Antonyuk 2 -- New GOA challenge to NY CCW law

[CurlyDave]

Over at mdshooters I found this link: http://https://twitter.com/2Aupdates/status/1613999722586427400?s=20&t=Ioyv2sX4CI7zwSQjp9voIQ

It looks like the 2CA has been spurred into action.

[Lanejsl]

Originally Posted by CurlyDave

Over at mdshooters I found this link: http://https://twitter.com/2Aupdates/status/1613999722586427400?s=20&t=Ioyv2sX4CI7zwSQjp9voIQ

It looks like the 2CA has been spurred into action.

They’ve had the case for a while now. This isn’t soon enough in my opinion.

[CurlyDave]

Originally Posted by Lanejsl

They’ve had the case for a while now. This isn’t soon enough in my opinion.

In the world of appeals courts, this is lightning speed. The only time they are faster is when they are taking gun rights away from us.

[Chewy65]

Correct me if I am wrong, but

1. The motion in the 2nd Circ to vacate District Court Judge Suddaby's Preliminary Junction was denied. At least I thought so.

2. The 2nd Circ has now set an expedited schedule for briefing and a hearing of the application to vacate the same PI.

So is the Suddaby PI still in effect in the 2nd Circ?

[CurlyDave]

Originally Posted by Chewy65

Correct me if I am wrong, but

1. The motion in the 2nd Circ to vacate District Court Judge Suddaby's Preliminary Junction was denied. At least I thought so.

2. The 2nd Circ has now set an expedited schedule for briefing and a hearing of the application to vacate the same PI.

So is the Suddaby PI still in effect in the 2nd Circ?

I think the way it went is that Judge Suddaby issued a TRO preventing enforcement of the law based on his analysis of the case and the plaintiffs' request.

The State then went to the 2CA and requested a stay of the TRO, which was granted, but with no reasoning given.

Plaintiffs they made a Hail Mary appeal to SCOTUS to vacate the stay. SCOTUS asked for briefings, but did not vacate the stay. OTOH they did encourage the Plaintiffs to come back if 2CA did not explain their reasoning and expedite the whole process.

So, the current status is that the law is now in effect, but there is an expedited hearing on 4 cases, including this one. Hearing is on 3/20/23. The 2CA has had their way with us yet again, but SCOTUS is watching and will only let them abuse us a little bit.

[ar15barrels]

Originally Posted by Chewy65

Correct me if I am wrong, but

1. The motion in the 2nd Circ to vacate District Court Judge Suddaby's Preliminary Junction was denied. At least I thought so.

2. The 2nd Circ has now set an expedited schedule for briefing and a hearing of the application to vacate the same PI.

So is the Suddaby PI still in effect in the 2nd Circ?

I think you have it wrong.

The 2nd circuit's stay of the PI is still in effect which means that the law is in effect because the stay stops the PI.

The 2nd circuit is expediting the hearing for the PI regardless of actually already issuing their stay.

[Chewy65]

Mea Culpa. Suddaby issues a PI, not a TRO, and the 2nd Circ issued the TRO staying that PI. I believe the expedited hearing in the Circ is for the purpose of determining whether to continue that TRO.

[gunuser17]

No reason to get too wrapped up in the legal terms of "preliminary injunction" and "TRO" They are both just preliminary relief that a district court can grant to prohibit the defendant from doing something while the case is pending. In some situations, a TRO can be granted before a defendant even appears in court. Here, the district court granted preliminary relief preventing the state from enforcing aspects of the new law. The Second Circuit said the the state can go ahead and enforce the law while the 2CA considers whether the district court's grant of the preliminary relief was appropriate - so the 2CA stayed the preliminary order entered by the district court.

[Librarian]

BRIEF FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, THE STATES OF ILLINOIS, CALIFORNIA, CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, HAWAII, MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, NEW JERSEY, OREGON, RHODE ISLAND, VERMONT, AND WASHINGTON, AND THE NORTHERN MARAIANA ISLANDS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS AND REVERSAL

https://t.co/ldvvF30kTS (to court listener)

Disport yourselves in enjoyment of the story.

[randomBytes]

Originally Posted by Librarian

BRIEF FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, THE STATES OF ILLINOIS, CALIFORNIA, CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, HAWAII, MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, NEW JERSEY, OREGON, RHODE ISLAND, VERMONT, AND WASHINGTON, AND THE NORTHERN MARAIANA ISLANDS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS AND REVERSAL

https://t.co/ldvvF30kTS (to court listener)

Disport yourselves in enjoyment of the story.

Their basic premise is false according to Bruen

[ritter]

Originally Posted by Librarian

BRIEF FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, THE STATES OF ILLINOIS, CALIFORNIA, CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, HAWAII, MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, NEW JERSEY, OREGON, RHODE ISLAND, VERMONT, AND WASHINGTON, AND THE NORTHERN MARAIANA ISLANDS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS AND REVERSAL

https://t.co/ldvvF30kTS (to court listener)

Disport yourselves in enjoyment of the story.

Holy interest balancing, batman. They forgot to say why declaring all private property a sensitive place is important to the children. And the minor omission of any history or tradition to show how analogous this all is.

[Chewy65]

I clearly don't comprehend how the Federal Courts work and expecially on appeals, but I am pleased to see that California has injected itself into this Second Circuit case if only as amici. By doing so won't it be all the more difficult for California to pretend that an adverse ruling by the Second Circ, which may be unlikely, or SCOTUS, which is likely, doesn't apply to California's laws.

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by Chewy65

I clearly don't comprehend how the Federal Courts work and expecially on appeals, but I am pleased to see that California has injected itself into this Second Circuit case if only as amici. By doing so won't it be all the more difficult for California to pretend that an adverse ruling by the Second Circ, which may be unlikely, or SCOTUS, which is likely, doesn't apply to California's laws.

Let's make it simple. A ruling by the 2d Circuit is only binding in the 2d Circuit, although it may be cited in other circuits as persuasive authority. A decision by SCOTUS is applicable and binding on all courts in all fifty states.

[ritter]

Originally Posted by TruOil

Let's make it simple. A ruling by the 2d Circuit is only binding in the 2d Circuit, although it may be cited in other circuits as persuasive authority. A decision by SCOTUS is applicable and binding on all courts in all fifty states.

Unless it's Heller or Buren. Then all manner or word weasels apply, the spirit, not so much.

[Chewy65]

Originally Posted by TruOil

Let's make it simple. A ruling by the 2d Circuit is only binding in the 2d Circuit, although it may be cited in other circuits as persuasive authority. A decision by SCOTUS is applicable and binding on all courts in all fifty states.

While still not binding, a decision by the 2d is very persuasive if it comments on arguments made by amicus, the State of California.

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by Chewy65

While still not binding, a decision by the 2d is very persuasive if it comments on arguments made by amicus, the State of California.

True, I was just trying to avoid making it too complicated. If the California amici brief--or the arguments it makes--are addressed in some fashion in the decision, certainly counsel for plaintiffs could make note of that in its briefings, i.e., "California previously made the same argument in support of similar regulations in...., which arguments were rejected by the Second Circuit in its ruling." I'd do it for sure.

[DolphinFan]

Well, after reading the brief, all I can say is they list no law that meets with the Text History or Tradition between 1790-1869.

They do make a compelling argument under a balancing standard that the court specifically said was no longer to be used.

I hope the SCOUTS steps in before the makeup of the court changes.

[ritter]

Originally Posted by DolphinFan

Well, after reading the brief, all I can say is they list no law that meets with the Text History or Tradition between 1790-1869.

They do make a compelling argument under a balancing standard that the court specifically said was no longer to be used.

I hope the SCOUTS steps in before the makeup of the court changes.

That's what I got out of it. I actually wonder why the states bothered. There's nothing in there that is relevant post-Breun.

[Bhobbs]

The states keep using interest balancing arguments because no one stops them.

[natman]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

The states keep using interest balancing arguments because no one stops them.

Not yet.

[Rickybillegas]

Originally Posted by DolphinFan

Well, after reading the brief, all I can say is they list no law that meets with the Text History or Tradition between 1790-1869.

They do make a compelling argument under a balancing standard that the court specifically said was no longer to be used.

I hope the SCOUTS steps in before the makeup of the court changes.

The makeup of the court is not likely to change for a long time.
Except for Thomas who is 74.5 years, all the other conservative justices are very young by most standards. If Thomas stays healthy, it would be easy to see him seated for another 6-8 years or more. Remember too, they all (6) signed on to Bruen, so even if Thomas falls ill, The rest will be compelled to defend the ruling they concurred with. They had the courage to overturn Roe.

[Rickybillegas]

Just looked up. Average retirement age for SCOTUS justices is 81 years.
Let's hope we have Thomas for more than that. One of the finest justices ever.

[ritter]

Originally Posted by CurlyDave

Over at mdshooters I found this link: http://https://twitter.com/2Aupdates/status/1613999722586427400?s=20&t=Ioyv2sX4CI7zwSQjp9voIQ

It looks like the 2CA has been spurred into action.

March 20 is Monday. Anyone know if it will be publicly available to watch or listen to? All 4 carry cases to be heard, according to the link above.

[Rickybillegas]

This is a big case for us if it goes our way. Whatever the decision, it is not binding on CA. but could have significant influence on getting our legislators not to mention circuit Judges to think about what they are doing.

Remember, last year SB918 had narrowly lost an urgency vote. all R members vote no, and about 6-7 D members also voted no. It was mentioned in several news reports that a many legislators were arguing on the floor about the constitutionality of the some of the proposals.
So at least they gave that some consideration.

OTOH, if it does not go our way, SCOTUS has indicated they may intervene on an emergency request. Even better if that happens.

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by ritter

March 20 is Monday. Anyone know if it will be publicly available to watch or listen to? All 4 carry cases to be heard, according to the link above.

If I recall correctly, none of these cases are on the merits yet, but simply address whether the trial courts erred in issuing preliminary injunctions barring enforcement of the new laws pending trial. The correct standard of review is whether or not the trial courts "abused their discretion" in issuing the injunctions, not whether the new laws are unconstitutional. That cannot be addressed, technically speaking, until issuance of a permanent injunction.

[ritter]

Originally Posted by TruOil

If I recall correctly, none of these cases are on the merits yet, but simply address whether the trial courts erred in issuing preliminary injunctions barring enforcement of the new laws pending trial. The correct standard of review is whether or not the trial courts "abused their discretion" in issuing the injunctions, not whether the new laws are unconstitutional. That cannot be addressed, technically speaking, until issuance of a permanent injunction.

I think that's right. Also, there's the "put up or shut up" directive from SCOTUS. We'll see.

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by Rickybillegas

This is a big case for us if it goes our way. Whatever the decision, it is not binding on CA. but could have significant influence on getting our legislators not to mention circuit Judges to think about what they are doing.

If it doesn?t ?go our way? the result would be the same, but less favorable to us.

Originally Posted by Rickybillegas

OTOH, if it does not go our way, SCOTUS has indicated they may intervene on an emergency request. Even better if that happens.

That seems overly generous considering what Justice Alito 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.

Alito opened the door for additional redress if and only if the CA2 did not either explain its ruling or, alternatively, expedite a hearing. The CA2 has expedited the hearing, satisfying Alito?s caution. That game is over.

I am sure CA2’s future decisions on these, and other cases, will be complete and detailed.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by Dvrjon

...
I am sure CA2?s future decisions on these, and other cases, will be complete and detailed.

Really? Would that not be the equivalent of a tiger changing its stripes?

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by BAJ475

Really? Would that not be the equivalent of a tiger changing its stripes?

Yes, really. They?ve been warned by SCOTUS.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by Dvrjon

Yes, really. They?ve been warned by SCOTUS.

There is no dispute that they have been warned by SCOTUS. The question is will they heed that warning or will they continue to do what the Circuits did after Heller? If the recent decision out of the 11th Circuit in Jones v. Bonti is any guide the Circuits will continue to thumb their noses at SCOTUS.

[spalterego]

Per a standing Order

August 29, 2022 ? In-Person Court Proceedings and Other Court Operations at the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit - Chief Judge Debra Ann Livingston has announced that when the Court?s 2022-2023 Term begins on Tuesday, September 6, 2022, oral arguments will be held in person at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, as they have since August 2021. In addition, the courtroom will be open to the public, with overflow space available as the Court determines. The audio livestream of oral argument will continue.

All oral arguments will be audio livestreamed. Click here for the livestream link.

I believe this MAY be the link. https://ww2.ca2.uscourts.gov/court.html

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by spalterego

Per a standing Order

August 29, 2022 ? In-Person Court Proceedings and Other Court Operations at the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit - Chief Judge Debra Ann Livingston has announced that when the Court?s 2022-2023 Term begins on Tuesday, September 6, 2022, oral arguments will be held in person at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, as they have since August 2021. In addition, the courtroom will be open to the public, with overflow space available as the Court determines. The audio livestream of oral argument will continue.

All oral arguments will be audio livestreamed. Click here for the livestream link.

I believe this MAY be the link. https://ww2.ca2.uscourts.gov/court.html

Assuming that this link will work, does anyone have a time?

[spalterego]

This post was confusing so I have deleted in favor of the one below.

[spalterego]

I believe argument on the combined 4 cases is scheduled to begin at 10:00 am with nearly 2 hours devoted to argument. https://www.huntcal.com/cal/eventvie...gc=ffffff&bg=w

[Foothills]

Originally Posted by spalterego

I believe argument on the combined 4 cases is scheduled to begin at 10:00 am with nearly 2 hours devoted to argument. https://www.huntcal.com/cal/eventvie...gc=ffffff&bg=w

Looks like 10am Monday 3/20

[Rickybillegas]

Can anyone explain the process before us and how long this might go on before some kind of decision?

[Fyathyrio]

Four Boxes Diner breaks down the three judge panel here, he isn't too pleased with a NY "Republican" judge, a recent Biden nomination, and one Obama nominated. These cases include the Antonyuk one sent to USSC for a total lack of any substance in the ruling; one that the USSC declined to hear at that moment, but told the 2CA to follow precedent and that they were watching closely.

[spalterego]

These cases are almost pure questions of law. At the district court level in Antonyuk, there to the district court for a preliminary injunction which the court granted, prohibiting the state from enforcing many parts of the new concealed carry improvement act CCIA.

The state appealed and while the case is on appeal the appellate court steed the district courts preliminary injunction. This means that the CCIA is enforceable In the time the preliminary inJunction is on appeal. The hearing tomorrow is to decide the appeal: I.e. to affirm the district court was correct or not in granting the Prelim. Inj.

Since this is almost a pure question of law, the PI will almost certainly be nearly identical with the full final decision.

Since the 2nd cir. (In response to nudging by the SCt) is moving quickly I would expect a decision within 4 months which is actually pretty fast as these things go. Dont expect a decision tomorrow. If the court is really fast, 1-2 months.

[Rickybillegas]

Good explanation. So there's no sense in getting too worked up about how it goes tomorrow or the next few days or even weeks. It will take some time. As the above poster mentioned, the Judges to hear the case are not favorable to 2nd amendment, but they know SCOTUS is watching, so we must hope they will rule with integrity and follow BRUEN.

[Rickybillegas]

And let's hope plaintiff counsel presents a strong and persuasive case