Skip to comments.Supreme Court rejects New York gun retailers' bid to block new concealed carry laws
Posted on 01/18/2023 7:15:37 PM PST by Olog-hai
The Supreme Court rejected a bid by New York gun retailers on Wednesday to block a slew of new gun control laws in the state, which they argued violate their Second Amendment rights and hurt their businesses.
There were no noted dissents in the order or explanations from the justices for their decision.
“We are disappointed that not one of the nine justices saw fit to grant the plaintiffs some stay of enforcement of the new laws against them,” Paloma Capanna, the lead attorney for the New York gun retailers, told Fox News Digital on Wednesday.
“We are challenging the ability of the state of New York to target dealers in firearms in the lawful stream of commerce, to put them out of business, which is what the new laws will do,” Capanna added. “So it really was unfortunate to see that we couldn’t get any emergency temporary injunction against those laws.” A customer looks at long guns at Coliseum Gun Traders Ltd. in Uniondale, New York.
New York Attorney General Letitia James praised the Supreme Court’s decision on Wednesday, saying that the “gun safety laws help save lives, and keep our state safer.”
Wednesday’s order comes one week after the high court rejected a separate bid by gun rights activists to block the Concealed Carry Improvement Act, which was implemented last year by New York’s Democrat-controlled legislature. …
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
The Supreme Court (appears to) giveth, and then the Supreme Court allows little tyrants to taketh away.
Someone should send the azhos a copy of the Bill of Rights.
Replies on the other thread about this indicate they’re likely just waiting on all the appeals still in play to be decided, before deciding if they actually need to weigh in, or not. Probably a good idea, to see what other legal theories might pop up as part of that process as well, before they have to rule.
There is an appeal proceeding in the Court of Appeals so perhaps SC didn’t feel that they needed to expend manpower on “extraordinary relief” at this point.
Is this the NY State Supreme Court?
I do not believe this is the U.S. Supreme Court.
It is the USSC. The NY Supreme Court is the lowest level court in the state.
Supreme Court wants the lawsuit to go through the normal appeals process and not skip directly to the Sup. Ct. The Court did not take sides, and did not reject the lawsuit.
The Sup.Ct. forces almost all cases to go through the normal appeal process, otherwise everyone would just skip the Appeals Courts and file directly with the Sup.Ct.
I was wrong.
It was the US Supreme Court. But they just refused to hear it. I expect that want the State Courts to go first.
Appeal is pending.
I’m glad I do not live in New York.
They would put me in jail for something.
What do they not understand about “... shall not be infringed”
The unique beauty of the states, the power of states and the very limited power of the federal government that is Supreme law as clearly written in our constitution is that..
.. one can disagree with the ways things are run in a state, they can move to another state and still be a U.S. citizen.
So i ask New York gun owners a very serious question: why the fuuuuuuuuu@$ are you still there?
If you would just pack up and move to a better state then we could all be together and ready to fight a far faster, cleaner civil war, to be honest.
And if anyone says anything about money, jobs, or family who are still there they have not really proved character and resolve but they have proved how much they will tolerate living in a tyranny.
I know it’s hard. I did it. I left family, friends and a very good pay to come to another state and be an uber driver. But I’m now contributing to, siding with and ultimately standing shoulder to shoulder with those who fight this nonsense.
I now step off my braggart soapbox.
This is not good. States and cities can now just regulate away your Constitutional rights.
This is not what “well-regulated” means!
Is Clarence Thomas on vacation?
Bravo. Good for you. Solid advice. Some cannot up and move, however. There’s the rub.
Hurt their business seems wrong approach since the real challenge is individual rights shall not be infringed.
The SCOTUS decided it must go through the normal process first before it gets to them. They made no rulings on the merits.
The article and the headline don’t make that particularly clear nor does the reaction from the parties.
What is “the normal process”? Defending the Second Amendment should be exactly that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.