New York's response in SCOTUS

In this unusual proceeding, does the other side have an opportunity to respond?

In this case, the state is "the other side" and they are responding, now Sotomayer will decide how she wants to stick a knife in the 2A . . . I mean, she will decide how she wants to uphold Bruen.

After an initial read, the fundamental problems with the response (this non "learned" attorney") notes is that NYS presumes all "guilty until proven innocent", does not recognize that the "powers" of government are delegated by the "people" (rather "rights" are granted by "government"), and ignores the fact that we do not have a pure democracy (the minority (even if a consequence of voter fraud) has rights), we live in a society wherein even "commander general" hochul cannot rule by edict.

I am no lawyer, but NYS's response is "SCOTUS should let the stay process percolate" and SCOTUS's reply might be "Then let the District Court's percolation proceed. Suddaby granted the injunction, live with it or expedite it instead of asking 2nd Circuit to stay it."

Antonyuk's reply is up on the USSC webpage, the blogger software won't allow posting the link.

Does NYS really think telling the USSC to STFU and MYOB is a winning strategy?

….Doc, as long as the Court has the same 6 Conservative justices, New York State is gonna lose their BRUEN challenge. They knew this going in. But “ Standing Up “ to Gun Owners has always been a winning political strategy in N.Y. State. The majority of folks there think guns are icky.

One wonders what other enumerated constitutional rights also should require proving your "good moral character", an interview with the government, and four character references.

"...having the essential character, temperament and judgement necessary to be entrusted with [free speech] and to use it only in a manner that does not endanger oneself or others.”

"...having the essential character, temperament and judgement necessary to be entrusted with [private property free from unreasonable search/seizure] and to use it only in a manner that does not endanger oneself or others.”

For NY it is a feature, they are hoping that it takes a while and one or more of those 6 leaves the bench somehow and a Dem is still president. That way maybe the makeup of the court will change in their favor

…..Yep, them Progs believe in magic. Maybe they believe a little more in grifting .
….When are the torts for denial of rights gunna be settled ? A couple mil for every gun owner or wanna be gun owner will do the trick. Take away the Demwitz play money and they may quit screwing with the 2nd Commandment.