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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Update to Gazzola v Hochul (NY CCIA affecting ammunition/FFLs/gun shops) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-v-bruen-decision.913941/page-3#post-12922326

Since the petition for the Supreme Court is interlocutory in nature (While the case is still going through the court system) and Supreme Court has refused to intervene in other 2A cases (To allow them to go through the judicial system), but two prior petitions were on emergency basis and this third petition is under petition for a writ of certiorari so there may be some difference

The Supreme Court denied the petition - https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-995.html
 
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?
Your 2A majority …. unless maybe the C.J. rolls out of bed one particular morning feeling “squishy” on the “gun” issue.

IMG_0320.jpeg

Easy fix though. The notorious ACB will just hand him a testosterone-booster pill.
 
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, just a random layperson posting on THR.

Update to Gazzola v Hochul (NY CCIA affecting ammunition/FFLs/gun shops)

The Supreme Court denied the petition - https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-995.html
it would seem that they are waiting on the Rahimi case? ... thats what I’ve heard from the armed scholar videos
According to Anthony Miranda/Armed Scholar, Antonyuk v. Nigrelli (NY CCIA defiance to Bruen ruling) along with Hardaway v. Nigrelli (NY places of worship carry ban), Christian v. Nigrelli (NY sensitive location carry ban), Spencer v Nigrelli (NY places of worship carry ban) cases represent "We the People" and were filed in direct response to NY defying Bruen ruling affecting citizens.

Gazzola v Hochul (NY CCIA affecting ammunition/FFLs/gun shops) case represents businesses.

So while Antonyuk v. Nigrelli case was put on hold (As hinted to be GVR'd after Rahimi ruling), Gazzola v Hochul case now proceeds through the judicial process (Unless case gets appealed back to the Supreme Court again).

But that's my guess and we get to see how the Supreme Court rules in Rahimi and what actually happens to all of these cases. :)
 
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, just a random layperson posting on THR.
According to Anthony Miranda/Armed Scholar, Antonyuk v. Nigrelli (NY CCIA defiance to Bruen ruling) along with Hardaway v. Nigrelli (NY places of worship carry ban), Christian v. Nigrelli (NY sensitive location carry ban), Spencer v Nigrelli (NY places of worship carry ban) cases represent "We the People" and were filed in direct response to NY defying Bruen ruling affecting citizens.
Gazzola v Hochul (NY CCIA affecting ammunition/FFLs/gun shops) case represents businesses.
So while Antonyuk v. Nigrelli case was put on hold (As hinted to be GVR'd after Rahimi ruling), Gazzola v Hochul case now proceeds through the judicial process (Unless case gets appealed back to the Supreme Court again).
But that's my guess and we get to see how the Supreme Court rules in Rahimi and what actually happens to all of these cases. :)
Well, Rahimi was released today, with Roberts authoring the opinion ruling, 8-1, that the federal ban on domestic abusers owning/possessing guns is consistent with 2A.
 
Well, Rahimi was released today, with Roberts authoring the opinion ruling, 8-1, that the federal ban on domestic abusers owning/possessing guns is consistent with 2A.
Oh well, I did have my doubts ... Now back to all of these cases working their way up the judicial system.
 
I think they will now decide everything for the left, since the dicta from Rahimi saying they no longer have to show a historical twin for the laws in question, so any restriction of a right in the distant past, no matter which, will be used to support any modern-day restriction. I certain PRAY that I am wrong. But, I always say it's not what about a law is intended to do, it's what it can be TWISTED to do.
 
I think they will now decide everything for the left, since the dicta from Rahimi saying they no longer have to show a historical twin for the laws in question, so any restriction of a right in the distant past, no matter which, will be used to support any modern-day restriction.
While initially I was dismayed by Supreme Court ruling, more I thought and considered past 2A Supreme Court rulings, more I grew encouraged that the Supreme Court has been making rulings for other Bill of Rights amendments in progression, building on previous rulings as precedents in EXPANDING Bill of Rights protection as outlined in this post - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...o-future-2a-cases.931586/page-4#post-12927429

So as justice Jackson pointed out, all the hand waving of the liberal justices don't matter in the end as Bruen methodology stood the test and now stands as "binding law" of the land. And Supreme Court clarified to the lower courts that historical "twins" are not required rather "analogues" as stated in Bruen ruling.

This case tests ... Bruen ... Bruen is now binding law. Today’s decision fairly applies that precedent ...
Courts must ... Second Amendment’s plain text ... If it does, “[t]he government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” ... per Bruen ... legislators must locate and produce ... historical evidence

So what are historical analogues?

District Court judge Benitez put CA attorneys through that test for Miller (AW ban) and Duncan (Magazine ban) cases and allowed additional time to come up with their "best" historical evidence of government regulation "analogues" and they could not as outlined in the final spreadsheet presented to judge Benitez - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-17#post-12880375

And I believe that's the reason why the narrative has shifted to using the "military weapon" argument now for AW/magazine ban cases because they learned from Miller/Duncan cases, the "best" historical evidence was not "analogous" to pass Bruen test now "binding law" of the land as acknowledged by liberal justices, as clearly stated in the concurring opinion.

I agree with Mark Smith's take that justice Kavanaugh now will revisit and push the 2A protection of "modern" types of arm of magazine fed semi-auto rifles as he expressed in his dissenting opinion in Heller 2 and restated in Rahimi concurring opinion - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...o-future-2a-cases.931586/page-4#post-12927459

"And I share justice Alito's concern that some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald. The Court should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court."​
So even liberal justices/lower courts may not be able to lean completely to the left in future 2A cases but time will tell what cases Supreme Court takes next and how they will rule.
 
Last edited:
Smh. I've said from the outset that these decisions were worthless as the court has no way of enforcing them. The supreme court can rule whatever it pleases, if New York or California disobey nothing happens. Without someone in the executive branch willing to call up the 101st and impose the ruling like they did in the 50's nothing will happen.
 
The supreme court can rule whatever it pleases
True, that's how the founders separated government powers, for the judicial branch/Supreme Court to rule what is constitutional. And how the Supreme Court rulings will be decided is determined by "We the People" electing executive representatives and for the Senate to confirm appointments. So ultimately, it is "We the People" making the Supreme Court rulings as to what is "constitutional".

these decisions were worthless as the court has no way of enforcing them.
Actually, "We the People" enforce them by the way of federal/state laws.

Legislative branch write laws and executive branch enforces them. If legislative branch write laws that are unconstitutional or executive branch/administrative agencies exceed authority (Like in recent Cargill bump stock ruling where ATF was found to have exceeded statutory authority), judicial branch rules them unconstitutional.

And like for other Bill of Rights amendments, permanent enforcement was placed by the way of federal/state laws. In the same manner, Supreme Court Second Amendment rulings will receive permanent enforcement by federal/state laws, representing "We the People".

That's how the founders framed our government so "We the People" can self-govern.

And this new nation has been self-governing for 230 years by "We the People".

This has been the way for this Republic. Long live the Republic.

We are living in history making moment as in 2016, "We the People" elected executive representative who appointed Supreme Court justices to make Bruen, Cargill and Rahimi rulings and in 2024, "We the People" have an opportunity to elect legislative representatives to write laws that could apply permanent enforcement of Supreme Court rulings. If "We the People" want permanent enforcement, it will happen.

Godspeed.
 
Last edited:
"And I share justice Alito's concern that some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald. The Court should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court."​
So even liberal justices/lower courts may not be able to lean completely to the left in future 2A cases but time will tell what cases Supreme Court takes next and how they will rule.
The SCOTUS needs to issue a Writ of Mandamus and end the nonsense. It's time for the showdown.
 
The SCOTUS needs to issue a Writ of Mandamus and end the nonsense. It's time for the showdown.
I could see justice Kavanaugh carrying the 2A torch from justice Thomas ... starting with magazine fed semi-auto rifles.

... some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald. The Court should address that issue soon
 
True, that's how the founders separated government powers, for the judicial branch/Supreme Court to rule what is constitutional. And how the Supreme Court rulings will be decided is determined by "We the People" electing executive representatives and for the Senate to confirm appointments. So ultimately, it is "We the People" making the Supreme Court rulings as to what is "constitutional".


Actually, "We the People" enforce them by the way of federal/state laws.

Legislative branch write laws and executive branch enforces them. If legislative branch write laws that are unconstitutional or executive branch/administrative agencies exceed authority (Like in recent Cargill bump stock ruling where ATF was found to have exceeded statutory authority), judicial branch rules them unconstitutional.

And like for other Bill of Rights amendments, permanent enforcement was placed by the way of federal/state laws. In the same manner, Supreme Court Second Amendment rulings will receive permanent enforcement by federal/state laws, representing "We the People".

That's how the founders framed our government so "We the People" can self-govern.

And this new nation has been self-governing for 230 years by "We the People".

This has been the way for this Republic. Long live the Republic.

We are living in history making moment as in 2016, "We the People" elected executive representative who appointed Supreme Court justices to make Bruen, Cargill and Rahimi rulings and in 2024, "We the People" have an opportunity to elect legislative representatives to write laws that could apply permanent enforcement of Supreme Court rulings. If "We the People" want permanent enforcement, it will happen.

Godspeed.

Oh here we go again with the "we the people" nonsense.

The court is not decided by "we the people" it is decided by the uniparty inside the beltway that operates as its own self serving system and could care less about what we think. "we the people" have only the illusion of influence.

Even if "we the people" somehow get federal or state laws on the books, they can simply be ignored, as thousands of laws are. Enforcement requires someone with executive authority to actually do something.

This nation used to be something like a republic, it isn't anymore, its much closer to a Plutocracy/Oligarchy. This "we the people" nonsense is an illusion. The way your 10th grade civics textbook explains our government isn't how it actually works.

If we want to be serious about our 2A rights being protected we need a Realpolitik approach not a fantasy.
 
The court is not decided by "we the people"
If "Popular Vote" was used to elect president, Hillary would have been president in 2016 and Supreme Court make up would have been very different.

Thanks to "Electoral College" used to elect president as framed by the founders to better reflect sentiment of "We the People" of smaller rural states, we got the Supreme Court make up that ruled Bruen.

So to me, "We the People" that INCLUDES representation of smaller rural states decide the Supreme Court. ;)


This nation used to be something like a republic, it isn't anymore, its much closer to a Plutocracy/Oligarchy.
Actually, I would agree with you that in 2024, we essentially have "uniparty" government of special interests and donors, not necessarily "We the People".

But as long as we use Electoral College to elect presidents, have two senators per state that can veto bills written by the House and the Supreme Court that can overrule what the executive/legislative branches do as "unconstitutional", we are a representative constitutional republic and not a pure democracy ruled by majority mob rule.
 
Last edited:
If "Popular Vote" was used to elect president, Hillary would have been president in 2016 and Supreme Court make up would have been very different.

Thanks to "Electoral College" used to elect president as framed by the founders to better reflect sentiment of "We the People" of smaller rural states, we got the Supreme Court make up that ruled Bruen.

So to me, "We the People" that INCLUDES representation of smaller rural states decide the Supreme Court. ;)



Actually, I would agree with you that in 2024, we essentially have "uniparty" government of special interests and donors, not necessarily "We the People".

But as long as we use Electoral College to elect presidents, have two senators per state that can veto bills written by the House and the Supreme Court that can overrule what the executive/legislative branches do as "unconstitutional", we are a representative constitutional republic and not a pure democracy ruled by majority mob rule.

Bruen is irrelevant, the states that don't like it are not going to follow it, and the court has no army to enforce it.

The electoral college is not used the way it was intended. Electors simply rubber stamp the popular vote in each state. On rare occasions the national popular vote and electoral count differ, but this is not what the college was supposed to do. If it was working as intended state legislatures would be representative of area, not population, and would send electors that reflected that. None of that works as the framers intended.

All of those checks are purely theoretical. The electoral college simply rubber stamps the popular vote, it serves no independent function. The senators don't veto anything that the uni-party doesn't want. The court can rule until its blue in the face but has no army to make anyone actually do what it says.
 
The court can rule until its blue in the face but has no army to make anyone actually do what it says.
Supreme Court in Cargill bump stock case ruled against ATF - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/atf-bump-stock-lawsuits.921442/#post-12920825

We conclude that semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a “machinegun” ...
It is so ordered.​

Before court rulings, sale of bump stocks stopped and what allowed sale of bump stocks again? ;)


For pistol stabilizing braces, court ruled and vacated (voided) ATF Final Rule and they are for sale again. How did that happen? - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...ace-rule-lawsuits.920838/page-6#post-12920315

stabilizing braces ... [ATF] exceeded their statutory authority ... Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that the Final Rule violated the APA’s procedural requirements because it was arbitrary and capricious and was not a logical outgrowth of the Proposed Rule ... and VACATES the Final Rule.​
SO ORDERED​


After California didn't allow sale of newer models of handguns, court rulings in Boland v Bonta and Renna v Bonta cases allowed addition of newer handguns to the roster and now they are for sale - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...and-renna-v-bonta.919621/page-3#post-12920121

... as of January 1, 2024, Penal Code section 31910 will no longer require a new semiautomatic pistol to satisfy the microstamping requirement before it can be added to the Roster of Certified Handguns. That requirement was the subject of litigation in the court below and was enjoined (blocked) by the district court in the preliminary injunction order at issue in this appeal.​

How did that happen? https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-legal-challenges.913421/page-3#post-12739163

Perhaps because courts made rulings?
 
Last edited:
Bruen is irrelevant
Repost from another thread due to pertinence to this thread discussion - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...g-in-u-s-v-rahimi.931587/page-2#post-12928826

We won't know whether Rahimi undid Bruen
Maybe this will help.

I went over the Rahimi ruling and searched for "Bruen" and majority opinion cited extensively from Bruen as to how the Supreme Court "explained", "clarified" and "directed courts" Heller's ruling regarding "text and history" to examine “historical tradition of firearm regulation” because "some courts have misunderstood the methodology" and reaffirmed Heller that "reach of the Second Amendment is not limited only to those arms that were in existence at the founding. Rather, it 'extends, prima facie, to ALL instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not [yet] in existence.'”

Rahimi ruling further reaffirmed burden of providing historical evidence shifting to the states/government and stated, "Government must show that the restriction 'is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation' ... Government ... bears the burden to 'justify its regulation'"

I am not a lawyer but to this layperson, Rahimi ruling did not undo Bruen and as justice Jackson stated, reaffirmed Bruen as "binding law" of the land - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf

In Bruen, we explained that when a firearm regulation is challenged under the Second Amendment, the Government must show that the restriction “is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” (Page 4)​
In light of Bruen, the panel ... ordered additional briefing ... Surveying the evidence that the Government had identified, the panel concluded that Section 922(g)(8) does not fit within our tradition of firearm regulation ... We granted certiorari.​
Derived from English practice and codified in the Second Amendment, the right secures for Americans a means of self-defense. Bruen (Page 5)​
In Heller, our inquiry into the scope of the right began with “constitutional text and history.” Bruen
In Bruen, we directed courts to examine our “historical tradition of firearm regulation” to help delineate the contours of the right. We explained that if a challenged regulation fits within that tradition, it is lawful under the Second Amendment. We also clarified that when the Government regulates arms-bearing conduct, as when the Government regulates other constitutional rights, it bears the burden to “justify its regulation.”​
... some courts have misunderstood the methodology of our recent Second Amendment cases ... As we explained in Heller, for example, the reach of the Second Amendment is not limited only to those arms that were in existence at the founding. Rather, it “extends, prima facie, to ALL instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not [yet] in existence.” ... Holding otherwise would be as mistaken as applying the protections of the right only to muskets and sabers.​
As we explained in Bruen, the appropriate analysis involves considering whether the challenged regulation is consistent with the principles that underpin our regulatory tradition. A court must ascertain whether the new law is “relevantly similar” to laws that our tradition is understood to permit, “apply[ing] faithfully the balance struck by the founding generation to modern circumstances.” (Page 7)​
This Court reviewed the history of American gun laws extensively in Heller and Bruen. (Page 9)​
Unlike the regulation struck down in Bruen, Section 922(g)(8) does not broadly restrict arms use by the public generally. (Page 14)​
Our analysis of the surety laws in Bruen also does not help Rahimi.​
In Bruen, we explained that the surety laws were not a proper historical analogue for New York’s gun licensing regime. (Page 15)​
While we also noted ... to emphasize just how severely the State treated the rights of its citizens. But as we have explained, our Nation’s tradition of firearm regulation distinguishes citizens who have been found to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of others from those who have not. The conclusion that focused regulations like the surety laws are not a historical analogue for a broad prohibitory regime like New York’s does not mean that they cannot be an appropriate analogue for a narrow one.​

As we said in Bruen, a “historical twin” is not required. (Page 16)​

In Heller and Bruen, we used the term “responsible” to describe the class of ordinary citizens who undoubtedly enjoy the Second Amendment right ... In Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, this Court did not “undertake an exhaustive historical analysis ... of the full scope of the Second Amendment.” ... we conclude only this: An individual ... may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment. (Page 17)​
 
Update to Antonyuk v. Nigrelli (NY CCIA defiance to Bruen ruling), Hardaway v. Nigrelli (NY places of worship carry ban), Christian v. Nigrelli (NY sensitive location carry ban), Spencer v Nigrelli (NY places of worship carry ban) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-v-bruen-decision.913941/page-3#post-12922326

On Monday, the United States Supreme Court will decide whether or not to grant cert in one or more Second Amendment cases. Mark Smith Four Boxes Diner breaks down what this means

0:00 Major Supreme Court News!
2:59 Category One - Case Background & Details
5:30 What I'd Like To See & My Prediction
6:53 Category Two - Case Background & Details
9:01 Why This Could Be Difficult & What We Hope For
15:07 Category Three - Case Background & Details
18:07 Thank You!
 
Update to Antonyuk v. Nigrelli (NY CCIA defiance to Bruen ruling), Hardaway v. Nigrelli (NY places of worship carry ban), Christian v. Nigrelli (NY sensitive location carry ban), Spencer v Nigrelli (NY places of worship carry ban) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-v-bruen-decision.913941/page-4#post-12931865

On Monday, the United States Supreme Court will decide whether or not to grant cert in one or more Second Amendment cases.
Antonyuk case was GVR'd and returned to 2nd Circuit to be reconsidered:
  • The last case or set of cases you want to consider is the Antonyuk case out of the 2nd Circuit out of New York City. In the Antonyuk case, there questions about licensing good moral character ... was also GVR'd, sent back to the 2nd Circuit to be reconsidered (3:14 minute of video)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top