Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« "in common use" | Main | Fat chance »

New York's response in SCOTUS

Posted by David Hardy · 4 January 2023 10:48 AM

Its response in the Supreme Court, in that case where the Court may be looking to rebuke both New York and the Second Circuit. It'd be a good response if this were the ordinary appeal, which it is not.

11 Comments | Leave a comment

Jeff | January 4, 2023 11:57 AM | Reply

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

Fyathyrio | January 4, 2023 1:59 PM | Reply

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.

Sisu | January 4, 2023 7:56 PM | Reply

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.

Fyooz | January 5, 2023 9:56 AM | Reply

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."

Fyathyrio | January 5, 2023 8:02 PM | Reply

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

Flight-ER-Doc | January 6, 2023 12:01 PM | Reply

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

Dave D. | January 7, 2023 7:32 AM | Reply

….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.

Anonymous | January 7, 2023 10:12 AM | Reply

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.”

Old Guy replied to comment from Dave D. | January 7, 2023 11:55 AM | Reply

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

Dave D. | January 8, 2023 7:59 AM | Reply

…..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.

Fyooz | January 8, 2023 6:08 PM | Reply

"does the other side have an opportunity to respond?"

If you mean Antonyuk, yes, and his legal team did respond. If you can find the SCOTUS web page where NY's document is served, Antonyuk's reply is there too, and it is on fire.

Leave a comment