Antonyuk v. Hochul - NY Bruen response bill - SCOTUS petition

[Upholder]

As the previous topic is archived, the plaintiffs in New York have also filed a petition to SCOTUS for writ of Certiorari:

 

https://www.gunowners.org/wp-content/uploads/Antonyuk-Petition-for-Cert-final.pdf

 

 

Quote

The questions presented are:
1. Whether the proper historical time period for ascertaining the Second Amendment’s original meaning is 1791, rather than 1868; and

2. Whether “the people” must convince government officials of their “good moral character” before exercising their Second Amendment right to bear arms in public.

 

[TomKoz]

Guessing #2 is to arbitrary.  Will come down to whether individual was or was not convicted of a violent felony.

 

Guessing #1 will stand at 1791.  Isn’t that the year they determined in Bruen?   Why would they change now which would indicate they were wrong before?

[Upholder]

Heller and McDonald and Bruen all implied but did not explicitly state that 1791 is the proper timeframe. 

 

All of the other rights protected by the Bill of Rights have been previously found to be interpreted according to what they meant in 1791.

 

Both of these questions are layups for the court to determine, should they choose to hear it.

[Euler]

SC docket as Antonyuk v James

[Euler]

Petition granted, vacated, and remanded for further consideration in light of Rahimi.

Rahimi included language about "responsible people" not being well-defined. I'm not convinced the 2nd Circuit won't find a way to apply it, anyway.

[Euler]

It's back. (docket)

This petition (filed January 22) regards an interlocutory appeal on a partial grant of a preliminary injunction by the district court, affirmed by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.

Edited February 11, 2025 at 05:21 AM by Euler

[EdDinIL]

Distributed for conference on 3/28/25.  No conference date this week.  I assume it didn't get scheduled for 3/21 because a reply from the Plaintiff was just received today as well.