But unless the litigants can secure immediate injunctions, those suits could take months or years to work through the courts, and in the meantime the state governments get to collect all sorts of personal data on prospective gun owners.
Yes but you'd need a California or a NY judge to grant one, and then, if I understand the process correctly, you'd need a Ninth or Second Circuit appeals judge to uphold it.
An emergency request could be fast-tracked to the individual SCOTUS judge assigned to those circuits, but those are Kagan and Sotomayor respectively, so no help there.
But it's only taxpayer money they're spending, it's not like it's real money, is it?
And if it works, NY and CA get another century of carving their own private fiefdom out of the United States - maybe they'll even get to impose their will upon the entire country again, just like the good old days!
They doxxed everyone with a CCW permit already issued to them. Some counties in CA were operating as shall issue counties, so they issued permits pretty liberally. In deep blue counties you have to be a judge, police, or be politically connected to get one.
Thank goodness criminals will totally behave in those places and this won't just make such places easier targets! If it was at all possible for people to just say no a law then there would be so much trouble there might be some strongly worded letters written about things!
/distant summer burning and gunshot noises from Chicago
So I think all of these places will fail under strict scrutiny:
Times Square; Public transit; Sports arenas; Parks; Libraries; Government buildings; Playgrounds Entertainment venues; Protests Places of worship Businesses that sell alcohol
Those places are simply too public, and banning guns from them is just an attempt to ban guns in general. It also violates the Constitutional right of those businesses to ALLOW guns.
The following places I think fail strict scrutiny because they are opt-out instead of opt-in. Opt-in MIGHT pass scrutiny, but opt-out certainly does not:
Private businesses, except those that post prominent signage
I think if you want to draft as restrictive a law as possible, you would need to simply allow private businesses to ban guns on their premises, and to ban guns only in places like "legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses", not the DMV.
NY already tried to argue in Bruen that it should be able to ban guns really broadly under the "sensitive places" rule, and the Court told them NO.
But the Court did not explicitly define what places were and were not "sensitive", so NY is coming back playing the little game of trying to list ALL the places and see what they can get away with.
For anyone that knows NYC this is pretty much a ban on guns. There are so many parks in NYC that you can technically pass through one while crossing the street.
Also if you're in Manhattan there is always some sort of protest going on. So come out of your apartment building and you might just walk into a protest.
Government buildings, sports arenas, entertainment venues, libraries, businesses that’s sell alcohol, usually all have signs posted saying you can’t carry into them anyway.
I wish the Supreme Court could fast track a case that is clearly about a law that states like New York pass in retaliation of losing a court case.
To clarify, the special locations the NY bill bans guns from are:
I'm reminded of that line from The Incredibles - when everywhere is "special", nowhere is...
California is working on a bill that does much the same.
The Bruen opinion specifically called out behavior just like this. CA and NY are going to get buried under a veritable blizzard of lawsuits.
But unless the litigants can secure immediate injunctions, those suits could take months or years to work through the courts, and in the meantime the state governments get to collect all sorts of personal data on prospective gun owners.
I think that's what an emergency injunction is for.
Yes but you'd need a California or a NY judge to grant one, and then, if I understand the process correctly, you'd need a Ninth or Second Circuit appeals judge to uphold it.
An emergency request could be fast-tracked to the individual SCOTUS judge assigned to those circuits, but those are Kagan and Sotomayor respectively, so no help there.
And then 'accidentally' leak said data when it suits them.
Of course they will.
But it's only taxpayer money they're spending, it's not like it's real money, is it?
And if it works, NY and CA get another century of carving their own private fiefdom out of the United States - maybe they'll even get to impose their will upon the entire country again, just like the good old days!
Didnt CA also just doxx all of its registered gun owners?
They doxxed everyone with a CCW permit already issued to them. Some counties in CA were operating as shall issue counties, so they issued permits pretty liberally. In deep blue counties you have to be a judge, police, or be politically connected to get one.
One can only hope.
Thank goodness criminals will totally behave in those places and this won't just make such places easier targets! If it was at all possible for people to just say no a law then there would be so much trouble there might be some strongly worded letters written about things!
/distant
summerburning and gunshot noises from Chicago"OK."
/sips tea
So I think all of these places will fail under strict scrutiny:
Those places are simply too public, and banning guns from them is just an attempt to ban guns in general. It also violates the Constitutional right of those businesses to ALLOW guns.
The following places I think fail strict scrutiny because they are opt-out instead of opt-in. Opt-in MIGHT pass scrutiny, but opt-out certainly does not:
I think if you want to draft as restrictive a law as possible, you would need to simply allow private businesses to ban guns on their premises, and to ban guns only in places like "legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses", not the DMV.
"We're not banning guns. It's just that some places are so public that we have to ban guns."
NY already tried to argue in Bruen that it should be able to ban guns really broadly under the "sensitive places" rule, and the Court told them NO.
But the Court did not explicitly define what places were and were not "sensitive", so NY is coming back playing the little game of trying to list ALL the places and see what they can get away with.
More like "When everywhere is gun-free, nowhere is"
for criminals
For anyone that knows NYC this is pretty much a ban on guns. There are so many parks in NYC that you can technically pass through one while crossing the street.
Also if you're in Manhattan there is always some sort of protest going on. So come out of your apartment building and you might just walk into a protest.
Government buildings, sports arenas, entertainment venues, libraries, businesses that’s sell alcohol, usually all have signs posted saying you can’t carry into them anyway.
I wish the Supreme Court could fast track a case that is clearly about a law that states like New York pass in retaliation of losing a court case.
Apparently not good enough. They want to put the burden on businesses that support 2A.