New York Defies Supreme Court Ruling And Now Is In Serious Trouble!!!

[Steal2B]

In this video an attorney (Anthony Miranda is an attorney in California) breaks down an important lawsuit by GOA against the state of New York and their new concealed carry law which directly defies the Supreme Courts ruling in NYSRPA v. Bruen!

 

[Celt]

Ill watch this later. The new laws going into effect MUST be struck down, they are ABSURD!

 

[prambo]

Ill watch this later. The new laws going into effect MUST be struck down, they are ABSURD!

Yes, they are.

But NYS is the "cornerstone" of Retard Nation, and must act like it.

 

[libertysnake]

Ill watch this later. The new laws going into effect MUST be struck down, they are ABSURD!

Struck down, at the very least.

I want to see prison time. I want to see politicians in court, charged, and in jail over this.

 

[Steal2B]

I want to see politicians in court, charged, and in jail over this.

Some may suggest a tax saving alternative

 

[misunderestimated]

Yes, they are.

But NYS is the "cornerstone" of Retard Nation, and must act like it.

I dont think its politicaly correct to say RETARDED any more I think your suposed to say " Hochul"

 

[Dr. Evil]

Yes, they are.

But NYS is the "cornerstone" of Retard Nation, and must act like it.

NY is the equivalent of the student that rides the little yellow bus.

 

[John Stark]

NYS is the "cornerstone" of Retard Nation, and must act like it.

Didn't know you golfed! Hole in one right there!

NY politicians must answer to their one world masters, just as the rest of us.

Its no coincidence that guns are mostly banned in NY City, given that it is the defacto capitol of one world government, where all of the BIG TIME thieves and mass murderers rule through the UN and plot their take down of the last few hold outs that have not yet bent the knew to the ruling principalities who work to usher in the era of the AntiChrist.

I honestly did not think I'd see the godless agenda pushed so hard and so fast in my lifetime, as the incremental approach ongoing since WW2 was working so well for them. It is sad and utterly pathetic how far they have gotten since the inauguration of the Obamanation. May Almighty God curse him to hell forever.

We are strangers in a strange land my friend.

 

[John Stark]

Some may suggest a tax saving alternative
View attachment 171268

To think that a structure that could be built for such a small price could provide so much profit to a nation if used wisely and judiciously, and give high revenue streams potentially into perpetuity if well maintained and used!

Bravo!

 

[Acer-m14]

 

[Deplorable Me]

Will we qualify for civil rights reparations?

 

[Phazer]

Will we qualify for civil rights reparations?

That'd be a tax refund. Wouldn't it?

 

[1075tech]

View attachment 171371

Why has no one sued the state for civil rights violations?

 

[John Stark]

Why has no one sued the state for civil rights violations?

My guess is someone would have to be jammed up to even think about doing so.

The other issue is "have standing" with any court. Without having been wronged in some manner (denied a permit, arrested for having something that is a no-no, etc.), it seems tough to get any action out of the only courts that matter (the higher appellate courts and of course SCOTUS).

Then there is the matter of money. The Heller decision cost at least $5-6 million, and that was with (IIRC) some of the work done pro bono. Also, that does not take into account all the time that Heller (the actual plaintiff) was never compensated for in any manner.

The "standing" issue is garbage in a lot of ways. The courts should rule on obvious things that are clear violations of Rights, extremely punitive laws coming out of the legislative branch (like civil fines so high that they are intended to bankrupt anyone bring suit and to inhibit legal action, what some call "lawfare" as a form of warfare), and so on. There are certainly times where it makes sense to not have standing (i.e., frivolous lawsuits where the plaintiff has no connection or legitimate grievance to the entity they are suing at all), but the courts use this legal doctrine as a blunt tool instead of as the scalpel it ought to be, as well as a way to offer an excuse why they will not review a case (the old "my hands are tied here" nonsense).

IMO the notion of standing is overly broad and applied mechanically when far, far more often than it should be. Further, it serves as a convenient means for the so-called courts to play politics with rulings and to let bad laws and other rulings stand. This is obviously detrimental given the fact that even when standing issues can or should be resolved, like anything litigated in our "modern" anti-Constitutional regimes, it can take years to resolve the matter.

We can see that with the Strict Scrutiny debacle that has been ongoing since 2008 and the Heller decision; to wit, how the states and lower courts (both Fed and State courts) have not approached Heller with the proper scrutiny that was clearly required in 2008, and with the fact that the Supremes slow walked the bullshit on Strict Scrutiny for 14 years since by not taking up cases to defend their own landmark decisions. Standing falls into this same trap.

Arrest is the surest way to MAYBE get relief, but is obviously the hardest and most dangerous, as it provide more options and MIGHT expedite a case. No one wants to go that route, but some are forced to anyways because of the new snitch laws and other past egregious violations of Rights that now trap otherwise law-abiding citizens for things that ought not be illegal in the first place because of Fundamental Rights.

Further, we have the problem of the administrative state making their own arbitraty laws without actually going through the legislature, and the vicious ways the Fed and State bully boys enforce their garbage administrative "determinations" and "rules."

The Fed Coats obviously have the power to take down even a duly elected President (Nixon and Trump to name the obvious one, but others have faced the onslaught and barely survived) and other elected officials, even with all of the power and immunity to those kinds of lawless machinations. In comparison, the rest of us are pond scum and grist for the totalitarian machinery.

This is obviously just a synopsis of the problems any regular Joe faces in trying to get any relief from the open and blatant Tyranny that is stalking this land and reducing our status as free men. The real situation is far worse than I have briefly outlined here.

ETA: I once thought long and hard about allowing myself to be arrested for exercising my fundamental Rights, but chose not to because of the severe repercussions to my family, as well as the fact that I do not have the money to fund what would be a very expensive battle over criminal felony charges wherein I would refuse to take a plea deal and likely end up in the slam for decades.

 

[Steal2B]

My guess is someone would have to be jammed up to even think about doing so.

The other issue is "have standing" with any court. Without having been wronged in some manner (denied a permit, arrested for having something that is a no-no, etc.), it seems tough to get any action out of the only courts that matter (the higher appellate courts and of course SCOTUS).

Then there is the matter of money. The Heller decision cost at least $5-6 million, and that was with (IIRC) some of the work done pro bono. Also, that does not take into account all the time that Heller (the actual plaintiff) was never compensated for in any manner.

The "standing" issue is garbage in a lot of ways. The courts should rule on obvious things that are clear violations of Rights, extremely punitive laws coming out of the legislative branch (like civil fines so high that they are intended to bankrupt anyone bring suit and to inhibit legal action, what some call "lawfare" as a form of warfare), and so on. There are certainly times where it makes sense to not have standing (i.e., frivolous lawsuits where the plaintiff has no connection or legitimate grievance to the entity they are suing at all), but the courts use this legal doctrine as a blunt tool instead of as the scalpel it ought to be, as well as a way to offer an excuse why they will not review a case (the old "my hands are tied here" nonsense).

IMO the notion of standing is overly broad and applied mechanically when far, far more often than it should be. Further, it serves as a convenient means for the so-called courts to play politics with rulings and to let bad laws and other rulings stand. This is obviously detrimental given the fact that even when standing issues can or should be resolved, like anything litigated in our "modern" anti-Constitutional regimes, it can take years to resolve the matter.

We can see that with the Strict Scrutiny debacle that has been ongoing since 2008 and the Heller decision; to wit, how the states and lower courts (both Fed and State courts) have not approached Heller with the proper scrutiny that was clearly required in 2008, and with the fact that the Supremes slow walked the bullshit on Strict Scrutiny for 14 years since by not taking up cases to defend their own landmark decisions. Standing falls into this same trap.

Arrest is the surest way to MAYBE get relief, but is obviously the hardest and most dangerous, as it provide more options and MIGHT expedite a case. No one wants to go that route, but some are forced to anyways because of the new snitch laws and other past egregious violations of Rights that now trap otherwise law-abiding citizens for things that ought not be illegal in the first place because of Fundamental Rights.

Further, we have the problem of the administrative state making their own arbitraty laws without actually going through the legislature, and the vicious ways the Fed and State bully boys enforce their garbage administrative "determinations" and "rules."

The Fed Coats obviously have the power to take down even a duly elected President (Nixon and Trump to name the obvious one, but others have faced the onslaught and barely survived) and other elected officials, even with all of the power and immunity to those kinds of lawless machinations. In comparison, the rest of us are pond scum and grist for the totalitarian machinery.

This is obviously just a synopsis of the problems any regular Joe faces in trying to get any relief from the open and blatant Tyranny that is stalking this land and reducing our status as free men. The real situation is far worse than I have briefly outlined here.

ETA: I once thought long and hard about allow myself to be arrested for exercising my fundamental Rights, but chose not to because of the server repercussions to my family, as well as the fact that I do not have the money to fund what would be a very expensive battle over criminal felony charges wherein I would refuse to take a plea deal and likely end up in the slam for decades.

There are many with real standing who are not being championed by the so called 2A defenders (that I sort of feel like a chump for financially supporting) who seem to like Fudds more than victims as candidates to defend.

The new carry bans put concealed carriers with for cause death threats at risk.

I'm buying powerball and megamillions tickets for an opportunity to help champion this horseshit of the entire state being an exclusion zone. I realize these lotteries are pretty much a tax on those who can not do math, but what the hell ... gotta do something.

 

[John Stark]

There are many with real standing who are not being championed by the so called 2A defenders (that I sort of feel like a chump for financially supporting) who seem to like Fudds more than victims as candidates to defend.

I agree with you on this completely. Some of the plaintiffs in these cases are abysmal.

 

[Steal2B]

I agree with you on this completely. Some of the plaintiffs in these cases are abysmal.

I am starting to believe using Fudd plantiffs, instead of searching within the significant pool of victims or 2A advocates, is about increasing the numbers of the donor pool from the Fudd ranks. It is a business and not just championing a cause or winning the case.

 

[Shadow2]

Anyone know what the complaint that was heard last week is called? GOA vs NY?

 

[Saltwater60]

What trouble is nys in? Nothing will happen even if we win every part of every lawsuit.

 

[Egret-II]

What trouble is nys in? Nothing will happen even if we win every part of every lawsuit.

That's why they continue doing their thing. Just like the criminals the keep releasing every day. They know there are no consequences to their actions.

 

[pshift]

Actions have consequences, except in NYS.

 

[spat]

My guess is someone would have to be jammed up to even think about doing so.

The other issue is "have standing" with any court. Without having been wronged in some manner (denied a permit, arrested for having something that is a no-no, etc.), it seems tough to get any action out of the only courts that matter (the higher appellate courts and of course SCOTUS).

Then there is the matter of money. The Heller decision cost at least $5-6 million, and that was with (IIRC) some of the work done pro bono. Also, that does not take into account all the time that Heller (the actual plaintiff) was never compensated for in any manner.

The "standing" issue is garbage in a lot of ways. The courts should rule on obvious things that are clear violations of Rights, extremely punitive laws coming out of the legislative branch (like civil fines so high that they are intended to bankrupt anyone bring suit and to inhibit legal action, what some call "lawfare" as a form of warfare), and so on. There are certainly times where it makes sense to not have standing (i.e., frivolous lawsuits where the plaintiff has no connection or legitimate grievance to the entity they are suing at all), but the courts use this legal doctrine as a blunt tool instead of as the scalpel it ought to be, as well as a way to offer an excuse why they will not review a case (the old "my hands are tied here" nonsense).

IMO the notion of standing is overly broad and applied mechanically when far, far more often than it should be. Further, it serves as a convenient means for the so-called courts to play politics with rulings and to let bad laws and other rulings stand. This is obviously detrimental given the fact that even when standing issues can or should be resolved, like anything litigated in our "modern" anti-Constitutional regimes, it can take years to resolve the matter.

We can see that with the Strict Scrutiny debacle that has been ongoing since 2008 and the Heller decision; to wit, how the states and lower courts (both Fed and State courts) have not approached Heller with the proper scrutiny that was clearly required in 2008, and with the fact that the Supremes slow walked the bullshit on Strict Scrutiny for 14 years since by not taking up cases to defend their own landmark decisions. Standing falls into this same trap.

Arrest is the surest way to MAYBE get relief, but is obviously the hardest and most dangerous, as it provide more options and MIGHT expedite a case. No one wants to go that route, but some are forced to anyways because of the new snitch laws and other past egregious violations of Rights that now trap otherwise law-abiding citizens for things that ought not be illegal in the first place because of Fundamental Rights.

Further, we have the problem of the administrative state making their own arbitraty laws without actually going through the legislature, and the vicious ways the Fed and State bully boys enforce their garbage administrative "determinations" and "rules."

The Fed Coats obviously have the power to take down even a duly elected President (Nixon and Trump to name the obvious one, but others have faced the onslaught and barely survived) and other elected officials, even with all of the power and immunity to those kinds of lawless machinations. In comparison, the rest of us are pond scum and grist for the totalitarian machinery.

This is obviously just a synopsis of the problems any regular Joe faces in trying to get any relief from the open and blatant Tyranny that is stalking this land and reducing our status as free men. The real situation is far worse than I have briefly outlined here.

ETA: I once thought long and hard about allowing myself to be arrested for exercising my fundamental Rights, but chose not to because of the severe repercussions to my family, as well as the fact that I do not have the money to fund what would be a very expensive battle over criminal felony charges wherein I would refuse to take a plea deal and likely end up in the slam for decades.

The new social media requirements will cause an unconstitutional "chilling" of free speech for anyone who even thinks they might want to get a permit in the future.

That's a pretty low bar for standing.

Hell someone outside NY could say they are afraid to speak their mind on their Facebook page because they might move to NY and want a permit eventually.

The 1st ammendment violation is caused the minute you think twice about a post because of it. You don't need an actual permit denial.

 

[Cooolone]

On exhibition will be whether or not the SCOTUS actually has teeth or not to effectuate their rulings and guidance!

The State of NY, thru NY City, basically made a mockery of the Nation's highest Court when they promised to behave and benefitted from the SCOTUS ignoring decades of malfeasance towards it's residents.

And now, that emboldened mentality has taken root on the State level, here on display, basically again making a mockery of Bruen by basically fucking any and every resident who wants to exercise their 2A Rights by making almost any normal activity, illegal. They purposely ignore the guidance to behave like the other 43 States that have Shall Issue and no problems the State of NY hypothesized about...

So we shall see... Let's see those pearly whites SCOTUS! Let's see them snap tight... And BITE!!!

 

[Acer-m14]

 

[Acer-m14]

My guess is someone would have to be jammed up to even think about doing so.

The other issue is "have standing" with any court. Without having been wronged in some manner (denied a permit, arrested for having something that is a no-no, etc.), it seems tough to get any action out of the only courts that matter (the higher appellate courts and of course SCOTUS).

Then there is the matter of money. The Heller decision cost at least $5-6 million, and that was with (IIRC) some of the work done pro bono. Also, that does not take into account all the time that Heller (the actual plaintiff) was never compensated for in any manner.

The "standing" issue is garbage in a lot of ways. The courts should rule on obvious things that are clear violations of Rights, extremely punitive laws coming out of the legislative branch (like civil fines so high that they are intended to bankrupt anyone bring suit and to inhibit legal action, what some call "lawfare" as a form of warfare), and so on. There are certainly times where it makes sense to not have standing (i.e., frivolous lawsuits where the plaintiff has no connection or legitimate grievance to the entity they are suing at all), but the courts use this legal doctrine as a blunt tool instead of as the scalpel it ought to be, as well as a way to offer an excuse why they will not review a case (the old "my hands are tied here" nonsense).

IMO the notion of standing is overly broad and applied mechanically when far, far more often than it should be. Further, it serves as a convenient means for the so-called courts to play politics with rulings and to let bad laws and other rulings stand. This is obviously detrimental given the fact that even when standing issues can or should be resolved, like anything litigated in our "modern" anti-Constitutional regimes, it can take years to resolve the matter.

We can see that with the Strict Scrutiny debacle that has been ongoing since 2008 and the Heller decision; to wit, how the states and lower courts (both Fed and State courts) have not approached Heller with the proper scrutiny that was clearly required in 2008, and with the fact that the Supremes slow walked the bullshit on Strict Scrutiny for 14 years since by not taking up cases to defend their own landmark decisions. Standing falls into this same trap.

Arrest is the surest way to MAYBE get relief, but is obviously the hardest and most dangerous, as it provide more options and MIGHT expedite a case. No one wants to go that route, but some are forced to anyways because of the new snitch laws and other past egregious violations of Rights that now trap otherwise law-abiding citizens for things that ought not be illegal in the first place because of Fundamental Rights.

Further, we have the problem of the administrative state making their own arbitraty laws without actually going through the legislature, and the vicious ways the Fed and State bully boys enforce their garbage administrative "determinations" and "rules."

The Fed Coats obviously have the power to take down even a duly elected President (Nixon and Trump to name the obvious one, but others have faced the onslaught and barely survived) and other elected officials, even with all of the power and immunity to those kinds of lawless machinations. In comparison, the rest of us are pond scum and grist for the totalitarian machinery.

This is obviously just a synopsis of the problems any regular Joe faces in trying to get any relief from the open and blatant Tyranny that is stalking this land and reducing our status as free men. The real situation is far worse than I have briefly outlined here.

ETA: I once thought long and hard about allowing myself to be arrested for exercising my fundamental Rights, but chose not to because of the severe repercussions to my family, as well as the fact that I do not have the money to fund what would be a very expensive battle over criminal felony charges wherein I would refuse to take a plea deal and likely end up in the slam for decades.

just filling out a pistol permit form you have to give up your 4th .. so there is a rights violation .. class action suit ?

from the history i have read NYS 2A was in the States Constitution and years later is was move to the Civil Rights Laws

 

[Grimscale]

just filling out a pistol permit form you have to give up your 4th .. so there is a rights violation

The whole basis for requiring a permit to exercise a Right is a violation and infringement of that Right.

Pistol permits, semi-auto rifle permits, it's all unConstitutional.

 

[fresch]

Commies doing what commies do.
The Constitution is dead, long live the king.