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

[JTHunter]

LiveLife - thanks for all your hard work to co-ordinate and present these rulings.

 

[LiveLife]

Adding to post #100 regarding 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-12932821

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

Mark Smith from Four Boxes Diner was out of town and only did a quick short video (Just mentioned Antonyuk case was GVR'd for post #100) and now discusses "good moral character" for licensing in Illinois further.

The Supreme Court refused to hear any Second Amendment cases as of now. So, why did they do this and what is the future of 2A Supreme Court litigations. Mark Smith Four Boxes Diner explains Antonyuk case "good moral character" for licensing in Illinois (Jump to 14:45 minute of video):

14:45 Antonyuk Case & Good Moral Standing in Rahimi​

16:29 My Predictions​

• Second issue presented in the Antonyuk case was the issue associated with good moral standing under the licensing rules
• You may recall the Rahimi case actually spoke to that ... Because the Rahimi case undeniably rejected DOJ's argument that they could disarm people who were not responsible (meaning if you're irresponsible, that alone was a basis for being disarmed), the Supreme Court ... said that just because you're not responsible (just because you're irresponsible) is not a basis for being disarmed and losing your Second Amendment rights. That is a no-go.
• That's why I think the Antonyuk case was sent back to 2nd Circuit ... because one of the big arguments in the 2nd Circuit was you got to make sure that people are responsible to have guns, and the Supreme Court said that is simply not the standard.
• Either you're violently dangerous, at which point we can disarm you if you're established to be violently dangerous after a court hearing; we can disarm you temporarily. And if you're not violently dangerous, there's no basis for disarming you.
• Certainly you cannot argue that someone is irresponsible and that's a basis for disarming you on the Second Amendment. That is clearly no-go according to the Supreme Court.
• So that's why the Antonyuk case was sent back for further consideration in light of the Rahimi case

WHAT JUST HAPPENED? SCOTUS Denies ALL 2A Cases...

The Supreme Court refused to hear any Second Amendment cases as of now. So, why did they do this and what is the future of 2A Supreme Court litigations. Mar...

youtu.be

 

[LiveLife]

Update to Antonyuk v. Nigrelli now Hochul (NY CCIA defiance to Bruen ruling) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-v-bruen-decision.913941/page-5#post-12936078

SCOTUS VACATES SECOND CIRCUIT RULING IN GOA CHALLENGE TO NY CARRY LAW - https://www.gunowners.org/scotus-vacates-second-circuit-ruling-in-goa-challenge-to-ny-carry-law/

July 2, 2024 Washington, D.C. – Today, the United States Supreme Court vacated the Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling in a challenge to New York’s mistakenly named “Concealed Carry Improvement Act,” which was brought by Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF).​

​

GOA and GOF filed a petition for certiorari in February of this year, after the Second Circuit Court failed to properly apply Supreme Court precedent established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen and provide relief from the statute’s many unconstitutional provisions, including New York’s “good moral character” requirement to receive a concealed carry permit.​

​

GOA quickly challenged the hastily passed statute, which was insubordinately passed by Governor Kathy Hochul and the General Assembly in Albany immediately following the Bruen decision in 2022.​

​

Frustratingly, the new statute is more onerous and restrictive than the one held unconstitutional in the Bruen decision. GOA had previously secured a preliminary injunction in federal district court blocking several portions of the law, but it was largely undone by the Second Circuit.​

​

The law’s provisions that were still in effect required applicants for a concealed carry license to:​

• Prove one’s “good moral character”
• Have in person interviews with law enforcement
• Provide four “character references”
• Undergo 18 hours of combined training, a tremendous increase from the existing 4-hour requirement

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

​

“New York’s anti-gun politicians were quick to double down after the Bruen decision, but today they’ve been smacked down again. With the High Court making clear the Second Circuit got it wrong and by remanding the case back to the lower court, the High Court is forcing New York’s politicians to eat a huge plate of humble pie. We look forward to continuing the fight for New Yorkers’ right to carry – without government pre-requisites.” ​

 

[LiveLife]

Adding to post #103 regarding Antonyuk v. Nigrelli now Hochul (NY CCIA defiance to Bruen ruling) - https://www.thanehighroad.org/index...-v-bruen-decision.913941/page-5#post-12937012

Ex FPC attorney Anthony Miranda discuss Antonyuk grant, vacate and remand (GVR) order:

• The Supreme Court recently issued an 8 to 1 decision which is now impacting the issue of concealed carry bans.
• You may recall there were multiple cases that have gone up to the Supreme Court. One of them being the issue of New York in their Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) and how states like New York just 8 days after Bruen, passed new laws in direct defiance to what the Supreme Court said in Bruen.
• Recently in the Antonyuk case, the plaintiffs went back up to the Supreme Court once again on an emergency basis and were seeking Supreme Court review; seeking for them to enforce Bruen against the new CCIA law and strike down that law New York and the 2nd Circuit continue to defy the expressed language in Heller, McDonald and Bruen. And also they are just outright defying the Second Amendment.
• That led GOA in the Antonyuk case to go up to Supreme Court seeking intervention at that time but that case was put on hold behind the Rahimi case that received 8 to 1 decision.
• In Rahimi, the question was what would happen and ultimately what ended up happening is the Supreme Court GVR, which means they granted, vacated and remanded the entire case back down to the 2nd Circuit to re-review, reanalyze a case in light of Rahimi and a lot of people have questions about what this means and what's going to happen going forward. So we need to break this down now.
• You may recall that in Bruen, the Supreme Court struck down New York's original "May Issue" licensing scheme finding that it was inconsistent with this nation's history and tradition.
• One of the primary findings of Bruen and that decision was essentially that the government bears the burden to prove that their restrictions are based on the history and tradition of our nation and that evidence needs to date back to 1791.
• Another important thing that the Supreme Court did in Bruen was they stated that a state like New York cannot simply make everywhere a sensitive location. They could not just make the entire island of Manhattan a sensitive location or a gun free zone; and therefore, ban carry. However, despite that decision, New York rushed through the Concealed Carry Improvement Act which was a permit scheme even worse than the one that existed prior to Bruen.
• Now this law was challenged in multiple cases and multiple district courts granted preliminary injunctions halting the enforcement of CCIA; however, the state of New York appealed those decisions up to the 2nd Circuit who then granted blanket stays on those decisions.
• In response to that, originally GOA and the Antonyuk case sought emergency review from the Supreme Court and that was the first emergency application. But then the Supreme Court denied that emergency application.
• This happened last year and there was some language from justice Alito essentially saying that you know the 2nd Circuit would need to not drag this out. They need to at least identify why they're issuing these blanket stays or they needed to expedite the hearings.
• In those cases, now the 2nd Circuit decided to simply just expedite all those cases that were consolidated and then there was an expedited hearing on all the CCIA cases.
• Recently the 2nd Circuit held those hearings and they issued their ruling on five of those CCIA cases and this happened back in last December.
• The big argument really came in the Antonyuk case which was argued by GOA and Antonyuk is one of those cases that deals with a lot of aspects of the CCIA. It deals with the permit process, it deals with the sense of location bans, the specific locations like parks and places like that but then also the catch-all provisions where you would have to get the affirmative permission from a business owner to carry at that location or maybe signs would need to be put out.
• Now one of the really interesting things with the 2nd Circus decision in all these CCIA cases is that in their decision, the 2nd Circuit tried to distinguish Bruen as an exceptional case. Now the second circuit vacated a lot of the District Court's preliminary injunction finding that virtually almost all this CCIA is in fact facially constitutional under the Second Amendment
• Now the only thing that they found suspect and that they allowed a preliminary injunction to be put in place on was that catchall provision where you would have to get permission. They said that that is potentially unconstitutional so the preliminary injunction on that aspect was allowed to remain in place but again the 2nd Circuit's rationale was that somehow Bruen was an exceptional case. It was an exceptional issue and that this issue here in Antonyuk and the whole CCIA laws are not exceptional; and therefore, Bruen doesn't apply.
• Now in response to that 2nd Circuit ruling, GOA then filed a petition to the Supreme Court once again seeking for the Supreme Court to step in at an interlocutory (Case not yet ruled on) posture and override what the 2nd Circuit said. So again, this is not a final merits decision. A final judgment has not been issued on this case. This is all dealing with a preliminary injunction which was aiming to at the initial stage, stop this CCIA from going into effect.
• Now while all that was going on, there were other cases like the Rahimi case that were granted review from the Supreme Court that dealt with a different issue, the federal bans on the possession of firearms, ammunition, the purchase and acquisition of you know certain arms by people who are subject to domestic violence restraining orders that was the Rahimi case.
• It was granted reviewed by the Supreme Court and then recently, it was decided in an 8 to 1 decision.
• Upholding that Federal ban it was in some ways a narrow decision but then there was some analysis that went on there that could change some things going forward now and was put on hold behind Rahimi and we were all wondering what was going to happen.
• What was the Supreme Court going to do because it kept getting rescheduled and then it went to conference, then was rescheduled. But we also didn't have a denial so what ended up happening is we got an order list after the Rahimi decision and in the order list, what the Supreme Court has decided to do is GVR the Antonyuk case.
• They decided to grant, vacate and remand Antonyuk back down to the 2nd Circuit to reanalyze this issue in light of Rahimi.
• Now the big elephant in the room is what in Rahimi does the Supreme Court really think is going to change the outcome of the Antonyuk case.
• A lot of people in my opinion also is that this is simply the Supreme Court punting this issue that they don't want to address this right now. Of course they don't like interlocutory cases but I think it's even bigger than that.
• I just don't think that they want to address this issue right now but I think also maybe in some ways, they're wanting the lower courts to further grapple with Bruen and then also Rahimi with someone the how and why analysis and the relevantly similar issue.
• I know this is getting a lot into the legal weeds but just understand under Bruen, there was that specific analysis where you would have to look at the regulation from the government under the text of the Second Amendment as informed by relevant history and tradition.
• Now the Supreme Court is saying in Rahimi, that it's the similar analysis in some ways. People are saying that this has been the analysis all along under Bruen but there was some debate in the lower courts.
• Some lower courts wanted a very narrow approach in application of Bruen and that's what justice Thomas also advocated for in his dissent in the Rahimi case. He was the only dissenter in Rahimi saying that Bruen should understand in a very narrow context that the government needs to put forward a regulation or some sort of historical evidence, a single one that is relevantly similar in some way to justify their modern restriction.
• So he wanted a more narrow restrictive approach and then you had the majority in Rahimi that said no, that's not how you should read Bruin.
• Now the government can put forward multiple justifications to meet the how and why question. They can put forward multiple evidence and kind of pick, you know, the principles from this one, pick the principles from this one and this one and then put it together and say, okay the general principle and you know in 1791, that our founders believed in regards to the Second Amendment met this principle and therefore we're going to apply this to the modern restriction.
• So you can see how there's this legal back and forth that's going on different analysis approach and maybe that's why the Supreme Court wanted to send this back down to the 2nd Circuit because first and foremost, in the Antonyuk case the 2nd Circuit believed that Bruen didn't apply at all so here what the Supreme Court would be signaling saying, look at the Antonyuk case in light of Rahimi is that of course Rahimi and Bruen and that analysis does apply here.
• So you can't just say that the CCIA doesn't apply when it comes to Bruen, that Bruin was an exceptional case.
• Here you have a direct command from Supreme Court to reanalyze this case in light of Rahimi, in that analysis I think ultimately the 2nd Circuit is going to rule the way that they want. I don't think that this is going to change the outcome of what the 2nd Circuit said.
• The silver lining with all this is still the preliminary injunction is in place. When it comes to the catchall provisions with sensitive locations, that's going to remain in place likely, but I think this is just kicking the can down the road.
• So hopefully that gives you guys some better understanding about what is going on right now with the fallout after the Rahimi decision and after all these GVRs

Supreme Court Decision & Remand Order Set To End All Firearm Permits Nationwide!?

In this video I break down the impacts of the Supreme Court's recent decision and remand order on carry bans!Support the channel by subscribing and join the ...

www.youtube.com

 

[LiveLife]

Huge ruling against ban of carrying in "sensitive places" by usually anti-2A court of Kipke v. Moore (MD Carry ban) consolidated with Novotny v. Moore (MD Carry ban).

FPC Win: Federal judge declares multiple Maryland public carry bans unconstitutional - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fede...e-maryland-public-carry-bans-unconstitutional

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today that United States District Court Judge George L. Russell, III has issued a decision declaring Maryland’s bans on firearm carry in locations selling alcohol, private buildings or property without the owner’s consent, and within 1,000 feet of public demonstrations unconstitutional in its federal Second Amendment lawsuit Novotny v. Moore. The opinion can be found at firearmspolicy.org/novotny.​

​

“We are pleased the court blocked some of Maryland’s unconstitutional restrictions on the right to carry firearms in public,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “But we have more work to do and are committed to finishing the job. FPC and our allies will continue to fight forward until all peaceable people can fully exercise their right to bear arms in Maryland and throughout the United States.”​

​

Novotny v. Moore was consolidated with Kipke v. Moore. FPC offers its thanks and congratulations to all plaintiffs in the consolidated cases, including its partners Maryland Shall Issue, Inc., Second Amendment Foundation, and Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc.​

​

District Court Holds Maryland's "Sensitive Places" Carry Ban Unconstitutional in Several Locations in NRA-ILA Supported Case - https://www.nraila.org/articles/202...n-several-locations-in-nra-ila-supported-case

Today, in Kipke v. Moore—an NRA-ILA-supported case—the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland held that Maryland’s ban on carrying firearms in several “sensitive places” violates the Second Amendment.​

​

After the NRA’s landmark victory in NYSRPA v. Bruen—which secured to all Americans the right to publicly carry arms—Maryland passed the Gun Safety Act of 2023, which prohibits the carrying of firearms in numerous “sensitive places.” The restricted locations include all buildings on private property unless the owner expressly provides permission, locations selling alcohol (including bars and restaurants), property within 1,000 feet of a public demonstration, state parks, schools and school grounds, healthcare facilities, mass-transit facilities, government buildings, casinos, amusement parks, racetracks, stadiums, and museums.​

​

After previously granting a partial injunction preventing enforcement of the law in some of those locations, the district court entered an order today holding unconstitutional the bans in (1) buildings on private property unless the owner expressly provides permission; (2) locations selling alcohol (including bars and restaurants); and (3) property within 1,000 feet of a public demonstration.​

​

The court upheld the ban in the other locations covered by the law. The plaintiffs expect to appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to have those locations invalidated as well.​

​

Mark Smith from Four Boxes Diner discuss the ruling

BREAKING 2A NEWS: BIG VICTORY IN FEDERAL COURT!

In Federal District Court in Maryland, a major decision on "sensitive places" aka government-mandated gun free zones was released. Mark Smith Four Boxes Dine...

www.youtube.com

 

[General Geoff]

I'm honestly surprised the public transit prohibition wasn't struck down as well. Seems obviously classist to prevent people who rely on public transit instead of driving a car, from carrying a gun for self defense, especially when being aboard public transit is where one would most likely need it

 

[LiveLife]

I'm honestly surprised the public transit prohibition wasn't struck down as well. Seems obviously classist to prevent people who rely on public transit instead of driving a car, from carrying a gun for self defense, especially when being aboard public transit is where one would most likely need it

That could be forthcoming as plaintifts are already planning to appeal to the 4th Circuit for those places as well:

"The court upheld the ban in the other locations covered by the law. The plaintiffs expect to appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to have those locations invalidated as well."​

 

[LiveLife]

Adding to post #105 huge ruling against ban of carrying in "sensitive places" by usually anti-2A court in Kipke v. Moore (MD Carry ban) consolidated with Novotny v. Moore (MD Carry ban). - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-v-bruen-decision.913941/page-5#post-12951990

SAF Wins Partial Judgement in Maryland Carry Law Challenge - https://saf.org/saf-wins-partial-judgment-in-maryland-carry-law-challenge/

​

BELLEVUE, WA – A federal court in Maryland has handed a victory to the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a challenge of the state law restricting carry in certain locations, declaring three provisions in the statute to be unconstitutional. The case is known as Novotny v. Moore.​

​

Chief U.S. District Judge George L. Russell III for the District of Maryland, a Barack Obama appointee, issued the 13-page ruling and a separate order granting summary judgment enjoining the state from enforcing provisions in the law which restrict the carrying of firearms in: (1) locations selling alcohol for onsite-consumption, (2) private buildings or property without the owner’s consent, and (3) within 1,000 feet of a public demonstration.​

​

“We are pleased that the Court found Maryland’s draconian ‘anti-carry’ rule to be unconstitutional,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Such a provision flies in the face of this nation’s history and tradition. Of course, we will examine the court’s opinion and weigh our options for appeal to continue to challenge other provisions we believe are unconstitutional.”​

​

SAF is joined by Maryland Shall Issue, the Firearms Policy Coalition and three private citizens, all of whom possess “wear and carry permits,” including Susan Burke of Reisterstown, Esther Rossberg of Baltimore, and Katherine Novotny of Aberdeen, for whom the lawsuit is named. They are represented by attorneys David H. Thompson and Peter A. Patterson at Cooper & Kirk in Washington, D.C., Mark W. Pennak at Maryland Shall Issue in Baltimore, and Matthew Larosiere from Lake Worth, Fla. The case was consolidated with a similar case known as Kipke v. Moore.​

​

“We’re delighted by the court’s decision,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This is just one more step in SAF’s ongoing effort to win firearms freedom, one lawsuit at a time.”​

 

[LiveLife]

Adding to post #104 regarding Antonyuk v. Nigrelli now James (NY CCIA defiance to Bruen ruling) -https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/antonyuk-v-nigrelli-supreme-court-will-rule-on-states-defying-its-nysrpa-v-bruen-decision.913941/page-5#post-12939568

GOA does an in depth review of Antonyuk v. Nigrelli now James case with courtroom recordings (Obviously lower courts wanting to defy Bruen ruling) and why the Supreme Court wanted to allow lower courts to rule on the case with promise to review the case once final rulings were made.

GOA: Our case against the New York Concealed Carry Improvement Act, Antonyuk v. James was recently granted, vacated and remanded by the Supreme Court. What does this mean for gun owners? Today on Law & Ammo, Phil lays out the case and what could happen next.

Our Case Got Granted By The Supreme Court

#congress #court #supremecourt Our case against the New York Concealed Carry Improvement Act, Antonyuk v. James was recently granted, vacated and remanded by...

www.youtube.com

 

[LiveLife]

Oops, wrong thread.

 

[Mal H]

Thread closed at OP's request.