https://reason.com/2022/10/07/a-federal-judge-rejects-new-yorks-attempt-to-defy-the-scotus-decision-upholding-the-right-to-bear-arms/?utm_medium=email

A Federal Judge Rejects New York's Attempt To Defy the SCOTUS Decision Upholding the Right To Bear Arms

The decision is a warning to states that impose vague permit standards or sweeping bans on guns in "sensitive locations."

Jacob Sullum10.7.2022 1:15 PM

Last June in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to require that people who want to carry handguns in public for self-defense demonstrate that they have "proper cause" to do so. New York legislators and Gov. Kathy Hochul responded by eliminating that requirement while simultaneously imposing a raft of new restrictions, including criteria for proving a carry-permit applicant's "good moral character" and bans on firearm possession in a long list of "sensitive locations." Yesterday a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) against enforcing many of those rules, saying they probably violate the Second Amendment.

U.S. District Judge Glenn T. Suddaby's decision in Antonyuk v. Hochul casts doubt on the constitutionality of the vague standards that New York and several other states retained even after Bruen. It also suggests that sweeping, location-specific gun bans like New York's, which make leaving home with a gun legally perilous even for permit holders, are inconsistent with the constitutional right to bear arms.

Suddaby notes that New York's law "expressly prohibits the issuance of a license [to carry a handgun] unless the licensing officer finds (meaning unless the applicant persuades him or her through providing much information, including 'such other information required by review of the licensing application that is reasonably necessary and related to the review of the licensing application') that the applicant is of 'good moral character,' which involves undefined assessments of 'temperament,' 'judgment' and '[]trust[].'" He adds that "shouldering an applicant with the burden of showing that he or she is of such 'good moral character' (in the face of a de facto presumption that he or she is not) is akin to shouldering an applicant with the burden of showing that he or she has a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community."

That is exactly the sort of requirement that the Supreme Court rejected in Bruen, which said New York's "may issue" permit policy, in contrast with "shall issue" laws that allow people to carry guns if they meet a short list of objective criteria, gave local officials too much discretion. "In essence," Suddaby says, "New York State has replaced its requirement that an applicant show a special need for self-protection with its requirement that the applicant rebut the presumption that he or she is a danger to himself or herself, while retaining (and even expanding) the open-ended discretion afforded to its licensing officers. Simply stated, instead of moving toward becoming a shall-issue jurisdiction, New York State has further entrenched itself as a shall-not-issue jurisdiction."

Suddaby's TRO also applies to New York's requirement that applicants supply information about their social media accounts so that licensing officials can decide whether they have said anything suggesting they lack "good moral character." As the gun owners who challenged the new regulations saw it, that demand violated the right to freedom of speech as well as the right to bear arms, making the latter contingent on how applicants have exercised the former.

Suddaby also blocked enforcement of New York's requirement that carry-permit applicants meet in person with licensing officials for an interview, saying "the
Court finds that no such circumstances exist under which this provision would be valid." He likewise said the state had failed to justify its demand for the "names and contact information for the applicant's current spouse, or domestic partner, any other adults residing in the applicant's home, including any adult children of the applicant, and whether or not there are minors residing, full time or part time, in the applicant's home." Suddaby deemed that requirement "far more invasive and onerous" than the requirement that an applicant supply four character references, which he let stand.

In analyzing whether these provisions were likely to pass constitutional muster, Suddaby applied the test that the Supreme Court prescribed in Bruen: whether a rule is "consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." Meeting that test requires citing historical analogs that resemble the challenged restriction, which New York had trouble doing for several of its rules.

The state's justification for the character-reference requirement, for example, relied on three historical analogs, including a Delaware law that said "any free negro or free mulatto" who wanted permission to carry a gun had to submit the "written certificate of five or more respectable and judicious citizens of the neighborhood" attesting to his "fair character." In a footnote, Suddaby notes that he took that precedent into account despite its "r****t and abhorrent" nature. New York also cited two municipal ordinances regulating public possession of guns, one requiring a police recommendation and one requiring references from "at least three reputable freeholders."

That thin record was enough for Suddaby to let New York demand that a carry-permit applicant submit four character references. But he said the state had not shown that its expansive definition of "sensitive locations" was consistent with the historical understanding of the right to bear arms.

"The Court respectfully reminds Defendants that, because the Second Amendment's plain text covers the conduct in question (carrying a handgun in public for self-defense), 'the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct,'" Suddaby writes. "Defendants must then rebut the presumption by 'demonstrat[ing] that the regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.'"

In the landmark Second Amendment case District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court described "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings" as "longstanding prohibitions." But in Bruen, it noted that "the historical record yields relatively few 18th- and 19th-century 'sensitive places' where weapons were altogether prohibited." They included "legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses."

New York's location-specific gun bans, by contrast, include 20 broad categories that encompass myriad places where people might want to carry firearms for self-defense. Suddaby rejected many of these restrictions, including the prohibition of firearms in public t***sportation, in entertainment venues, in places where alcohol is served, and in "the area commonly known as Times Square." He said the ban on guns in places of worship was overly broad because it did not include an exception for "persons who have been tasked with the duty to keep the peace" in such locations.

More generally, Suddaby rejected New York's default rule that guns are prohibited in all businesses open to the public unless the owner expressly allows them and posts signs to that effect. Contrary to the state's claim that it is defending the prerogatives of business owners, he says, New York is "making a decision for private property owners that they are perfectly able to make for themselves…as well as arguably compelling speech on a sensitive issue." In any case, he adds, "this policy dispute is irrelevant, because it does not regard the Supreme Court's 'historical tradition' standard."

That standard may prove to be an insurmountable challenge for states that pretend to comply with Bruen while imposing licensing requirements just as nebulous as the "proper cause" test that Court rejected or making it practically difficult for permit holders to carry guns for self-defense. Judging from Suddaby's decision, courts may not be as easy to fool as anti-gun politicians hope.

The question often has been asked, “What happened to those men who signed the Declaration of Independence?” Paul Harvey, noted radio commentator and writer, answered the question in an article entitled, “What Price Freedom?” Here’s what he found:

“Five signers were captured by the British as t*****rs, and tortured before they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons in the Revolutionary Army. One of the signers had two sons captured. Nine of the fifty-six fought and died of wounds or the hardships
of the Revolutionary War.

But what kind of men were they, these men who boldly wrote their names to the Declaration that lit the fires of liberty in souls of men throughout the world?

Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists, eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners, men of means, well-educated.
Their security, their incomes, and their worldly possessions made them substantially well off. But they signed the Declaration of Independence even though they knew the penalty would be death on the gallows, if they were captured.

They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes…and their sacred honor. Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and his properties to pay his debts and died in rags. Thomas McKean was so
hounded by the enemy that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him and poverty was his reward.

Vandals or soldiers or both l**ted the properties of Ellery Clymer, Hall, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Rutledge and Middleton. At the Battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson Jr. noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. The owner quietly urged General George Washington to open fire, which was done. The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt. His grave is unmarked and unknown.

Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months. John Hart was driven from his wife’s bedside as she was dying. Their thirteen children fled for their lives. His fields and his grist mill were laid waste. For more than a year he lived in the forests and caves, returning home after the war to find his wife dead and his children vanished. A few weeks later he died from exhaustion and
a broken heart.

Morris and Livingston suffered similar fates. Such were the stories and sacrifices of the American Revolution. These were not wild-eyed, rabble-rousing ruffians. These were soft-spoken men of means, wealth and education. They had security, but they valued liberty more. Standing tall, straight and unwavering, they pledged: ‘For the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of the Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.’”

Now, what these seventy-seven men agreed upon was freedom. Freedom to live, freedom to own property, and freedom of prosperity, where the beholder decides and not the government. That is what these men fought for and won.

Can you name any politician, or decedent of these brave men, that can say they'd do the same? Name one Senator, Representative, Governor, or even President, Vice President, Speaker of the House, Majority or Minority leader that can live up to the same pledge. In action or in deed, can you name one?

I can, and most people will not like it. But those of us who support him all agree that Donald Trump has lived up to his pledge, the pledge of the Declaration of Independence in support of the Constitution. He is losing his prosperity, lands, and in many ways his freedom. And these are being taken away by those who claim, with empty accusations, that he and his movement are enemies of the state.

With this being said, and most of the research of this post was done by Paul Harvey, maybe we should all slow down, stay calm and reevaluate what really happened from the time in 2015 when Donald came down from the escalator to throw his hat in the ring of American politics and ran and won the presidency. All the way to the defeat in 2020 that many Americans believe was r****d.

If the result happens after the action, and the result is worse than the action, that was trying to be resolved; then the action is proven false by the result. But is this circumstantial? or is it happen-stance?

Regardless of the criticism the question remains to the v**er, "Are you better off now then you were four years ago?" and the answer is turning into an overwhelming, "No, we are not better off now then four years ago."

Thus, these one-sided attacks, the results of the e******n, and the current status, is proof enough of a an attack on our country or a soft c**pe. If I ask the general public the simple question, "Do you approve of Donald Trump as president, and if so why do you dislike him?"

A vast majority of answers seem the same, "I like what he does, but h**e his mouth". That seems to the consensus throughout the land. But do you blame us, Americans for feeling this way? However, now looking back on the foul mouth president, I have found something interesting.....No one would defend him therefore he had to defend himself. How would you feel if that happens to you?

In this age of hypocrisy, we have found that Texas cannot order the national guard to remove i*****l a***ns, but in Massachusetts they can? Double standard, anyone?

Therefore, I believe, that men like Trump should take over those hypocrites that now sit in political office. This began with Glenn Youngkin of Virginia, Ron DeSantis of Florida, and others through out the Midwest.

We have watched the hypocrisy take shape and now control America, will we stand against it or accept it?.....We shall see.

What the 2 governors are doing is illegal.
You seem to be missing the point.
Taking the Law into your own hands is illegal.
Spending taxpayer money on frivolous stunts as these are not helping the problem.
And also illegal.
Kidnapping by inveiglement is illegal .
Unlawful detainment by inveiglement also illegal.
Not to mention the cruelty and treatment of legal law abiding asylum seekers who are here legally. Most of them have court dates that have now been disrupted due to this inhumane treatment by ……yep …..republitarians.

It's working Great here, no school shootings and no accidents, proving the "experts" Wrong Again!

On July 1, 2013 South Dakota’s “School Sentinel” law became effective, making the state one of the first in the nation to allow teachers and other school officials to carry a sidearm in the classroom.

The anti-gun crowd has a lot of our Children's Blood on Their Hands on this one!

President Joe ‘The Catholic’ Biden’s recent Philadelphia speech in which he declared war on pro-life, pro-family, pro-God Americans.
Now, let’s not forget that Biden is just the second “Catholic” to occupy the Oval Office. And while he was denouncing American patriots, his counterpart over in Rome was denouncing Traditional Catholics. Both President and Pope accuse their own of the crime/sin of “backwardism.”

What’s going on here?
Where are the Catholics standing up to the apostate Catholic cabal. Guys like Ron DeSantis, Archbishop Vigano, Matt Walsh, Michael Knowles, and several million Traditional Catholics worldwide who’ve had enough of the hippies, Marxists, and Socialists running around loose, pretending to the Catholic Christians.

https://remnant-tv.com/video/675/biden-barron-and-bergoglio-rockin-the-post-catholic-world?channelName=RemnantTV

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8vuEsIT8Dk

=====================
Do as I say, not what I do. These people are out of touch and totally out of control how the universe behaves to people and nature. Thinking that perhaps they won't suffer as much as they expect from others. There are more of those here in the US, demanding others how to control c*****e c****e, but not them.

I almost forgot also about the death of Princess Diana. Something was very strange how that happened. I think she suffered much of her relationship with prince Charles or was she used only to produce heir to the throne? Charles had a long time affair with Camila when he married princess Diana, and that continued until her death until now. It was a very strange relationship. Note: The banks of England, the Rothschilds are in control of the majority shares.

England is in very bad shape at present. They have many problems economically and this c*****e c****e reset brings complex problems further. Prince Williams is out of touch, growing up without earning to own what he has now.

I wonder how the successor King Charles will proceed his responsibilities as a king. I don't seem to trust him. But I think over all the mother Queen handled the Monarchy very well.

It was reported that Russia cut off oil supplies to Europe. How then is Germany affected?