Long Island Shooters Forum banner
921 - 940 of 987 Posts

· Aim High
Joined
·
975 Posts
Every time we get stepped on and get screwed, some how it's not a loss. It is a loss. And it is bad. If things went our way and the court agreed with us then this nonsense would be over. All these courts and all these judges want to push it onto the next guy. Maybe the next generation will get some satisfaction but we won't.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
266 Posts
Every time we get stepped on and get screwed, some how it's not a loss. It is a loss. And it is bad. If things went our way and the court agreed with us then this nonsense would be over. All these courts and all these judges want to push it onto the next guy. Maybe the next generation will get some satisfaction but we won't.
im 31 we will lol
 

· Registered
Joined
·
266 Posts
We get kicked in the teeth and rationalize that things are good.
we didn't get kicked in the teeth at all this was never going to go threw. There not going to rule on something that is being reviewed by the court of appeals. You obviously did not read the justices comments. If the court of appeals dose not get it right, they said send another emergency order up and we will take care of it I doubt the court of appeals is gonna wanna look like an idiots. regardless, its going to get fixed weather ny like it or not
 

· SASI Firearms Chairman, LISAPA Training Committee
Joined
·
7,350 Posts
Yes, agreed 100%, but what difference would it have made if they vacated the stay, and gave us our rights, in the interim. It’s not like they are making a ruling or judgment. It is still going to play out, through the appeals courts, and it will come to SCOTUS , the path of the entire process will still be travelled….. They know it, we know it, the guy eating crayons, on the corner knows it….. why would they delay rights?
Every time we get stepped on and get screwed, some how it's not a loss. It is a loss. And it is bad. If things went our way and the court agreed with us then this nonsense would be over. All these courts and all these judges want to push it onto the next guy. Maybe the next generation will get some satisfaction but we won't.
SCOTUS has sent a very clear message, in this ruling. If the 2nd Circuit does not get it right, SCOTUS is going to KICK ASS, big time. Please read, very carefully, the 1st 3 sentences of the 3rd paragraph of that ruling. It lays it all out.
Gary
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,609 Posts
Gary pretty much covered it all, so I'll add a little bit, but keep it short so as not to be duplicative. Having read the decision (and nothing else), this is the best news we could have expected, even better actually, if it were not the decision we hoped for, but never expected to get. And if they wanted to "kick us in the teeth," they would have denied hearing the motion, never asked NY for their opinion, and denied to hear the actual case when Antontyuk appealed (presuming he lost the actual case at Second Circuit).

Instead, in no particular order, SCOTUS:

--Made NYS tip their hand on the arguments they will bring up.
--Told the Second Circuit (and all other appeals courts) exactly what they wanted them to do and then left them enough room to do it (far more powerful and better for us than a simple interlocutory motion).
--Told them to hurry up.
-- Showed us they are watching both Sinatra cases in the western district whose motions were NOT appealed to SCOTUS. This goes to point #2 above.
--Like Suddaby in the northern district when he rejected the first TRO on standing and again in the TRO he actually issued, practically gave the good guys F'ing runway lights on how to bring this thing in.
--Had the opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, THE GREATEST JUDGE ON THE SUPREME COURT, who wrote the McDonald decision that made Heller apply to the States, and concurred by Justice Thomas the SECOND GREATEST JUSTICE ON THE SUPREME COURT, and author of the Bruen decision. There is literally no one better on this issue in the entire country than those two.

While a ruling in your favor is always good, this has far greater long time better consequences for us than an unprecedented Hail Mary no one expected to get anyway. And this is happening in the context of far more higher quality rulings in favor of the 2A and in a shorter period of time than ever before in our lifetimes and US history for that matter.
 

· SASI Firearms Chairman, LISAPA Training Committee
Joined
·
7,350 Posts
Yeah I agree, but how long could that take?
SCOTUS has made it clear that the Justices want a quick appeal trial. That means weeks, maybe a few months, max, not years. If the 2nd Circuit Court sits on it, SCOTUS has made it clear that it will intervene, then leave raw egg all over the faces of the 2nd Circuit's judges. That's the last thing the 2nd Circuit wants, regardless of what Albany wants. 2nd Circuit knows what SCOTUS is demanding. Credibility, within the legal community, especially among judges, is infinitely more important than politics.
Gary
 

· SASI Firearms Chairman, LISAPA Training Committee
Joined
·
7,350 Posts
Can someone offer a quick summary? I don't want to break my Armed Scholar fast just yet.
There is no question that the way the CCIA adversely affects FFLs, in NYS and elsewhere, is unconstitutional. This is a request for another interlocutory action. I don’t see that it makes good case law or good legal procedure, trying to bypass the judicial process.
Gary
 

· SASI Firearms Chairman, LISAPA Training Committee
Joined
·
7,350 Posts
I believe this is the Gazzola v Hochul case.
Yes. That's the case. Original filing, plus request for injunction, attached. I would much rather see the suit go through each of the court levels, so that there can be no loopholes, through which NYS can use to make new regs. Having SCOTUS get involved, at this preliminary stage, would create the same types of problems with SCOTUS hearing the Antonyuk case, before the 2nd Circuit issues its ruling.
Gary
 

Attachments

· Registered
Joined
·
2,609 Posts
There is no question that the way the CCIA adversely affects FFLs, in NYS and elsewhere, is unconstitutional. This is a request for another interlocutory action. I don’t see that it makes good case law or good legal procedure, trying to bypass the judicial process.
Gary

I believe this is the Gazzola v Hochul case.
Thanks to you both.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,412 Posts
I'm at work and can only skin documents, but page 18 of the application for writ of injunction from 12/29/2022 is fantastic. "NYSRPA v. Bruen is the standard for the reasonable woman, as well as the proverbial "reasonable man". But it's Hochul and it's New York, and so, it's not reasonable."

Someone oughta call the burn ward
 
921 - 940 of 987 Posts
Top