Antonyuk 2 -- New GOA challenge to NY CCW law

[Fyathyrio]

@fourboxesdiner will live twitfacegram the proceedings tomorrow. There is also an audio link in the vid description for those that want to just listen to the court.

[bigstick61]

Originally Posted by Rickybillegas

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

Steve Stambouleigh does pretty well.

[JDoe]

Originally Posted by Fyathyrio

@fourboxesdiner will live twitfacegram the proceedings tomorrow. There is also an audio link in the vid description for those that want to just listen to the court.

Thanks here is the link to listen

https://www.youtube.com/live/tgMrgsaB-2o?feature=share




#Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.
#Let?s go Brandon!
#FJB

[abinsinia]

The judges don't seem as anti rights as I expected.

[ritter]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

The judges don't seem as anti rights as I expected.

No, but will that overcome their anti gun perspective? At least one judge seems interested in trying to conform to Bruen. It was nice to hear some resistance to the social media requirement from the panel.

[ritter]

Listened to most of it. I'll be shocked if they don't find for the state and uphold their injunction on all cases. There are interests to be balanced, after all. Back to SCOTUS we will go.

[BlueOvalBandit]

Not super hopeful... Overall judges seemed hostile to 2A attorney's, like they were fishing for ways to avoid Bruen decision. Hopefully I'm wrong in my reading of the tea leaves.

Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by BlueOvalBandit

Not super hopeful... Overall judges seemed hostile to 2A attorney's, like they were fishing for ways to avoid Bruen decision. Hopefully I'm wrong in my reading of the tea leaves.

Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk

The judges needed to push on the 2A side to fully flesh out and evaluate the reasoning being presented. This is all new and subject to interpretation and it seems reasonable to poke and prod the issue before writing a detailed opinion for SCOTUS to review.

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by BlueOvalBandit

Not super hopeful... Overall judges seemed hostile to 2A attorney's, like they were fishing for ways to avoid Bruen decision. Hopefully I'm wrong in my reading of the tea leaves.

Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk

You can often tell the bent of the Court by listening to the questions, but you have to be able to distinguish between big fat soft balls tossed up to give one side a shot at hitting it out of the park and questions demonstrating an animus to the position being argued. So one needs to listen to the argument of the State and the nature of the questions asked of it as well. Remember also that in one of these cases, two western state AGs argued that the laws were unconstitutional and that the injunctions should remain in place, leaving only the Director of the State Police as arguing for a reversal. Adding Bruen into the mix, although it is only tangentially the issue presented, strongly argues for sustaining the trial courts' actions.

I am waiting to see if the Second toes the Bruen line or tries to come up with reasons for subverting its holding and intent, much as the NY law was intended to do.

[Dr.Lou]

Will they risk the considerable likelihood of incorporation just to maintain their Anti gun ideals

[spalterego]

I feel pretty confident that they believe Plaintiffs (mostly) had standing, so they won't dismiss on lack of standing and will thus have to address the merits of the case. This makes an appeal (petition for certiorari) to the SCt likelier, easier and more productive.

I sensed some hostility but I think we will get a split baby. I think churches and parks (at least rural parks) are likely to be found NOT sensitive places. Everything else I don't have any real strong sense either way. I give social media access a 55/45 chance in our favor. I wish I had a feel for private property/businesses (requiring an affirmative permission) but I don't. Some positive sounds some negative statements/feelings.

[Paladin]

One month down, 5 to 11 more to go.

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by spalterego

I feel pretty confident that they believe Plaintiffs (mostly) had standing, so they won't dismiss on lack of standing and will thus have to address the merits of the case. This makes an appeal (petition for certiorari) to the SCt likelier, easier and more productive.

I sensed some hostility but I think we will get a split baby. I think churches and parks (at least rural parks) are likely to be found NOT sensitive places. Everything else I don't have any real strong sense either way. I give social media access a 55/45 chance in our favor. I wish I had a feel for private property/businesses (requiring an affirmative permission) but I don't. Some positive sounds some negative statements/feelings.

You are jumping the gun, since the case is only an appeal of the grant of a preliminary injunction, and the appeals court decision is not a final decision on the merits. Possible that the Supreme Court wold grant review at this stage (it has before), but not guaranteed; review of interlocutory decisions is rarely granted.

[spalterego]

What made you think I was discussing the Supremes
And not the 2nd Cir. Panel?

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by spalterego

What made you think I was discussing the Supremes
And not the 2nd Cir. Panel?

Try reading again. What I said, perhaps inartfully, was that after the Second decides this interim appeal, there is not likely to be an avenue of further appeal to SCOTUS at this juncture. SCOTUS typically does not grant review--in the few cases it takes--until a final judgment is entered to allow full development of the factual record. AS has been said by me and others elsewhere, the merits are only relevant in determining whether the trial court "abused its discretion" in issuing a preliminary injunction pending trial. The question of for which the merits are relevant is simply whether the plaintiffs have shown a substantial probability of success on the merits.

[ritter]

Orals were March 20. It is not May 15. Expedited my ***.

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by ritter

Orals were March 20. It is not May 15. Expedited my ***.

The requirement was to expedite briefing/consideration, not the Decision.

Alito:

In parallel cases presenting related issues, the Second Circuit has likewise issued unreasoned summary stay orders, but in those cases it has ordered expedited briefing.[]

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.

[ritter]

Originally Posted by Dvrjon

The requirement was to expedite briefing/consideration, not the Decision.

Alito:

Tongue in cheek I'm sure, but "expedite consideration of the appeal" would lead one to believe a conclusion of some sort is included in "consideration." But, it is law, so subject to whatever interpretation one can think up.

[Bhobbs]

Of course they aren’t actually going to expedite the ruling. They expedited the briefs to shut up SCOTUS and went back to not caring what SCOTUS wants.

Same thing that will happen with Naperville. Pretend to comply so SCOTUS is satisfied, then drag it out until the court packing can be completed.

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

Of course they aren?t actually going to expedite the ruling. They expedited the briefs to shut up SCOTUS and went back to not caring what SCOTUS wants.

Same thing that will happen with Naperville. Pretend to comply so SCOTUS is satisfied, then drag it out until the court packing can be completed.

If any of you think that any review in a Court of Appeal happens quickly, you are sadly mistaken. All that happens is that once the briefs are filed the case is put in queue with all of the other pending cases, and when it comes up, it comes up. Without any intentional delay, that process can take a very long time indeed, a couple of years even. At best, they are put in a shorter line for interim appeals, since the case below is continuing unless the action ahs been stayed. In this case, only the effect of the ruling is stays, as far as I know, so the parties could theoretically move to summary judgment/trial before the Second Circuit acts. In fact, if I were plaintiffs, I would certainly attempt to do so to avoid the risk that the Circuit Court tries to decide the merits and direct the trial court's ultimate ruling. Right now, technically, all it has to decide is whether the trial court "abused its discretion" in issuing a TRO, a decision that required only a showing of probable success on the merits and irreparable harm.