Well, New York has wasted no time whatsoever

[44 AMP]

But, the state has been winning every case for over 100 years, with a little help occasionally from the 2nd circuit court.

Has NY state even had a firearms case that involved the Supreme Court in the past hundred years???

I don't know of any, but then I haven't extensively researched the matter...

Do you know of any?

[mikejonestkd]

Bruen is the only case that I can think of that even made it to the Supreme Court chambers.

The only other one was a transportation case a few years ago, and NYC changed their law at the last moment, so the Court did not rule on the case.

[natman]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

I disagree. The politicians in New York do not know they will eventually lose. They are counting on the Second Circuit to cover their backs and, so far, the Second Circuit has done exactly that. And will continue to do so unless the SCOTUS steps in and rules decisively.

Originally Posted by mikejonestkd

I appreciate your positive vibes. But, the state has been winning every case for over 100 years, with a little help occasionally from the 2nd circuit court.

I have no idea what altered reality NY politicians live in, but they know they are going to lose. They know that NYSRPA v Bruen specifically forbids what they are doing, but they plan on stalling as long as they can in the hope that the composition of the court changes. If it doesn't and their unconstitutional laws are overturned, they'll make political hay out of it by saying "We tried to keep your children safe, but those rascally Republicans on the court wouldn't let us."

That's why SCOTUS is keeping an eye on this case and insisting on it progressing rapidly.

[Metal god]

I think some courts are not going to fall for repealing a law to avoid litigation anymore. I know there were a few during the lockdowns that said “just because you repealed the law doesn’t make the case moot” , reason being was the courts knew they could reimplement the law any time in the future.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by natman

I have no idea what altered reality NY politicians live in, but they know they are going to lose. They know that NYSRPA v Bruen specifically forbids what they are doing, but they plan on stalling as long as they can in the hope that the composition of the court changes.

You are just confirming that they don't know they will lose. They didn't lose with the blatantly unconstitutional SAFE Act they they passed in the middle of the night after the Sandy Hook school shooting. That case got as far as the 2nd Circuit, and the 2nd Circuit upheld the law. That case didn't make it to the Supreme Court because neither faction on the SCOTUS was certain of a win, so both sides preferred to dodge the issue and decline cert.

And with the new law the 2nd Circuit has again sided with the state. If it gets to the SCOTUS as the high court is currently constituted, the law will probably be shot down. If the state and the 2nd Circuit can keep the ball in play long enough for the makeup of the SCOTUS to shift, there's a good chance the law will withstand an appeal.

It's an ugly game, but it is NOT a game the state knows they will lose.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

It's an ugly game, but it is NOT a game the state knows they will lose.

In fact, it's a game they hardly could lose, at least until SCOTUS gets serious about slapping around courts that ignore their rulings and politicians wise up that these laws won't last... both of which are exceedingly unlikely.

I've said for years that the major problem with our system (in relation to this particular topic) is that it was never designed for politicians who *intentionally* pass unconstitutional laws.

It was intended to more like "verify", or correct an error. When politicians are intentionally passing laws designed to side step the system, there are no real checks and balances to stop it from happening.
The pols don't care about dealing honestly, they care about their agenda and they know that no matter what they can just change a line or two and it's a "new" law that has to go through the whole process over again, which can take years and even if they "lose" they just change a few lines and do it again... so they never really "lose".

[mehavey]

“John Marshall has made his decision now let him enforce it.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AJ

[44 AMP]

One of the things frequently overlooked (or "underlooked"??) is the fact that enforcement of SCOTUS rulings is NOT a function of the Supreme Court. That function is reserved to other branches of government.

So, when people say "why doesn't the Supreme Court fix this?" when the politicians pass laws that appear to be in contradiction to SCOTUS rulings, the honest answer is simply, "that isn't their job".

To ask why the politicians do such things, its because they don't KNOW they will ultimately fail, (though the more practical ones might expect that, now) but because until/unless there is a ruling against what they did, they count is as a win.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

To ask why the politicians do such things, its because they don't KNOW they will ultimately fail, (though the more practical ones might expect that, now) but because until/unless there is a ruling against what they did, they count is as a win.

Sometimes, though, they do know they will fail, and they proceed anyway because they want to convey an appearance of DOING SOMETHING.

I've never been able to find it again, but several years ago I saw on YouTube a video of a meeting of some governing body. I think it was a county board of commissioners. They were debating passage of a new anti-gun law. A member of the audience stood up and pointed out that if they passed the law it could not be enforced, because in that state the state had a preemption statute reserving the power to enact firearms laws to the state itself.

And one of the commissioners then got up and stated that he didn't care if the law couldn't be enforced, he was going to vote for it anyway ... "because we've got to do something."

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

Sometimes, though, they do know they will fail, and they proceed anyway because they want to convey an appearance of DOING SOMETHING.

If they represent their voters and they gain the loyalty of their constituents, are re-elected and have a nice pension, have they failed?

Let's not forget the voters afflicted by lack of foresight, envy, greed and the rest of the human condition who vote. If you live in NY and wonder why your rights are held in contempt, the answer is found in how your neighbors vote.

[Metal god]

I remember Biden shortly after being elected answering a question from the press about either an executive order or new law . They asked if he thought it was unconstitutional and he said something like “ it probably is but it will take years for the courts to work that out .

I think generally with most common new laws the legislature/s don’t really know if what they pass will in fact pass constitutional muster but on the big issues they all know full well the likelihood of the constitutionality of the laws they pass .

[44 AMP]

If you live in NY and wonder why your rights are held in contempt, the answer is found in how your neighbors vote.

I will add something to this, from personal experience, and that is "history".

Where ever (and when ever) we grow up, the laws in effect when we get old enough to recognize and understand them, become the norm. They are just, right, and proper, (even when they actually aren't) and are the way "we've always done it". Its our personal history, and it influences people's thinking and voting habits.

The Bruen ruling was not just landmark its arguably a "sea change". It tossed out a section of NY law that had been the law and never challenged not only my entire life, but my father's entire life and HIS father's entire life.

IT wasn't until I moved to the other side of the country that it even occurred to me that you could have a pistol without needing a permit that required 5 sets of fingerprints, 4 photographs, 3 character references, and a partridge in a pear tree..but the state I moved to, seemed to work fine without that....

When I was a pre-driving teen there were 3 actual gunshops I could reach on my bicycle. The last time I went back to NY in 2003 to bury my Dad, there was one shop, 80 miles away, that I had to use to get some of his guns shipped to my home dealer....

Things change, people and attitudes change, our rights, don't, but the percentage of people even remotely interested in guns and gun rights back there is much lower than other parts of the country. Those who are, are pretty passionate about it, and rightly so, but they are hugely outnumbered by people who consider other things more important, and by people who actively try to make guns as difficult, and expensive to use legally as they can.

NY also has the situation common to several other states (and unfortunately it applies where I live as well), and that is that the bulk of the population is clustered in a few major urban areas, and will pass anything they are told will make them safer or make their lives better.

This is the downside of Democracy. Three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner is democracy. It isn't always the best system of governance.

[Metal god]

I’m not sure if this is the law/ordinance/statue/whatever I was speaking of but it’s basically the same idea. I’m having a hard time pulling up anything Biden related that isn’t something to do with classified documents at this time

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...eaking-the-law

[mehavey]

That Examiner article is breathtaking in its implications as to pure & deliberate
threat against rule of law, across the board, as anything I've seen of late.

[Tom Servo]

Sometimes, though, they do know they will fail, and they proceed anyway because they want to convey an appearance of DOING SOMETHING.

They also do it because they know it will cost our side massive amounts of time, effort, and money to challenge it. It's a war of attrition. It's easy for them to get these laws passed, but it's really hard to get them thrown out.

[ViperJon]

Is a law really a law if it is not enforced? There has not been a single solitary instance of a legal handgun license holder being arrested or charged under the CCIA in what, six months and we would definitely know about. I know for an absolute fact that the Suffolk County Long Island PD considers violating this "law" extremely low priority unless someone is doing something outlandish like brandishing or road rage incident. This is from someone high up in authority. You are NOT going to get jacked up for stopping to get gas somewhere because the station is a sensitive location. Not to mention you would have to be somehow caught, be reported and have a cop show up. In 32 years of having a handgun license here and countless times carrying it I have never ever been close to having it seen.

The sensitive locations restriction that essentially covers the entire state is going down shortly. The social media and other unconstitutional background checks are going down. Training will remain. Unfortunately the current wait time to get a handgun license in Suffolk County is now over two years. They have ten times the applications and the same slow outdated system with 8 employees they have had since 1980.

[mehavey]

Is a law really a law if it is not enforced...?

You bet your life as you know it ...on very thin ice...
on the whim of any prosecutor out to make a name,
and with you as example.

Spin the cylinder if you will... for the length of time
of whatever statute of limitations might apply.

.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by ViperJon

Is a law really a law if it is not enforced? There has not been a single solitary instance of a legal handgun license holder being arrested or charged under the CCIA in what, six months and we would definitely know about.

Six months is not a particularly long time. If a law remains on the books, it can be enforced at any time the powers that be decide they want to enforce it.

Some years ago, an attorney acquaintance defended a woman (a law-abiding insurance company executive) when she was arrested under an obsolete state law that had been on the books for EIGHTY YEARS, with no record of anyone anywhere in the state having been even charged under it, let alone convicted. Apparently, someone had a grudge against her for something. When the case got to court, my acquaintance didn't even mount a defense. He allowed the prosecution to put on their case and, when they rested, he simply moved to dismiss. The judge asked why, and he then explained that the law clearly prohibited doing two specific things, and none of the prosecution's witnesses or evidence suggested that the defendant had done either of those two things. The judge mulled that over for about 30 seconds and dismissed the case.

My point being that this was a law that had been sitting there, unused, for EIGHTY YEARS -- until one local police department decided to dust it off and use it.

I know for an absolute fact that the Suffolk County Long Island PD considers violating this "law" extremely low priority unless someone is doing something outlandish like brandishing or road rage incident. This is from someone high up in authority. You are NOT going to get jacked up for stopping to get gas somewhere because the station is a sensitive location. Not to mention you would have to be somehow caught, be reported and have a cop show up. In 32 years of having a handgun license here and countless times carrying it I have never ever been close to having it seen.

But whoever is in authority today may not be in authority next month. I still live in the town where I grew up. I have been here long enough to have seen at least half a dozen mayors, of both parties, go through that office, and I've lost count of how many police chiefs we have had in the same period. What one head honcho considers to be a low priority might be a high priority to the next occupant of the big office. As long as a law is on the books, it can be invoked by any LEO at any time.

[Metal god]

But whoever is in authority today may not be in authority next month. I still live in the town where I grew up. I have been here long enough to have seen at least half a dozen mayors, of both parties, go through that office, and I've lost count of how many police chiefs we have had in the same period. What one head honcho considers to be a low priority might be a high priority to the next occupant of the big office. As long as a law is on the books, it can be invoked by any LEO at any time.

Agreed , If it's chargeable then you better not do it regardless . I'm personally not willing to take the chance of loosing all my 2nd amendment rights including my firearm/s in the hopes nobody will enforce a current law . Nope not worth it .

[natman]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

You are just confirming that they don't know they will lose. They didn't lose with the blatantly unconstitutional SAFE Act they they passed in the middle of the night after the Sandy Hook school shooting. That case got as far as the 2nd Circuit, and the 2nd Circuit upheld the law. That case didn't make it to the Supreme Court because neither faction on the SCOTUS was certain of a win, so both sides preferred to dodge the issue and decline cert.

SAFE was an issue that SCOTUS wasn’t ready to deal with at the time (They’ve since granted cert to an “assault weapon” ban when they GVRed Bianchi v Frosh)

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

And with the new law the 2nd Circuit has again sided with the state. If it gets to the SCOTUS as the high court is currently constituted, the law will probably be shot down. If the state and the 2nd Circuit can keep the ball in play long enough for the makeup of the SCOTUS to shift, there's a good chance the law will withstand an appeal.

The state knows they are going to lose UNLESS they can stall in the hope of the makeup of SCOTUS changing. I said as much:

Originally Posted by natman

I have no idea what altered reality NY politicians live in, but they know they are going to lose. They know that NYSRPA v Bruen specifically forbids what they are doing, but they plan on stalling as long as they can in the hope that the composition of the court changes. If it doesn't and their unconstitutional laws are overturned, they'll make political hay out of it by saying "We tried to keep your children safe, but those rascally Republicans on the court wouldn't let us."

That's why SCOTUS is keeping an eye on this case and insisting on it progressing rapidly.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by natman

SAFE was an issue that SCOTUS wasn’t ready to deal with at the time

Yes, that's what I wrote.

[Metal god]

2nd circuit ordered an expedited hearing in this case and 5 others challenging NY new cc law . The 6 cases will be heard in tandem on March 20 2023 .

[Metal god]

Starting a new thread would only repeat everything in this thread .

CA bill SB-2 was introduced a short while ago which basically mirrors the NY CCW law . They tried passing this law late last year but it failed by one vote . That makes it sound like its a close vote ratio but not really . Because it was late in the session they introduced it as expedited or emergency ( forget the correct term ) which requires a 2/3 majority and it failed because of that . Now that it’s been introduced early in the session it will only need a simple majority.

Anyways some differences is they scrapped the good moral character section for what they are calling a none prohibited person which seems to be the same thing only worded differently . Things that are the same - doubling the training , list of all social media accounts , psychological evaluation , increase sensitive places substantially and of course all businesses are prohibited places, unless otherwise stated/posted by the business owner .

So as you can see, second verse, same as the first type of law . These NY cases are so much further along with one case only being one step from SCOTUS . If and when this reaches SCOTUS the CA case will be moot or at least much of it will be . Silver lining for “me” is I just got my CA ccw and it’s good for two years . Lets hope it’s all worked out before I need to renew ;-) . One thing I could see causing issues to pro carry groups in CA is — the NY case not reaching or being denied by SCOTUS regardless of who appeals . Like if plaintiffs win at the 2nd circuit and the state does not appeal or there appeal is denied.

Which brings up a question that actually relates to this NY case . Lets say the 2nd circuit rules against the state . Now lets say generally the SCOTUS mostly agrees with the 2nd ruling . Do they still take the states appeal knowing there likely decision will stop the rest of the anti carry states or do they deny and let all the other states cases naturally make there way through the courts ?

[44 AMP]

Internet news today regarding the NY law,

The brief was also joined by five groups — the DC Project Foundation, the Liberal Gun Group, the National African American Gun Association, the Asian Pacific American Gun Owners Association, and an LGBT group called Operation Blazing Sword–Pink Pistols — all which voiced opposition to the social media registration requirement for permits.

Liberal groups are joining against the NY law due to the requirement to submit social media accounts to the state....

as to this question,

Lets say the 2nd circuit rules against the state . Now lets say generally the SCOTUS mostly agrees with the 2nd ruling . Do they still take the states appeal knowing there likely decision will stop the rest of the anti carry states or do they deny and let all the other states cases naturally make there way through the courts ?

IF the 2nd rules against NY AND NY appeals to the Supreme Court, they should do what they do, rule on the case before them (assuming they take it) and what they, or the rest of us "know" their ruling will result is isn't part of what the SCOTUS is supposed to consider when ruling on a law.

Not saying that political opinion isn't still a consideration, but for the first time in a long time, it APPEARS we have a Supreme Court who is ruling on the law, and only on the law without worrying about what upsets or makes people happy as a result of their rulings.

In other words, what might happen in CA as a result of ruling on a NY law isn't going to be SCOTUS concern, nor, should it be...

or at least that's the way I see it, currently...

[Metal god]

Ok so if plaintiffs win and they agree with the decision they deny cert because they don’t care what other states are doing , is that your point ?

My point was asking do they get ahead of all the anti states and you seem to say not there job ? I can’t imagine that was there thought in Bruen . “We are only ruling in this case and not considering how it effects the rest of the states” I feel they ruled the way they did in Bruen because it will set precedent for the rest of the country .