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

Update to emergency application made to the Supreme Court for Antonyuk v. Nigrelli (NY CCIA in defiance to Bruen ruling) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...nysrpa-v-bruen-decision.913941/#post-12511353

LiveLife said:
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)
Click to expand...
Looks like justice Sotomayor referred the emergency application to the full court for review and the Supreme Court decided to not intervene in the 2nd Circuit appeals process.

US Supreme Court lets New York enforce new gun restrictions - https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us...york-enforce-new-gun-restrictions-2023-01-11/
  • Supreme Court allowed NY to enforce Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA)
  • The justices rejected emergency request by plaintiffs including Gun Owners of America to throw out 2nd Circuit's stay (suspension of action) against district court's decision that blocked enforcement of CCIA
  • Justices Alito and Thomas described court's action as procedural "rather than expressing any view on the merits of the case."
  • Justices Alito and Thomas noted that other challenges to the state's law are currently on a fast-track in the 2nd Circuit and invited plaintiffs to return to the Supreme Court if that appeals court does not expedite the proceedings in their case as well.
  • GOA called Alito's statement "reassuring ... We look forward to continuing the fight against New York's draconian law."
  • The plaintiffs challenged CCIA as a violation of the Second Amendment and district court judge Suddaby blocked enforcement of much of it, citing "unprecedented constitutional violations" that NY could not compel people applying for a gun license to prove their "good moral character."
  • Judge Suddaby also decided NY could not ban guns in theaters, bars and restaurants, parks, airports and other public places, though bans could remain in place in schools, courthouses and polling stations; and also blocked enforcement of a provision making it a felony to carry firearms on private property without the property owner's express consent.
  • The 2nd Circuit issued a stay freezing judge Suddaby's order while NY pursued its appeal
 
Comments from Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation’s (GOF) - Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation’s (GOF)

Denial of Emergency Request - https://www.gunowners.org/wp-content/uploads/Alito-Denial-of-Emergency-Request.pdf

... two of the Justices made clear that this was not the last time they would potentially be involved in the case. Justice Alito, with Justice Thomas in agreement, wrote:

“I understand the Court’s denial today to reflect respect for the Second Circuit’s procedures in managing its own docket, rather than expressing any view on the merits of the case. Applicants should not be deterred by today’s order from again seeking relief if the Second Circuit does not, within a reasonable time, provide an explanation for its stay order or expedite consideration of the appeal.”

While we would have hoped for immediate relief from the Court, this statement from Justice Alito is incredibly reassuring, in that the court is completely prepared to step in and re-assert the Bruen precedent should lower courts fail to properly, and in a timely manner, apply it in judicial cases where Second Amendment rights are being restricted.
​
A FPC attorney discuss today's denial of emergency request - https://rumble.com/v24zk8n-u.s.-sup...trike-down-n.y.-concealed-carry-defiance.html
  • Justice Sotomayor referred the emergency application to the full court for review
  • Justices decided to respect and allow the 2nd Circuit to go through the appeals process procedures
  • Justices did issue a warning they are completely prepared to step in and re-assert the Bruen precedent should lower courts fail to properly, and in a timely manner, apply for 2A cases
  • Two silver linings to today's order:
  1. They warned since the 2nd Circuit granted a stay, 2nd Circuit must issue an explanation or expedite the appeals process
  2. Supreme Court's order is not agreeing with the constitutionality of CCIA or "the merits of the case" ... court's action was procedural to allow 2nd Circuit to correct errors
 
Last edited:
Update to Antonyuk v. Nigrelli (NY CCIA defiance to Bruen ruling) and four other cases challenging CCIA
LiveLife said:
Supreme Court ... justices warned ... 2nd Circuit must issue an explanation or expedite the appeals process

... Supreme Court's ... action was procedural to allow 2nd Circuit to correct errors
Click to expand...
A FPC attorney discuss update to cases challenging NY's CCIA - https://rumble.com/v275wnd-supreme-...immediate-review-of-concealed-carry-laws.html
  • Supreme Court's response to emergency application allowed the 2nd Circuit to go through the appeals process
  • In Bruen, past practice of using "two step" approach for 2A cases requiring "proper cause" was eliminated and NY could not expand "sensitive places" too broadly to include an entire island and justice Thomas stated, "... there is no historical basis for NY to effectively declare the island of Manhattan 'a sensitive place'"
  • Post Bruen decision, courts now must use "text and history" approach only for 2A cases
  • CCIA has been found unconstitutional 5 times in lower courts
  • Now there are 5 cases challenging the CCIA
 
Interesting development in yesterday's granting of TRO for Siegel v Platkin (NJ sensitive places carry ban), a federal case backed by NRA-ILA - https://www.nraila.org/articles/202...ersey-from-enforcing-new-sensitive-place-laws

BTW, same judge granted previous TRO for Koons v Reynolds (NJ sensitive places carry ban), another federal case backed by SAF/FPC.

In granting the TRO, the same district court judge Renée Bumb (who consolidated the Koons case with Siegel so TRO was an expansion of TRO granted for Koons case) made a significant statement that the legislators (President of NJ state senate joined the lawsuit) consider the clear dictate of Supreme Court's Bruen ruling of Second Amendment context of historical tradition of firearms regulation and stated, "While the Legislature may disagree with Bruen, it may not disobey it." (6:15 minute of video in below link)

FPC attorney discuss yesterday's TRO - https://rumble.com/v282akp-supreme-...es-concealed-carry-restriction-and-state.html
 
Last edited:
Update to Antonyuk v. Nigrelli (NY CCIA defiance to Bruen ruling) affecting four other cases challenging CCIA and other states' carry ban laws like Siegel v Platkin (NJ sensitive places carry ban) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-v-bruen-decision.913941/page-2#post-12535215

Background for Antonyuk v. Nigrelli - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-v-bruen-decision.913941/page-2#post-12517666
  • Supreme Court allowed NY to enforce Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA)
  • The justices rejected emergency request by plaintiffs including Gun Owners of America to throw out 2nd Circuit's stay (suspension of action) against district court's decision that blocked enforcement of CCIA
  • Justices Alito and Thomas described court's action as procedural "rather than expressing any view on the merits of the case."
  • Justices Alito and Thomas noted that other challenges to the state's law are currently on a fast-track in the 2nd Circuit and invited plaintiffs to return to the Supreme Court if that appeals court does not expedite the proceedings in their case as well.

FPC attorney discuss update to Antonyuk v. Nigrelli and four other CCIA cases after the 2nd Circuit held a hearing for these cases - https://rumble.com/v2n09qv-supreme-...ing-concealed-carry-laws-and-state-defia.html
  • To moot two of five cases NY is facing (Hardaway and Spencer), NY amended the CCIA - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca2.59354/gov.uscourts.ca2.59354.376.0.pdf
    • “persons responsible for security” at places of worship to carry firearms
    • firearms in “public parks” does not apply to privately held land within a park or to statutorily defined forest-preserve land
  • Hardaway v. Nigrelli is a pure 2A challenge
  • Spencer v Nigrelli is more 1A challenge to CCIA
  • Argument was made that historical tradition of carry ban in sensitive places only happened essentially when government took the burden to provide safety like for government buildings but for five cases against NY's CCIA, outright carry ban is applied to sensitive places and places of worship without any burden shifting to the government (And NY even admitted some of these places are high risk places).
  • NY's move to amend CCIA to allow carry in places of worship and privately held public parks may stem from 2nd Circuit judges' response/questions that appeared to be favoring the plaintiffs, particularly places of worship cases and amendment took effect immediately on 5/3/23
 
Last edited:
Unless there is some sort of repercussion for violating Bruen, states like NY will just continue to ignore the Supreme Court decisions supporting gun rights by passing worse gun control to side step the decision. States don't care if they get sued. That is just money they can recover again and budget around. There needs to be some teeth to Bruen or it is a useless victory.
 
herrwalther said:
Unless there is some sort of repercussion for violating Bruen, states like NY will just continue to ignore the Supreme Court decisions supporting gun rights by passing worse gun control to side step the decision. States don't care if they get sued. That is just money they can recover again and budget around. There needs to be some teeth to Bruen or it is a useless victory.
Click to expand...

What keeps other states from ignoring the court when it rules about other things they don’t like?
 
Mosin77 said:
What keeps other states from ignoring the court when it rules about other things they don’t like?
Click to expand...

I wonder the same thing. Aren't there consequences for ignoring the court's rulings? It seems crazy to me that the states can enact new laws that are in complete defiance of the court, and do so blatantly and, apparently, with no worries.
 
Seems to me that applying punitive law that's clearly violative of the USC decisions constitutes a deprivation of one's civil rights. AIR, doing so subjects that violator to both civil and criminal penalty. I know of no immunity grant applying to anyone engaged in such action.

And yeah, AIR, the proper terminology is 'under color of law'!
 
usaral63 said:
Seems to me that applying punitive law that's clearly violative of the USC decisions constitutes a deprivation of one's civil rights. AIR, doing so subjects that violator to both civil and criminal penalty. I know of no immunity grant applying to anyone engaged in such action.

And yeah, AIR, the proper terminology is 'under color of law'!
Click to expand...

Then why isn't this happening? What it really seems is that the governor of a state can ignore/defy the Supreme Court with no consequences, basically making the whole system a sham!

I thought New Yorkers and the 2A community as a whole won a huge victory in Bruen, but I don't see any evidence of it (so far). Am I missing something?
 
Why's it not happening? Simply put, someone, ie: some individual is going to have to be the goat, get charged or indicted and then challenge any conviction under those laws. That's precisely what happens when a cop is charged with a civil rights violation..........think of the chokehold death or the tazer shooting.
 
Mosin77 said:
What keeps other states from ignoring the court when it rules about other things they don’t like?
Click to expand...
herrwalther said:
Unless there is some sort of repercussion for violating Bruen, states like NY will just...
Click to expand...

desmobob said:
Aren't there consequences for ignoring the court's rulings? It seems crazy...
Click to expand...

Yes there is! At least it appears so to this layman. The SCOTUS can have the individual acting ''inappropriately'' disbarred from practice at their court level.

Translation; you can't come here any more.

Quick search, here's but a few examples;

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/rule_8

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-la...-lawyer-who-claimed-to-be-lebron-james-father

https://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/10/01/scotus.clinton/

there are other examples whereas subordinate courts i.e. individuals states supreme courts disbarring, and that is/was a rationale for that attorneys privileges being removed from the SCOTUS bar.
 
herrwalther said:
Unless there is some sort of repercussion for violating Bruen, states like NY will just continue to ignore the Supreme Court decisions supporting gun rights by passing worse gun control to side step the decision.
Click to expand...
desmobob said:
Aren't there consequences for ignoring the court's rulings? It seems crazy to me that the states can enact new laws that are in complete defiance of the court, and do so blatantly and, apparently, with no worries.
Click to expand...
desmobob said:
I thought New Yorkers and the 2A community as a whole won a huge victory in Bruen, but I don't see any evidence of it (so far). Am I missing something?
Click to expand...
Time for a repost :) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...nysrpa-v-bruen-decision.913941/#post-12511618

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.​
 
Significant 3rd Circuit ruling for "text and history" application of Bruen ruling in Range v Garland (Firearm possession by felon) with potential for Supreme Court that could change the future landscape of 2A post Bruen.

From FPC - En Banc Third Circuit rules "that our Nation’s history and tradition of firearm regulation" do not support disarming a plaintiff who was convicted of making a false statement to obtain food stamps in 1995 - https://twitter.com/FPCAction/status/1666115933289562112

Third Circuit says gun prohibition for non-violent misdemeanor violates man's 2A rights - https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/...nt-misdemeanor-violates-mans-2a-rights-n71188
  • 3rd Circuit’s decision is the first full appellate court to demolish the DOJ’s assertion that the the right to keep and bear arms applies solely to “law-abiding citizens” and not we the people as a whole. With the Supreme Court already set to consider another case along those same lines in conference later this month, today’s opinion in Range v. Garland is a much-welcomed addition to current case law, and one that appears to treat the Second Amendment as a first-class right no different than any other belonging to we the people.
  • FPC filed case in PA District Court in Allentown
  • 3rd Circuit en banc panel (With two Obama/Biden appointees) ruled Bryan Range who plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge, not a felony, by making false statement in order to receive food stamps 30 years ago should be allowed to possess firearm
  • 3rd Circuit ruled that Range was still a part of “the people” who possess the right to keep and bear arms regardless of his decades-old misdemeanor
  • 3rd Circuit looked at whether or not the federal statute regarding prohibited persons is “part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.” And according to the court, it's not.
  • DOJ pointed to 1938 Federal Firearms Act and 1961 statute barring those convicted of a crime that can result in more than one year’s imprisonment as longstanding and presumptively lawful, 3rd Circuit found instead that:
Even if the 1938 Act were “longstanding” enough to warrant Heller’s assurance—a dubious proposition given the Bruen Court’s emphasis on Founding- and Reconstruction-era sources, Range would not have been a prohibited person under that law. Whatever timeframe the Supreme Court might establish in a future case, we are confident that a law passed in 1961—some 170 years after the Second Amendment’s ratification and nearly a century after the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification—falls well short of “longstanding” for purposes of demarcating the scope of a constitutional right. So the 1961 iteration of § 922(g)(1) does not satisfy the Government’s burden.​
  • Government’s argument that “legislatures traditionally used status-based restrictions” didn’t fare well with the 3rd Circuit, which noted that:
Apart from the fact that those restrictions based on race and religion now would be unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the Government does not successfully analogize those groups to Range and his individual circumstances.
​

The Four Boxes Diner discuss today's ruling (At 6:00 minute of video, compliance test of "text and history" discussed)

Armed Scholar discuss today's ruling
 
Last edited:
Here's an interesting update on Baird v Bonta (CA open carry ban) where we get to see and hear the hearing to witness the process where 9th Circuit is applying Bruen mandate of "text and history" where tradition of analogous ban must have existed by the time of signing of Bill of Rights.

At 11:45 minute, court states CA has become a "shall issue" state for concealed carry and argued therefore doesn't have to allow open carry but at 12:00 minute, court states CA "Under Bruen, state has to present historical evidence to support that ... they haven't provided that ... ".

At 14:30 minute, court states, "It's clear Bruen puts the burden on the state ..." At 16:00 minute, "Constitutional cases ... If I show you are going to violate my constitutional right ... that's irreparable harm ..." And at 17:35 minute, court uses First Amendment as example that "Constitutionally protected speech" cannot be banned because some people may "hear the wrong speech and do bad things ... riot in the streets ... We still allow Karl Marx books". ;) (And justice Thomas stated in Bruen that the Second Amendment is not a second class right)

At 18:30 minute, court wonders why the district court did not address the irreparable harm in violating constitutional right when the case was about open carry and not concealed carry ... "Very very odd ... that's like talking about Patriots dynasty and never mentioning Tom Brady and talking about the punter instead ... It's odd to do that." :eek:

At 20:40 minute, court states "Peruta [Previous 2A cases] has been overturned ... By Bruen ... and Bruen allows regulations ... But Bruen asked for more ... historical analogue to banning open carry." :thumbup:

At 26:50 minute, court states, "... historical analogue needs to be ... specific to actual law that's being challenged ... in this case ... bans on open carry, not just gun regulations ..."

 
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...
It would certainly be nice if these state attorney general lost qualified immunity in these situations and were put in jail for willfully ignoring federal law.
 
citizenconn said:
It would certainly be nice if these state attorney general lost qualified immunity in these situations and were put in jail for willfully ignoring federal law.
Click to expand...
That's not what happened when states kept violating Supreme Court's various First Amendment rulings. Permanent enforcement went into effect by the way of federal/state laws.

And I believe same will happen for Second Amendment - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...nysrpa-v-bruen-decision.913941/#post-12511618
 
usaral63 said:
Why's it not happening? Simply put, someone, ie: some individual is going to have to be the goat, get charged or indicted and then challenge any conviction under those laws. That's precisely what happens when a cop is charged with a civil rights violation..........think of the chokehold death or the tazer shooting.
Click to expand...
I don't see a lot of cases where police officers lose qualified immunity even in egregious instances of abuse of power - sometimes in high profile cases with some manner of high jingo involved. I don't know that I have ever seen an instance where an elected official or other bureaucrat loses qualified immunity and is charged for defying federal law, assuming qualified immunity would apply in these cases.

But until the US attorney general or someone in power starts holding them accountable this behavior will continue unchecked. I certainly don't see that happening with the current administration. Didn't happen with the last one either.
 
Last edited:
armoredman said:
quoted arguments ... LOOKS like it's good for us, just not 100%.
Click to expand...
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, just a layperson posting on THR.

Listening to the judges speak, I get the sense that they are clearly aware of Bruen ruling and dictate of "text and history" and clarifying those with the attorneys. I had to remind myself, "Wow, this is 9th Circuit?"

As to district court denying Preliminary Injunction, judges seem to indicate the district court misruled by not focusing on the primary issue of the case, which is "right to open carry without license" when siding with the state that licensed concealed carry is still carry.

When the court specified that Bruen not only allows regulations but asked for "historical analogue to banning open carry" and that "historical analogue needs to be ... specific to actual law that's being challenged ... in this case ... bans on open carry, not just gun regulations"; I got the sense how the court likely will approach the case that State has the burden to provide proof that historical practice of total open carry ban existed at the time of the signing of the Bill of Rights. And I do not believe such existed.
 
Last edited:
LiveLife said:
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)
Click to expand...
What a load of @#$%. Too bad those politicians in NY can't be jailed for deliberately violating the Constitution.
 
Now that the Alabama Legislature has joined the Liberal states in ignoring Supreme Court rulings, isn’t this going to just turn into a free for all? Does the Supreme Court have any way to enforce it’s rulings?
 
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