They aren’t going to send it back down unless they can give new instructions to the judge in how the decision is to be made—they will get bitch slapped if they do that. They are more likely to attempt to tailor the decision to keep as much stuff as they can and pass SCOTUS muster— they don’t want to have all gun control struck down. They want to keep as many sensitive places as they can or at least explain to NYS how to make a gun control law that might stand up.
What do they care? It's not like anything will happen to them.
Not being a dick, but please tell me what this means? By bitch slapped do you mean they'll release a politely worded letter suggesting that they don't agree? The seems to be the extent of it to me. Zero consequences for anyone, except for us.
Yea someone told me something about SCOTUS requiring 60 days to appeal or some such thing and the 3/20 date falls just outside of that. So basically they are dragging it out as long as they can, about 7 days past the SCOTUS "requirement", and they probably know that SCOTUS won't give them a hard time by going over the deadline by "only" 7 days. Not exactly sure about any of this, just what I heard.
It means if they do so, SCOTUS will completely reverse their ruling, and publicly embarrass them in their opinion, and not give the appeals court any sway or influence over the case law. Publicly told they ignored SCOTUS and the constitution. That’s a big deal for a judge and any chance for promotion. And the court can have those particular judges on that panel from hearing similar cases again.
Not to mention, a judge's track record follows them for life. Bad decision`s now, will likely have repercussions later.
Unfortunately if the 3 judge panel upholds the district courts ruling, the state will request the case to be heard from an en banque panel which is all the judges from the 2nd circuit. The state will continue the seemingly endless BS to keep the CCIA in effect for as long as humanly possible....which we all know could be years....
It doesn't say if Applebee's had a sign but I dont believe it matters because any place that serves alcohol is designated as a restricted or sensitive place.....
Definition of a hero in NYS today, is sure different than it use to be.
I was thinkin the same thing.....
This is where I’m at given the climate here in NYS. I told my dad this and he said you can’t give up on people. I said it’s so bad I could see someone struggling shoveling on my street and I’ll have to walk right by because I’m armed if I leave my house. Who knows if they or someone else will see it while I’m helping them and I get arrested. I said nope I’m not doing it anymore for people I don’t know.
If he gets in trouble or even if not I’d love to see the groups filing this lawsuit to get him on the case so that we can ensure we have standing for the sensitive and restricted places.
Sounds prime for a lawsuit
Salt, it pains me to say this, because most of us want to help others, at least i use to, that`s just who we are. BUT, we are now at those times where we can`t help strangers anymore, because it drags us into it far to deep now and there is a hell of a price to pay for it. If people can`t protect themselves, that is not your problem. Yes, it sucks, but everybody has the option to carry a legal weapon of some sort to defend themselves. We are not safe from anything anymore. I believe today, its best NOT to put that target on YOUR own back. Let law enforcement deal with it, it is, their job, not ours. The days of good samaritans, well, that`s pretty much in the past. The ONLY time i will offer any type of help today, is if i come across a motor vehicle accident, in which i am by law, to stop and help where i can be of assistance, and even then, my situational awareness is always, eye`s an ears wide open.
Beaver face does not change who I am as a person.
Me neither!Beaver face does not change who I am as a person.
They may try to strong arm him in to pleaing it down to the lowest charge where he would lose all his gun rights. If so I just hope he is smart enough to say no and call to get on the lawsuit.
This is interesting and it appears that the lower courts are just saying screw you ti the FFLs. It would be very great if they SC just granted this and rules on this asap. I would really like to see that happen.
If the SC ignores it, which is what i think they will do, that will tell us everything we assumed about the SC. Just playing games with us.
