

 

[Steal2B]

If the judge is solid, we will win this round. If not, we were never destined to win it anyway, even if we had a witness sent directly by either God or Clarence Thomas.

I call bullshit. The right litigant could likely force a liberal activist judge to pick their poison that supports the second amendment cause in spite of a personal bias. That would not happen with most Fudds as a litigant.

 

[Saltwater60]

I am disillusioned that the champions of 2A freedoms hitched wagons to a case that did not feature a passionate litigant who conceal carries in part to protect their lives from a documented threat unresolved by law enforcement.

Everyone should also keep in mind that a judge will appreciate honesty. A plaintiff/witness who is being forthright when he answers questions such as "asking one deli owner to carry in his shop is not burdensome" will also become more believable when the big questions are asked. Having a nervous, occasionally stumbling, honest witness is more effective than a smooth talker who has a canned answer for everything.

Especially where 2A is concerned. A 'documented threat' makes the gun owner a special case, similar to the old Sullivan Law which was found NoGo. What was needed was a regular guy who just carried because it is his right, just like the rest of us do. We got that and have to see what happens.

Remember, we already won, but for some reason a sadistic government official wants us to play the same game over again just for kicks.

Remember if the private business ban is kept intact and not being challenged we lost. That’s the biggest deal to me and almost every other CCW holder. Making everything a sensitive place guys out CCW permits and invalidates them with the exception of a walk around the block or the Sunday drive.

 

[Steal2B]

There are many would-be victims and high-risk professionals who could use the protection they will be denied if this goes through as passed. DAs, judges, couriers, business owners, security personnel, etc. will all be affected by this.

Actual victims were available as litigants, but a Fudd was chosen as a litigant instead of grandmothers, wives, neighbors, sisters and daughters with real death threats who need to carry to shed a victim's hell. They would also fit a better litigant profile. The "champions" of the second amendment missed better opportunities.

 

[Saltwater60]

I call bullshit. The right litigant could likely force a liberal activist judge to pick their poison that supports the second amendment cause in spite of a personal bias. That would not happen with most Fudds as a litigant.

You can’t reason with liberals. I tried and you’ll fail every time. They put their opinion in and disregard all facts. You will ask for facts and data to back up their claims and they avoid it or disappear. You can concede they are right on some points like the USA has a high murder rate and then they will disappear or just dwell on that.

 

[Steal2B]

You can’t reason with liberals. I tried and you’ll fail every time. They put their opinion in and disregard all facts. You will ask for facts and data to back up their claims and they avoid it or disappear. You can concede they are right on some points like the USA has a high murder rate and then they will disappear or just dwell on that.

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.