Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner

Antonyuk v. Bruen

8K views 91 replies 9 participants last post by  Phil1979 
#1 ·
Antonyuk sued to enjoin New York's new law restricting carry rights. Mr. Anonyuk held a carry license, and he argues that the law restricts him more than before the Supreme Court decided the Bruen case.


New York requested an extra two weeks to respond, and the judge said no.
 
#34 ·
New York is trying new language now that all their old arguments were invalidated by Bruen. They are giving the appeals courts a new pretense to strike down 2A protected behavior. I would love to see a rebuttal using the 1A argument against "chilling effects" of the law on protected behavior. As for whether the 2nd Circuit will buy into it depends entirely on the judge/panel selected. I am not up on the balance of originalist vs. progressivist judges so I can't calculate the odds. I suspect it will rubber stamp gun control measures albeit with a strong dissent from the Federalist members. The court to watch is the Supreme Court. I almost wish the 2nd Circuit will support the injunction so we can read an epic slapdown from the Supreme Court. It would also "send a message" to the other courts that the SC is tired of having its rulings ignored because "guns are icky".
 
  • Like
Reactions: frankr
#36 ·
I almost wish the 2nd Circuit will support the injunction so we can read an epic slapdown from the Supreme Court. It would also "send a message" to the other courts that the SC is tired of having its rulings ignored because "guns are icky".
Just to clarify for readers, you almost wish the 2nd Circuit would stay the injunction, not support it.
 
#38 ·
Just updated - Judge Eunice Lee (Biden Appointee) on the 2nd Circuit bench issued a Stay against the injunction. Trying to find a full source, but just getting legacy media hits. Judge Lee was a career public defender before getting appointed by Bush to the bench then Biden to the Circuit court. Past hostility to Justice Thomas from when she was a student came up in her 2021 confirmation hearing, but she successfully dodged it. Pretty much quoted the state's brief in her ruling.

All is proceeding as I have foreseen.
 
#40 ·
#43 ·
I think this is a parallel case for churches but seems related.
Memorandum:
 
#44 ·
We have a preliminary injunction. 184 pages. My analysis follows:
I was correct about the "grind them down" strategy from New York, arguing each restriction and place individually. Judge Suddaby was up to the challenge. The first 85 pages addresses standing. He links (or does not, as appropriate) the plaintiff, the harm, and the appropriateness of each defendant to define proper standing for each and every individual restriction. In some cases, standing was lost because the plaintiff did not explicitly state they intended to carry a firearm in that exact place. The ones that survived are pretty much unbreakable.

One particularly noteworthy passage is on page 23 where the defendents tried to argue that until the plaintiff actually applied and was denied, they had no standing. The judge pointed out that there was over a one year delay to even create an appointment to apply, therefore the excessive delays provision kicked in and by extension every part of the application process. Yes, he cited "Bruen". The judge even helpfully pointed out that the police were in violation of New York statutes requiring them to accept applications when presented.

He dismissed Hochul as a defendant stating that open contempt for the Supreme Court decision does not necessarily make her a proper defendant. (p86)

Page 89 begins the discussion of "Likelihood of success on the merits". Judge Suddaby stared with the exact analysis required in Bruen. He made it clear that defendants were on the hook for providing relevant historical references, that was not the job of the courts nor the plaintiffs. He firmly established the burden of proof on the defendants.
"The Court must first ask whether the conduct in question is covered by the plaint text of the Constitution. If so, the burden shifts to the Government to demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation "
Pages 91-103 pretty much eviscerate every State argument for the "good moral character" clause on the way to nuking that end-run.
The “good moral character” requirement is just a dressed-up version of the State’s improper “special need for self-protection” requirement.
The legal nerds might like his analysis and dismissal starting on page 101 of the “no set of circumstances exists under which the regulation would be valid " defense the state relied heavily on. Total non-starter.

The injunction goes on the either grant or deny an injunction on each part of the law challenged by the plaintiffs. Some make the cut, some don't. He nukes the expensive training requirement but keeps the in-person interview, but tells the plaintiffs (and warns the defendants) if he is presented with certain evidence, he would grant the injunction
Conceivable examples of such evidence might include (1) the need to take time away from work or family to appear before a licensing officer, or (2) any delay experienced in having an appointment scheduled due to the CCIA’s imposition of this requirement on every applicant.
One of the more common bits of historical analysis the judge applied is how prevalent a law was and how much of the country it affected. The good Judge does not consider a law that covered 6% of the US population at the time as persuasive. New York is not getting to cherry pick one-off examples from unusual circumstances in history to create the impression of a general rule to be applied across the entire population.

The comparison of Social Media identities to the pseudonyms used by the Federalists and Anti-Federalists is frankly brilliant.

He helpfully referenced Federal Law with regards to Airports, basically telling the state they cannot interfere with the lawful ability of a carrier to bring a firearm to the airport to travel if they are complying with Federal Regulations in granting the injunction against Airport restrictions. (p151)

In referring to the general restriction on private property and the relevance of the "historical analogue" provided by the State:
Rest assured, none of the six Plaintiffs in this action has alleged that he has been injured by not being able to hunt turkey and deer (with his handgun) inside commercial establishments on privately owned property that is open for business to the public.
He then goes on to do both a First and Second Amendment analysis of Section 5, referring the State's actions as "coercing speech". The entirety of Section 5 is enjoined.

There is probably a lot more buried in the text, but this post is long enough. While a lot of the injunction is necessarily repetitive, Judge Suddaby did an amazing job of sorting through the State-sponsored FUD and applying the letter and spirit of Bruen. A brief follow-up lawsuit addressing the technical standing shortcomings should lock down most of New York's attempt at Massive Resistance 2.0.
 
#45 ·
Is it available? Link? Sounds like I got some good afternoon reading to do, waiting on the polling stations to close and news start reporting.

Nemo
 
#47 ·
  • Helpful
Reactions: Malum Prohibitum
#52 ·
Wait, that's not Antonyuk.


UPDATE: I added a new thread quoting your post.

 
  • Like
Reactions: 45_Fan
#53 ·
Antonyuk is cited several times in there. Detailed and thorough opinion.

Nemo
 
#54 ·
Certainly worth a read for so many reasons that this would be a long post describing them. One point with noting, however, is that outlier regulations are not going to suffice. The regulation needs to be an "American tradition," meaning consistently applied since 1791 throughout America, not, hey, I found some regulation from 1891 in Salem, Massachussetts.

That is a high standard to meet.

I wonder if higher courts will uphold that reasoning.

If so, I wonder what it means for nonviolent felons (an issue that so far seems to be no having any constitutional protection whatsoever, as in Martha Stewart is not even a member of "the people.")
 
  • Like
Reactions: frankr
#55 ·
I'm also looking at the 1,000' Federal School Zone law falling as well. Even if schools have a limited history of banning STUDENTS from carrying at schools, there's no way free American adults can be treated as criminals for coming within 1,000' of a school while peacefully armed, if the historical record is taken seriously.
 
#56 ·
#59 ·
Justice Sotomayor orders NY to respond to emergency request to block gun law.
She might be looking for help to figure a way to not have to let the trial court decision stand pending full appeal.

Despite her very good, well learned, legal mind methinks she just cannot by herself.

Nemo
 
#60 ·
SHOWDOWN

KAVANAUGH v. THOMAS




New York AG’s Emergency SCOTUS Bid to Preserve Concealed Carry Law Could Mark Showdown Between Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh


Arguing that the CCIA was crafted with the Court’s Bruen ruling in mind, James quoted Justice Brett Kavanaugh‘s concurrence in support of the Empire State’s position.​
Bruen cautioned that its standard was not intended to be a ‘regulatory straitjacket,'” James reminded the justices, quoting Kavanaugh’s words. On the issue of the now oft-quoted Thomas standard, “this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” James again raised Kavanaugh’s comments: “governments were not required to identify ‘historical twin[s ]’ or ‘dead ringer[s ]’ to support modern regulations.”​
The argument pits Thomas’s demands from the Court’s majority opinion against Kavanaugh’s assurances in his concurrence. Potentially, the justices could use the case to tease out nuances in the Court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence. Perhaps more likely, however, the potential for conflict could be a factor that dissuades the justices from reviewing the Second Circuit’s ruling at all.​
 
#61 ·

The majority’s decision in Bruen, taken at face value, is one of the most radical rulings in American history—a threat to thousands of state and federal laws that have stemmed gun violence for decades or centuries. It raised the question: Did the court really intend to give virtually every adult the right to carry a concealed firearm into almost any place they choose?​
We won’t have to wait long for an answer. Right now, gun advocates are asking SCOTUS to block most of New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act—which the state legislature passed in the wake of Bruen—on the court’s infamous shadow docket.​
. . .​
Suddaby’s reasoning ranges from curious to laughable. He admitted that he did his own research rather than rely exclusively on the parties’ briefing, and it shows. Speculating about the history of allowing guns into zoos, Suddaby wrote that he could “imagine some of the more trepid zoogoers of the time demanding to be armed in the presence of the more dangerous creatures.” (Result: The Second Amendment protects the right to carry guns in zoos.) He made up, out of whole cloth, the possibility that state agents might require permit applicants to submit a urine sample (which appears nowhere in the New York law) just so he could strike it down.​
Suddaby’s efforts to find historical “consensus” were even wackier.​
 
Top