Antonyuk v. Nigrelli - Supreme Court Will Rule On States Defying Its NYSRPA v. Bruen Decision

LiveLife

LiveLife

Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2010
Messages
32,953
Location
Northwest Coast
Antonyuk v. Nigrelli (NY CCIA in defiance to Bruen ruling) - Supreme Court will rule on states defying its NYSRPA v. Bruen decision.

GOA files emergency request with SCOTUS in NY concealed carry case - https://www.gunowners.org/goa-files-emergency-request-with-scotus-in-ny-concealed-carry-case/

(12/21/22) Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) filed an emergency application with the U.S. Supreme Court to halt the Second Circuit Court’s stay of a preliminary injunction in Antonyuk v. Nigrelli.

The case challenges New York’s misleadingly named “Concealed Carry Improvement Act,” (CCIA) which was enjoined by U.S. District Court Judge Glenn Suddaby in early November. However, the Second Circuit quickly halted this order, as they have with other successful challenges to the law, with a short, undetailed opinion.

Erich Pratt, GOA’s Senior Vice President, issued the following statement:

“Governor Hochul and state lawmakers wasted no time in passing legislation that completely contradicted the Bruen precedent, and we urge the High Court to once again hold the state accountable for violating the Second Amendment rights of their own citizens.”

Sam Paredes, on behalf of the Board of Directors for the Gun Owners Foundation, added:

“We have said it before and we’ll say it again: states must come into compliance with Bruen, or we will make you.” ​
 
Attorney discuss emergency application made to the Supreme Court to strike down states defying their NYSRPA v. Bruen decision - https://rumble.com/v21zbxf-supreme-...tes-defying-its-nysrpa-v.-bruen-decision.html
  • GOA filed an emergency application for immediate administrative relief with the US Supreme Court for Antonyuk v. Nigrelli (NY CCIA in defiance to Bruen ruling)
  • Bruen ruling struck down NY's may issue licensing scheme finding it was inconsistent with nation's "history and tradition" and could not prohibit entire state as "sensitive places" for concealed carry
  • NY enacted “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” (CCIA) in direct defiance to Supreme Court's Bruen ruling which was worse than the previous licensing scheme
  • GOA sued NY in federal district court and was granted preliminary injunction for various aspects of CCIA
  • NY appealed to 2nd Circuit requested a stay (court order preventing further action) on the preliminary injunction and the 2nd Circuit granted a stay
  • GOA filed an emergency application to the US Supreme Court to vacate (void) the stay on the preliminary injunction to stop NY from continuing to defy Bruen ruling (And other states from defying Bruen ruling)
Without providing any analysis or explanation, the Second Circuit has stayed a preliminary injunction issued by a federal district court in New York that was carefully designed to limit New York’s enforcement of a sweeping gun control statute, enacted as retaliation against New York gun owners for having prevailed in this Court’s decision in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022). The district court’s injunction was supported by a detailed 184-page opinion, meticulously tailored to follow this Court’s framework established in Bruen. In contrast, the Second Circuit’s stay pending appeal was issued based only on a single conclusory assertion, yet with the effect of indefinitely suspending the protections afforded New Yorkers by the Second Amendment and affirmed by this Court in Bruen. The Second Circuit’s stay should be vacated in order to uphold the right of New Yorkers to keep and bear arms, as well as to vindicate the authority of this Court over the circuit courts.
​
GOA is arguing if SCOTUS does not vacate 2nd Circuit stay, then NY will be allowed to violate Second Amendment rights of NY citizens and other states will continue defying Supreme Court's Bruen ruling​
  • Since 2nd Circuit is assigned to justice Sotomayor, she will review the emergency application - https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/circuitAssignments.aspx
  • Justice Sotomayor can grant, deny or refer the emergency application to the full court for a vote
  • If she denies the emergency application on her own, GOA can renew the application to any other justice (I am sure justice Thomas is not happy with states defying his Bruen ruling and would gladly grant the application ;))
  • Since justice Thomas would definitely grant the application, justice Sotomayor will likely refer the emergency application to the full court
 
Last edited:
In a challenge to New York’s unconstitutional “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” (CCIA), the NRA filed suit last August in the US District Court for the Northern District of New York (America's 1st Freedom/An Official Journal Of The NRA) - https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/content/new-york-can-t-get-away-with-this/

Just after the US Supreme Court’s New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen ruling last June, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) held a special session of the state’s Assembly and Senate to counter the decision from the high court that citizens’ Second Amendment rights extend outside of their homes.

In the majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the government cannot trample on our Second Amendment rights through an “abusive” permitting scheme, but this is precisely what a majority of New York’s legislators did.

According to the CCIA, people applying for their rights must first take a 16-hour training class, including a two-hour live-fire session. Then they must have an in-person interview with a licensing officer in which they must disclose several types of personal information, including all of their social-media accounts. The officer then reviews that information to determine if the applicant has “good moral character,” which is even more subjective than the unconstitutional “proper-cause” standard. The licensing officer then has up to six months—unless they want more time, which they will be granted indefinitely—to pore through the applicant’s information to determine if they are eligible for a license.

Even worse, the CCIA effectively bans carrying concealed by declaring just about everywhere to be a “sensitive” or “restricted” place. When Gov. Hochul was asked where people could carry under the CCIA, she said, “probably some streets.”

The NRA’s legal challenge to this unconstitutional law says, “The CCIA replaces one unconstitutional, discretionary law with another unconstitutional, discretionary law. The CCIA contains a slew of burdensome and discriminatory requirements for obtaining a Handgun Carry License—violating the First, Second, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments—and an additional slew of restrictions on where and how Handgun Carry License holders may exercise their right to carry arms outside the home—in violation of the First, Second and Fourteenth Amendments.”​
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Aim1 said:
Update:


What do you think?



View attachment 1125207

View attachment 1125208
Click to expand...
Well, they do have a point in that it's unusual for SCOTUS to get involved while the case is still going on (interlocutory). OTOH, SCOTUS is losing patience with states that defy crystal clear instructions in SCOTUS decisions and do what they damn well please. New York has not only ignored the standards set out in Bruen, their response to Bruen was to write new laws that do the exact opposite. So it wouldn't surprise me if SCOTUS steps in now rather than letting the state drag this out as long as they can.
 
LiveLife said:
Justice Sotomayor issued request for response by 4 PM, 1/3/23 for NY to file a brief explaining why emergency application should not be granted
Click to expand...
A FPC attorney discuss NY's response to justice Sotomayor's request why GOA's emergency application should not be granted - https://rumble.com/v23y3qt-supreme-...er-for-defying-its-carry-decision-n.y.-r.html
  • NY argues the Supreme Court should deny emergency application because:
    1. The Supreme Court is not likely to grant review of any upcoming decision that 2nd Circuit issues in this case
    2. There is no evidence the 2nd Circuit committed an error when the stay was granted
    3. Plaintiffs will not suffer irreparable injury
  • NY argues the 2nd Circuit should be given the opportunity to review the case and Supreme Court taking up the case is premature and interlocutory (Determining a matter during the course of a case and not part of a final decision)
  • NY argues the 2nd Circuit's stay was appropriate because the district court did not apply the Bruen ruling properly when the preliminary injunction was issued like the requirement of "good moral character standard" that is not covered by the text of the 2nd Amendment and therefore NY does not need to provide historical evidence dating back to 1791
  • NY argues negative impact of stay GOA is claiming is speculative and if the Supreme Court decides to vacate (void) the stay, it should only affect those who are named in the lawsuit and should not be applied to the entire population of NY
  • Now we wait on the Supreme Court. Justice Sotomayor may have already referred to the full court for review or she may decide on her own (And if she does, GOA can reapply the emergency application to any other justice)
 
Last edited:
natman said:
theotherwaldo said:
Many of the hard Blue cities and states are showing actual contempt for the Supreme Court and their decisons.
Click to expand...
SCOTUS is losing patience with states that defy crystal clear instructions in SCOTUS decisions and ... it wouldn't surprise me if SCOTUS steps in now
Click to expand...
My sentiment also and that's why we likely will see an expedited decision now that NY responded to justice Sotomayor's request why the Supreme Court should deny the emergency application.

When the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the cases back down to lower courts for reconsideration post Bruen ruling, the Supreme Court expected the lower courts to carry out the "text and history" approach to Second Amendment cases and may take this case to set an example for the lower courts to follow.

I think justice Thomas' ruling in Bruen that "The Second Amendment is not a second class right" may apply here as how would the Supreme Court respond if lower courts defied a First Amendment case ruling after remanding the cases down only to have an emergency application made against Circuit Court stay that defied Supreme Court ruling? ;)
 
Last edited:
theotherwaldo said:
But will this lead to anything more than an exchange of angry words?
Click to expand...
What happened when the Supreme Court ruled for the First Amendment then states kept violating the Supreme Court rulings?

States kept getting sued with unconstitutional rulings by the Supreme Court and permanent enforcements were put in place by legislative and executive branches as state/federal laws. Here's a long list of First Amendment cases where Supreme Court ruled state laws were unconstitutional - https://www.legalmetro.com/library/supreme-court-cases-regarding-the-first-amendment

What's been the fallout of these Supreme Court rulings? Permanent enforcement by state/federal laws.

And the Second Amendment is not a second class right.

So similarly, states will keep trying to violate the Supreme Court rulings but unconstitutional rulings will prevail and permanent enforcement will come in the way of state/federal laws.

Permanent enforcement happened for the First Amendment, and since justice Thomas ruled that the Second Amendment is not a second class right, permanent enforcement will happen for the Second Amendment. ;)
 
Another case Gazzola v Hochul (NY CCIA affecting FFLs/gun shops) files emergency application to the Supreme Court against NY's defiance to Bruen decision - https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22A591/251125/20221230122024094_22- Motion and Appendix.pdf

A FPC attorney discuss second emergency application made to the Supreme Court against NY CCIA defying Bruen ruling - https://rumble.com/v243zcv-supreme-...w-of-new-york-defying-its-carry-decision.html
  • While Antonyuk v Nigrelli deals with individuals, Gazzola v Hochul deals with FFLs and gun shops
  • Plaintiffs argued NY CCIA violated 2nd, 5th and 14th Amendments and NY CCIA would put them out of business due to burdensome requirements (See below for list of requirements)
  • When the district court denied their request for preliminary injunction, plaintiffs made an interlocutory appeal to 3 member panel of the 2nd Circuit Court but they were denied also
  • So the plaintiffs filed an emergency application (Using Shadow Docket) to justice Sotomayor (Who oversees 2nd Circuit) and NY was given until January 11 to respond

List of NY CCIA requirements that affect FFLs and gun shops - https://nygunforum.com/threads/gazzola-v-hochul-lawsuit.55420/
 
Last edited:
theotherwaldo said:
SCOTUS is losing patience with states that defy crystal clear instructions in SCOTUS decisions and ... it wouldn't surprise me if SCOTUS steps in now.

-But will this lead to anything more than an exchange of angry words?
Click to expand...

Nope, because the court has no means to enforce its will, and the Biden Administration is not going to do it since they are on the side of the states.
 
Will Munny said:
Nope, because the court has no means to enforce its will, and the Biden Administration is not going to do it since they are on the side of the states.
Click to expand...
But occupants of the White House and make up of Congress change based on "We the People" ... And "We the People" spoke on the make up of the House in 2022 ... and will speak again in 2024 for the White House occupant.

Ultimately as founders framed, permanent enforcement of Supreme Court rulings will be decided by "We the People" in the ways of federal laws.

To me not much has changed regards to First and Second Amendments as back in 1776, there were those who wanted to limit free speech and ban/take away guns just as in 2023.
 
LiveLife said:
But occupants of the White House and make up of Congress change based on "We the People" ... And "We the People" spoke on the make up of the House in 2022 ... and will speak again in 2024 for the White House occupant.

Ultimately as founders framed, permanent enforcement of Supreme Court rulings will be decided by "We the People" in the ways of federal laws.

To me not much has changed regards to First and Second Amendments as back in 1776, there were those who wanted to limit free speech and ban/take away guns just as in 2023.
Click to expand...

This "we the people" thing is a fantasy. "We the people" must have muttered in 2022, because the last time I checked the senate is firmly in the hands of the anti-2A crowd, and the house is so evenly split as for it to be irrelevant.
The founders did not actually "frame" things to be run by "we the people" they had numerous additional checks on mob rule which have since been erased.
 
Will Munny said:
This "we the people" thing is a fantasy
Click to expand...
If the Second Amendment is not a "second class right" (And it is not), then enforcement of Supreme Court rulings will follow in the footsteps of Supreme Court rulings of First Amendment cases.
LiveLife said:
What happened when the Supreme Court ruled for the First Amendment then states kept violating the Supreme Court rulings?

States kept getting sued with unconstitutional rulings by the Supreme Court and permanent enforcements were put in place by legislative and executive branches as state/federal laws. Here's a long list of First Amendment cases where Supreme Court ruled state laws were unconstitutional - https://www.legalmetro.com/library/supreme-court-cases-regarding-the-first-amendment

What's been the fallout of these Supreme Court rulings? Permanent enforcement by state/federal laws ... And the Second Amendment is not a second class right.
Click to expand...
And in the words of justice Gorsuch - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...with-question-on-the-second-amendment.856201/

"We the people can do this ... We can govern ourselves."​
 
LiveLife said:
What happened when the Supreme Court ruled for the First Amendment then states kept violating the Supreme Court rulings?

States kept getting sued with unconstitutional rulings by the Supreme Court and permanent enforcements were put in place by legislative and executive branches as state/federal laws. Here's a long list of First Amendment cases where Supreme Court ruled state laws were unconstitutional - https://www.legalmetro.com/library/supreme-court-cases-regarding-the-first-amendment

What's been the fallout of these Supreme Court rulings? Permanent enforcement by state/federal laws.

And the Second Amendment is not a second class right.

So similarly, states will keep trying to violate the Supreme Court rulings but unconstitutional rulings will prevail and permanent enforcement will come in the way of state/federal laws.

Permanent enforcement happened for the First Amendment, and since justice Thomas ruled that the Second Amendment is not a second class right, permanent enforcement will happen for the Second Amendment. ;)
Click to expand...

And that is part of the problem. You need those branches of government to be in agreement with and cooperative with the SC. At this time, I question their "intent" considering past history and the rhetoric they espouse.
 
We are seeing history in the making as various Second Amendment cases make their way through the courts post Bruen ruling which eliminated the two step process used up until 2022 for 2A cases. Moving forward, only "text and history" approach is allowed.

And now there are two emergency applications filed with the Supreme Court and we will see what happens next.

Keep in mind that what happens in 2023 forward may be very different than what happened in past decades - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-10#post-12427677

"Open season" on anti-gun laws - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-10#post-12461448
 
LiveLife said:
What happened when the Supreme Court ruled for the First Amendment then states kept violating the Supreme Court rulings?

States kept getting sued with unconstitutional rulings by the Supreme Court and permanent enforcements were put in place by legislative and executive branches as state/federal laws. Here's a long list of First Amendment cases where Supreme Court ruled state laws were unconstitutional - https://www.legalmetro.com/library/supreme-court-cases-regarding-the-first-amendment

What's been the fallout of these Supreme Court rulings? Permanent enforcement by state/federal laws.

And the Second Amendment is not a second class right.

So similarly, states will keep trying to violate the Supreme Court rulings but unconstitutional rulings will prevail and permanent enforcement will come in the way of state/federal laws.

Permanent enforcement happened for the First Amendment, and since justice Thomas ruled that the Second Amendment is not a second class right, permanent enforcement will happen for the Second Amendment. ;)
Click to expand...
Please G-d.
 
Added court. Which it is another legal delay for New Yorkers.
Remove post if you wish.

CapnMac said:
(Also, specifically in this case, I abhor allowing anything CNN on my computer.)
Click to expand...

:rofl: Sounds like a personal problem:). Any other pet peeves I or other posters should know about?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
What happens to a Constitutional Carry case at SCOTUS after today's ruling in NYSRPA Inc. v. Bruen?
Replies
6
Views
480
F-111 John
F-111 John
LiveLife
  • Locked
Supreme Court decision brings end to CA Handgun Roster
2
Replies
37
Views
4K
Robert
Robert
LiveLife
Bruen decision may mark an end to CA ammunition restriction
2 3
Replies
53
Views
4K
rsrocket1
rsrocket1
LiveLife
17 states join GOA/GOF and sue ATF’s new firearms rule on 80 percent/kits
2 3 4 5
Replies
116
Views
10K
LiveLife
LiveLife
A
  • Locked
If SCOTUS rules positively in NYSRPA Inc. v. Bruen how far away are we from Constitutional Carry?
2 3
Replies
54
Views
2K
Spats McGee
Spats McGee
Back
Top