18 days and counting down…

[imrich]

To the big 2nd circuit 2nd amendment hearing day on 3/20. Any predictions? Let’s hear from the pessimists and the optimists.

[spider]

2nd Circuit will be anti 2A

[Joe Shmoe]

Is this going to be a 3 judge panel or en banc?
If a 3 judge panel, then the loser will appeal for an en banc hearing. If we win with 3 judges, there will also be a stay put on till en banc hears it. This will not end on the 20th.

I honestly don't see how they can not give us the win. Even a partial win.

[dougfxdl]

It's pretty straightforward. Under Bruen, the 2nd has no choice but to find against NY State. NY and the various anti groups are, I'm sure, already working on the NEXT 'you'll never carry in NY' set of laws, to be passed in the dark of night the day after the ruling is printed. This is NY, and they're NOT going to let go. Ever.

[Range Time]

/\ This!

[NRATC53]

Yup, they will keep rewording and repassing the same crap over and over again, hoping that the makeup of SCOTUS will change, so that when it finally DOES get there again, they will be upheld

[OH UNCLE PAUL]

I came hoping this was a thread to say you are leaving NY.

I left disappointed.

[FastPhil]

My first thought.

[SemiAutoFetish]

Me too.....almost didn't even wanna scroll past the OP

[imrich]

Boys are in 10th grade. We're on the 2 year escape from NY plan.

[class3]

18 days until the hearing. How many months until a decision?

[M-14BULLETTS]

17 to go

[FUAC]

16...

[Finicky Fat Guy]

Some color from a legal eagle at "Legal Insurrection". The author clerked for the Bush appointee who is one the three judge panel. Not much we didn't already know but it gives some background.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/03/second-circuit-to-hear-first-comprehensive-post-bruen-firearms-statute-challenge/

[SemiAutoFetish]

I could not click on this link as I may turn to salt if I look evil in the eye....

[M-14BULLETTS]

six days

[Huntington Guy]

I’m cautiously optimistic, but not expecting we will hear much of what we’d like to hear. The question equal to what the 2nd will say is when they will say it. Oral arguments on 20 MAR doesn’t necessarily mean a ruling will be heard any time soon (am I misunderstanding the courts ability to deliberate their decision indefinitely?).
Alito and Thomas have made themselves very clear but absent a true foot up their ass I have little faith the 2nd will do their job. I suspect whatever happens this will end up back at SCOTUS.
I hope I’m wrong but my faith in this system and anything with the words New York in it have just about crushed my spirit.

FUKH
FUJB
FUAC (Honorable mention)

[imrich]

Little preview video about Monday.

[Mr-Trishield]

I was hoping they would rule from the bench on monday. Looks like we may not get a decision till late summer if I understood what he said in the video

[M-14BULLETTS]

i am under the understanding that this will be a fast track answer ---- there are certain judges who will be paying close attention to this ------ lets see what happens starting tommorrrrrrrrrrrow

[NRATC53]

Here's something to look at while we wait:
Caetano v. Massachusetts, 136 S. Ct. 1027 (2016)

The Problem


Jaime Caetano was charged with owning an illegal weapon after displaying a stun gun during a dangerous encounter with her abusive ex-boyfriend in Massachusetts. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) upheld the state prohibition on stun gun possession, stating stun guns weren’t protected by the Second Amendment because they were:

1. “Not in common use at the time” of the amendment’s enactment;
2. Dangerous and unusual as a “modern invention”; and
3. Couldn’t be easily adapted for military use.

The Ruling


This Second Amendment Supreme Court case is often left off most lists because it didn’t impact any gray areas. When SCOTUS took the case, the facts were so clear they were able to issue a per curiam decision (issued by the court rather than a specific justice) without even having to hear oral arguments. To put it in perspective, from 1946 to 2012, SCOTUS issued a per curiam decision in only 7% of cases.

The Court made it clear the SJC’s reasoning for upholding the Massachusetts law violated the Second Amendment, based on both the decisions in Heller and McDonald. They repeated that the Second Amendment protects weapons for self-defense purposes and not just for military reasons, and it applies to weapons “that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” SCOTUS also clarified that simply being a “modern invention” did not make it dangerous and unusual.

Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas in a concurring opinion, also scolded Massachusetts for failing to protect its citizens from others who are dangerous, reminding us that the Second Amendment protects our right to defend our lives when the states “are unable or unwilling” to do so:

“If the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe.”