SASI

    If you’ve been following what’s happening, in the courts, as respects 2nd Amendment legislation, in NYS, you can’t help but be confused. Several federal courts have issued very pro-2A decisions, only to have them placed on hold, by the 2nd Circuit Court.
    Now, that the 2nd Circuit Court has placed every one of those federal courts’ decisions on hold, without explanation, Gun Owners of America (GOA) has moved to have the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS), review those apparently arbitrary holds. GOA was the driving force, behind the Antonyuk suit, which resulted in essentially dismantling NY’s clearly unconstitutional Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA). The appeal was assigned to Justice Sotomayor, a notoriously anti-2A justice but she is bound, as a SCOTUS Justice, by the prior SCOTUS’ decisions, in Heller 1, Heller 2, McDonald and, most recently, Bruen.
    She gave NYS a very short time, in which to make its case for not overruling the 2nd Circuit Court’s holds. NYS presented its case, on January 3rd, after which GOA replied, with its response to NY’s presentation.
    On January 11th, the SCOTUS issued a ruling, on the appeal of the stay of execution and, in doing so, declined to overrule the 2nd Circuit Court’s stay.
    On the surface, that might appear to be an anti-2A ruling. In fact, I see it as the exact opposite. SCOTUS wants it to go through the legal system so that, when it gets back to SCOTUS, they can destroy the CCIA, plus the anti-2A groups and anti-2A thinking processes, completely. By then, all of the arguments, which the anti crowd can dream up, will have been made and SCOTUS will have an unfettered hand, to apply the Bruen decision, plus its thoughts on the actions of NYS, in trying to get around the Bruen decision.
    You should read, very carefully, the first 3 sentences, in paragraph 3 of their ruling. They read as follows: “The New York law, at issue, in this application, presents novel and serious questions, under both the First and the Second Amendments. The District Court found, in a thorough opinion, that the applicants were likely to succeed, on a number of their claims and it issued a preliminary injunction, as to twelve provisions of the challenged law. With one exception, the Second Circuit issued a stay of the injunction, in full and, in doing so, did not provide any explanation for its ruling.” (Emphasis added)
    NYS, in its arrogance, is doing, for us, what we could never have accomplished, on our own, by totally disrespecting the SCOTUS and, in the process, committing legal suicide. We could not have made a better case than NYS is making, against itself and the anti-2A concept. NYS and any other jurisdiction, attempting to circumvent the Bruen decision, will pay for it, in spades, with the new Antonyuk decision. I expect the SCOTUS' ruling, in Antonyuk, to make the Bruen decision look like a footnote to a mild slap.

Gary

As most of your have, by now, heard, the GOA v Bruen suit was not successful, in obtaining its requested injunction, once Mr. Antonyuk changed his testimony, to claim that he had no problems, with any portion of the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA).

While the judge explained that he could not issue the injunction, because of the change in Mr. Antonyuk's testimony, he also explained, in detail, how, where and why the CCIA was, clearly, unconstitutional and that, had Mr. Antonyuk not changed his testimony, the injunction would have been issued.

Immediately, on the heals of the federal court's inability to issue the injunction, because of Mr. Antonyuk's changed testimony, NYSRPA filed a new suit, addressing many of the same issues as raised in the failed suit but, this time, with plaintiffs with confirmed "legal standing" (legalese, for vested interest).

The main problem, as I see it, with the new NYSRPA suit, is that it astonishingly avoids any complaint about the semi-auto rifle license and the age barrier presented along with it.

A copy of that new suit is attached, for your review.

Gary

NY's Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) is a punitive attempt, by the Democrat governor and Democrat-controlled state legislature, to circumvent the Supreme Court's decision in NYSRPA v Bruen, the explanation of both of which can be read, above.

As of this writing, three lawsuits have, already, been filed, against multiple of NYS' apparently unConstitutional firearms "control" laws, based on the Bruen decision, which NYS seems intent to violate, in every way it thinks possible or imaginable.

A copy of each of the lawsuits is attached, for your reading but in summary, they are as follows:

1) Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. v James (2:22-cv-04075) (to have NY’s “assault weapon” ban declared unConstitutional), GOA v Bruen (1:22-cv-00734-GTS-CFH) (to obtain an injunction, preventing implementation of NY’s so-called Concealed Carry Improvement Act, then have it’s terms declared unConstitutional) and 3) Paladino v Bruen (1:22-cv-00541) (to void NY’s so-called Concealed Carry Improvement Act as violations of the 1st, 2nd, 5th  and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution.

Gary

Now, that I've had some time to read and digest this decision, I'm prepared to present my analysis.

    I am not an attorney and, therefore, what I’m saying should not be construed as legal advise or anything other than my personal opinion, about my interpretation of what I believe to be the plain and clear language of the Bruen decision.
    Those of us, myself included, who believed that the ramifications of this decision were going to be huge were WRONG. Hear me out.
    Much of this decision is based on the language of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, as well as the entirety of the 2nd Amendment. For those, for whom the text of that section of the 14th Amendment does not come to immediate mind (myself included), it reads as follows:
“Section 1
    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
    I’ve highlighted the two portions of that Section of the 14th Amendment which I believe to be the crux of much of the Bruen decision.
    The fact that the decision was based on a combination of interpretations of the 2nd and 14th Amendments takes the ramifications thereof completely out of the realm of huge, then places it, squarely, in the footprint of MONUMENTAL.
    Here’s how I see what this SCOTUS decision has done:
    1) all “red flag” laws are VOID,
    2) O’Brien v Keegan, 87 N. Y. 2d 436, 438–439, 663 N.E. 2d 316, 316–317 (1996) (the NY decision which granted licensing authorities as much issuing discretion as they felt appropriate) is now VOID,
    3) the concepts of “proper cause,” “special circumstances,” “special need,” “extraordinary need” or any similar euphemisms, used by licensing agents, are VOID and, therefore, any “administrative restrictions,” which were only made valid, by the Keegan decision, are, now, also, invalid and VOID,
    4) this decision does not apply just to NYC or NYS but to every square inch of this country; every state, territory and DC are subject to and must abide by it; it’s a country-wide decision, affecting all citizens,
    5) ALL states and other levels of government MUST recognize and honor the firearms license and/or Constitutional Carry status of any citizen of any other state or city; therefore, there can no longer be a separate requirement, within NYS, for an NYC “endorsement” to one’s license or a separate NYC license (14th A’s equal protection clause, above),
    6) the concept of “sensitive places,” where firearms will not be allowed to be carried, is going to be defined very narrowly, by SCOTUS, regardless of what any state’s, county’s or city’s ordinance may claim to be a “sensitive place,”
    7) anyone, who violates the Bruen decision, can be personally subject to the penalties of 42 US Code §1983 (violation of Constitutional rights); violations of this section of federal law are federal felonies, subjecting anyone convicted thereof to imprisonment and fines. While there is a “qualified immunity” feature, in that statute, for governmental officials, the immunity does not apply to intentional violations and any refusal, to conform to a SCOTUS decision, could only be viewed as an intentional violation of rights.

    Now, all we have to do is wait for the MD law suit (Maryland Shall Issue, Inc., et al, v. Lawrence Hogan, governor of Maryland, et al [case 1:16-cv-03311-ELH]) to be heard by SCOTUS, to clarify that no license or other form of governmental approval is needed, to exercise any Constitutionally-protected right. Add to that, the NJ-based suit of ANJRPC v. Grewal (US Court of Appeals, case #19-3142), which is challenging the Constitutionality of the concept and civilian prohibition of possession of so-called “high capacity” magazines. to be heard by SCOTUS, to clarify that no license or other form of governmental approval is needed, to exercise any Constitutionally-protected right.

Gary