Antonyuk, Ivan Et Al. V. James Et Al. GVR'd by SCOTUS on 2 July 2024

[US RIFLE M1A]

I am not a Constitutional scholar, I could be wrong, but does this vacate everything the 2nd Circuit wrote and reset the case to Judge Suddaby's decision? If so, that would put much of the CCIA on hold and return carry rights back to pre-CCIA for the most part.

Until the 2nd pulled some other stunt like they have so far with this case.

This is what is known as a GVR; Grant Cert, Vacate the most recent decision and Remand back to the 2nd in light of the stated case (Rahimi).

Rahimi was not a loss for general carry rights, it only upheld laws that took carry rights away after due process. In fact it re-stated that Bruen gave carry rights to the citizenry and that taking away rights from a adjudicated dangerous person was not an opportunity to take away rights generally.

 

[Saltwater60]

US vs rahmi is the no guns for domestic abusers ruling so I’m confused.

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland Statement on Supreme Court’s Decision in United States v. Rahimi

The Justice Department issued the following statement from Attorney General Merrick B. Garland on the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Rahimi:

www.justice.gov

 

[US RIFLE M1A]

US vs rahmi is the no guns for domestic abusers ruling so I’m confused.

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland Statement on Supreme Court’s Decision in United States v. Rahimi

The Justice Department issued the following statement from Attorney General Merrick B. Garland on the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Rahimi:

www.justice.gov

I know. We all are. But that's what it said.

I re-read Rahimi with the above order in mind, all I can find is a clarification of Bruen.

That to disarm someone, the disarmed person must be in a very narrow, definable group, such as someone who has gotten due process and has either been found guilty or found to be a danger due to specific circumstances.

And that to demand we prove ourselves to be 'of good character' to get a license and/or worthy of carrying in restricted locations once we have a license is backwards. The presumption should be that we are both of the above and it's up to the state to prove otherwise.

Of course, according to the 2nd Circuit, they will do whatever fits with their agenda and justify everything they do with twisted logic, ignoring SCOTUS like they did last time.

 

[Acer-m14]

 

[Grimscale]

I am not a Constitutional scholar, I could be wrong, but does this vacate everything the 2nd Circuit wrote and reset the case to Judge Suddaby's decision? If so, that would put much of the CCIA on hold and return carry rights back to pre-CCIA for the most part.

This is the same question I have.
Can someone explain the effect of this to the average person?

Yes, we all know the power-hungry elites of NY will try to ignore it, but for us masses what does this mean?

 

[US RIFLE M1A]

Where they get us is not in the writing of a strong and valid law, they get us in arcane and opaque procedural maneuvering. The order list as shown above is not meant to instruct the 2nd Circuit to take action, it is sort-of a to-do list for SCOTUS to issue what is known as a mandate to the 2nd. That is a specific order to scrap what the 2nd wrote, and go back to Judge Suddaby's decision.

All of this is over a preliminary injunction, not the actual permanent injunction which we are not up to yet. Without the SCOTUS order above, Antonyuk Et Al would have to go back to district court (Suddaby) and be re-heard at the permanent injunction status. Then back to the 2nd on appeal by the state.

This keeps it at the temporary injunction level for at least a year or so more. SCOTUS's order states that the 2md cannot even get a temp injunction right.

The only serious down-side to this is that it puts the status-quo (as of 7/1/24) at risk. On that day, a licensee could legally carry in Home Depot without a welcome sign.

It would be a fast-one, a sleazy maneuver, and it would in effect be a Circuit Court over-riding SCOTUS, but can the 2nd issue one of those one-page F-YOU documents (a stay, with no explanation) over-riding Judge Suddaby and placing ALL of the CCIA in effect pending a hearing?

I would not be surprised if they do that.

 

[Phazer]

I'm lost.

We're still screwed. Right?

 

[US RIFLE M1A]

I'm lost.

We're still screwed. Right?

No, you can carry as if the CCIA was pretty much overturned (See Judge Suddaby's ruling) however when it is put back in place, make sure you are out of the Home Depot parking lot and back onto the main road.

 

[C3D]

It's a clear message to the 2d Circuit that they got it wrong and they need to re-do it better. At last, a glimmer of hope on the CCIA.

This also means that the preliminary injunction is probably back in effect.

 

[US RIFLE M1A]

I am pretty sure this is where we are now:

 

[Zerex]

"Good moral character," currently still requires the signatures of 4 upstanding, non felon citizens to attest, under penalty of law, that you re of good moral character....;NICS does not count.....as any MAGA is not of good moral character.

The entire unconstitutonal necessity, to obtain a CCP in NYS, to even purchase a handgun instead of just passing a NICS check, is deranged marxism, by the deranged, filthy marxists,who bathe in they shit of communism.................... to be blunt.

So the CCIA is sent down to the 2nd circuit again..........a court that never considered Bruen at all, to exist.

 

[Cavalry]

"Good moral character," currently still requires the signatures of 4 upstanding, non felon citizens to attest, under penalty of law, that you re of good moral character....;NICS does not count.....as any MAGA is not of good moral character.

The entire unconstitutonal necessity, to obtain a CCP in NYS, to even purchase a handgun instead of just passing a NICS check, is deranged marxism, by the deranged, filthy marxists,who bathe in they shit of communism.................... to be blunt.

So the CCIA is sent down to the 2nd circuit again..........a court that never considered Bruen at all, to exist.

What county requires the references to be upstanding, non felon citizens? My county only requires they be a resident (not even a citizen), not related by blood or marriage and have a good mailing address to send their bullshit 10 question true or false questionnaire.

 

[John Stark]

I am not a Constitutional scholar, I could be wrong, but does this vacate everything the 2nd Circuit wrote and reset the case to Judge Suddaby's decision? If so, that would put much of the CCIA on hold and return carry rights back to pre-CCIA for the most part.

This is what is known as a GVR; Grant Cert, Vacate the most recent decision and Remand back to the 2nd in light of the stated case (Rahimi).

This is the way SCOTUS forces lower courts to follow their overriding decisions. They have told the 2nd Circus that their entire "decision" is wrong (thus vacated), that they want the 2nd Circus to follow the Second Amendment & their precedents in regards to it in Heller, McDonald, Cetano, & Bruin (thus the remand), and making sure the 2nd Circus understands that the Supreme Court is going to settle Antonyuk as they see fit if the 2nd Circus refuses to write a reasonable opinion the second time around by adhering to the positions that THE COURT already has arrived at.

Its an important but tedious step needed to reshape the opinions of lower courts who have their heads in their asses.

Because these are "opinions" about the Constitution, each higher court is supposed to give some latitude to lower courts, with the "reasonable" idea that lower courts may have honestly arrived at wrong conclusions, and give them a chance to rethink their positions and adhere to higher precedents. Further, this allows the (supposedly learned and smart) lower courts to raise issues with SCOTUS precedents that the Supremes themselves may have overlooked or been prejudicial towards. In a sense, it allows SCOTUS the option of being corrected "properly" by their colleagues in important legal matters.

As the Founders intended, I think it a pretty good system usually that makes for a slow but relatively successful means of the various Fed courts to correct themselves that can serve as a brake on rapid changes in "settled" jurisprudence.

It also can take into account new facts that might shed further light on the meaning of the Constitution. For example, a scholar and/or another judge might dig up some very pertinent information from the Founding era that was not available for various reasons, or buried deep in documents from the Founding era that no one has bothered to look at for guidance or forgotten they were available centuries ago (hence the Library of Congress, for example).

Now, if you've read this far, please do not take what I am saying as some kind of plea for mercy for the 2nd Circus. They were obviously, purposefully, and completely wrong in their ruling, and every single one of them out to be impeached and disbarred for flagrantly ruling against the US Constitution; given that there were very strong (nearly irrefutable) arguments, scholarship, and facts contained in Heller, McDonald, Catano, and Bruin.

THAT is why SCOTUS didn't simply vacate and remand. By granting cert AFTER vacating and remanding, they are making it clear that the SCOTUS is purposely embarrassing the 2nd Circus by essentially saying, "You can keep some dignity by admitting you are COMPLETELY wrong, or we can make you look like fools who cannot read, or won't bother to read, controlling precedent."

Its a means for SCOTUS to be gracious under the idea that opinions are just that; and that even assholes can have them.

Finally. I view it as a means of upholding the First Amendment, even if its for bastards in power who refuse the plain meaning of the "history, text, and tradition."

There is a matter of moral and constitutional principles at stake. Indeed, several.

Edit: This is why I am personally a "history, text, and tradition" kind of reader. The Founders were pretty clear in their writings, even when their actions were not always loyal to their principles.

Addendum: If we think about it carefully, this system makes a lot of sense. If the Supremes write a ridiculous ruling that is clearly against the plain meaning of the words of the Constitution, and flagrantly go against the "history, text, and tradition" we have at our disposal to see HOW wrong the SCOTUS is, then that at least allows other courts to strenuously note that with their own scholarship and facts, allowing others (citizens) to go against bad SCOTUS rulings by appealing to their representatives for relief and other legal remedies. It also allows Congress to do its freaking duty and impeach rogue judges, and it can give a President the righteous authority to refuse to enforce terrible decisions that he believes do not "uphold and defend the United States."

 

[Saltwater60]

What county requires the references to be upstanding, non felon citizens? My county only requires they be a resident (not even a citizen), not related by blood or marriage and have a good mailing address to send their bullshit 10 question true or false questionnaire.

They all do. If you’re using a felon as a reference it’s not a valid reference and they will turn them down. That has always been my understanding.

 

[Saltwater60]

This is the way SCOTUS forces lower courts to follow their overriding decisions. They have told the 2nd Circus that their entire "decision" is wrong (thus vacated), that they want the 2nd Circus to follow the Second Amendment & their precedents in regards to it in Heller, McDonald, Cetano, & Bruin (thus the remand), and making sure the 2nd Circus understands that the Supreme Court is going to settle Antonyuk as they see fit if the 2nd Circus refuses to write a reasonable opinion the second time around by adhering to the positions that THE COURT already has arrived at.

Its an important but tedious step needed to reshape the opinions of lower courts who have their heads in their asses.

Because these are "opinions" about the Constitution, each higher court is supposed to give some latitude to lower courts, with the "reasonable" idea that lower courts may have honestly arrived at wrong conclusions, and give them a chance to rethink their positions and adhere to higher precedents. Further, this allows the (supposedly learned and smart) lower courts to raise issues with SCOTUS precedents that the Supremes themselves may have overlooked or been prejudicial towards. In a sense, it allows SCOTUS the option of being corrected "properly" by their colleagues in important legal matters.

As the Founders intended, I think it a pretty good system usually that makes for a slow but relatively successful means of the various Fed courts to correct themselves that can serve as a brake on rapid changes in "settled" jurisprudence.

It also can take into account new facts that might shed further light on the meaning of the Constitution. For example, a scholar and/or another judge might dig up some very pertinent information from the Founding era that was not available for various reasons, or buried deep in documents from the Founding era that no one has bothered to look at for guidance or forgotten they were available centuries ago (hence the Library of Congress, for example).

Now, if you've read this far, please do not take what I am saying as some kind of plea for mercy for the 2nd Circus. They were obviously, purposefully, and completely wrong in their ruling, and every single one of them out to be impeached and disbarred for flagrantly ruling against the US Constitution; given that there were very strong (nearly irrefutable) arguments, scholarship, and facts contained in Heller, McDonald, Catano, and Bruin.

THAT is why SCOTUS didn't simply vacate and remand. By granting cert AFTER vacating and remanding, they are making it clear that the SCOTUS is purposely embarrassing the 2nd Circus by essentially saying, "You can keep some dignity by admitting you are COMPLETELY wrong, or we can make you look like fools who cannot read, or won't bother to read, controlling precedent."

Its a means for SCOTUS to be gracious under the idea that opinions are just that; and that even assholes can have them.

Finally. I view it as a means of upholding the First Amendment, even if its for bastards in power who refuse the plain meaning of the "history, text, and tradition."

There is a matter of moral and constitutional principles at stake. Indeed, several.

Thanks and this makes sense. We will see what happens.

 

[Cavalry]

They all do. If you’re using a felon as a reference it’s not a valid reference and they will turn them down. That has always been my understanding.

If that is truly a disqualifier one would think it would be mentioned by the licensing office instead of just specifying that you not be related to your reference. It seems like unnecessary work for the licensing office to be doing back ground checks on the references with no info other than a name and address and hope that there is not an issue with junior/senior living at the same place.

 

[US RIFLE M1A]

Can I carry in Home Depot? I need fuel for my barbecue.

 

[Cavalry]

Can I carry in Home Depot? I need fuel for my barbecue.

Reply hazy, try again.

 

[VietnamEraVet]

If that is truly a disqualifier one would think it would be mentioned by the licensing office instead of just specifying that you not be related to your reference. It seems like unnecessary work for the licensing office to be doing back ground checks on the references with no info other than a name and address and hope that there is not an issue with junior/senior living at the same place.

To my knowledge the licensing office (PPO) does not investigate your references, - your local PD does.

When I applied in Erie County a decade ago, the EC PPO was still giving us shit about who we could and could not use as a reference, and where they had to live. I used two licensed NYS medical professionals; a lifelong friend, 30+ year business owner, and CCW holder who worked with my local PD cops daily; and another NYS licensed professional who has held a CCW for over 30 years, and also works and interacts with the same cops daily. All four have no criminal record.

And my local PD still gave me shit over two of them. The reference BS is just ONE of the ways New Yorkistan fucks with CCW applicants and eventual CCW holders.

I don't miss any of that bullshit down here in the Carolinas.

 

[Willyone]

I'm lost.

We're still screwed. Right?

#MeToo

 

[kev74]

Can I carry in Home Depot? I need fuel for my barbecue.

Tell 'em kev said it was ok.

 

[Saltwater60]

Can I carry in Home Depot? I need fuel for my barbecue.

Even the second curious said you can so your GTG.

 

[Saltwater60]

If that is truly a disqualifier one would think it would be mentioned by the licensing office instead of just specifying that you not be related to your reference. It seems like unnecessary work for the licensing office to be doing back ground checks on the references with no info other than a name and address and hope that there is not an issue with junior/senior living at the same place.

I’ve been told that they aren’t a valid reference because of their past history and bad judgement. I’m related to a cop that used to do the background checks for my area and it was brought up during my training class. The trainer said it might be uncomfortable but make sure you ask if they are a felon and so t use them if they are. I’m not sure on other areas of the state but that’s how WNY is.

 

[Saltwater60]

To my knowledge the licensing office (PPO) does not investigate your references, - your local PD does.

When I applied in Erie County a decade ago, the EC PPO was still giving us shit about who we could and could not use as a reference, and where they had to live. I used two licensed NYS medical professionals; a lifelong friend, 30+ year business owner, and CCW holder who worked with my local PD cops daily; and another NYS licensed professional who has held a CCW for over 30 years, and also works and interacts with the same cops daily. All four have no criminal record.

And my local PD still gave me shit over two of them. The reference BS is just ONE of the ways New Yorkistan fucks with CCW applicants and eventual CCW holders.

I don't miss any of that bullshit down here in the Carolinas.

They have me a hard time because I told them I didn’t drink and I knew the cop for the past 20 years and all he had to do was ask my dad or brother to verify I don’t drink since they were all cops together. I haven’t had more than a sip or two for a toast of alcohol in 15 years or longer. I can’t remember the last drink I had so to me that is not drinking.

 

[togmaster]

Haven't heard jumbo spewing shit about this yet.

 

[US RIFLE M1A]

Haven't heard jumbo spewing shit about this yet.

She's at a barbecue with Schumer.

 

[US RIFLE M1A]

Haven't heard jumbo spewing shit about this yet.

NY is at the end of the road with this, at least for the duration of another hearing and another written decision by the 2nd. That should take about a year.

I really cannot see the 2nd issuing a one-page, no-explanation 'stay' of Judge Suddaby's decision again, that would in effect be vacating the SCOTUS order issued on 2 June which vacated the decision of the 2nd Circuit. You can't have the Supreme Court and Circuit Courts just saying "I vacate you... No I vacate you back...."

Can you?

Isn't it time for them to let this one go, they knew it was a winner in the short run but a loser in the long run.

 

[FP1201]

What county requires the references to be upstanding, non felon citizens? My county only requires they be a resident (not even a citizen), not related by blood or marriage and have a good mailing address to send their bullshit 10 question true or false questionnaire.

Jefferson requires character references to be non-felons and they have to answer and attest to the questions on the applicant, who must have his signature Notarized and has to re-sign to finalize they application before the Judge signs off on it....FWIW: Over the last two decades I've done multiple CR's and not once been contacted by anyone representing the issuing Office.

 

[US RIFLE M1A]

I tried to join a group of guys back when I lived in Ozone Park.

Your references had to be felons.

I didn't join.

 

[Zerex]

Pistol Permit Application Process | Erie County Clerk Michael P. Kearns

To apply for a pistol permit, applicants must be at least 21 years of age

www4.erie.gov

Eat it and weep------------4 references. What state do you live in? You do mot have a NYS permit, obviously.