Yes, it’s only one down, and many more to go.  But it has to throw a wet blanket on the rest of them for one of the AGs to say in writing that their own laws violate the 2A.

Here is the court filing.

The Supreme Court has made clear that individuals have the right to carry handguns publicly for self-defense. (J.A. 36). As noted by the district court, “New York’s exclusion is valid only if the State ‘affirmatively prove[s]’ that the restriction is part of the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” (J.A. 36 citing Bruen, 142 S.Ct. at 2127). Since the Second Amendment is the very product of an interest balancing, already conducted by “the People,” which “elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms for selfdefense”, the Court constructed a rigorous test in determining whether this restriction is part of the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Id. at 1231 citing Heller, 554 U.S. at 635.

Despite this long-standing tradition, New York’s new exclusion is in direct conflict with the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen …

So admitted and confessed by one of the defendants.

James Wesley Rawles, at Survival Blog:

The U.S. Supreme Court’s New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen decision (issued June 23, 2022) was a pivotal ruling.  Following up on the District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and the McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) decisions, Bruen reaffirmed private gun rights, quite solidly. Up until those three decisions, the Supreme Court had conspicuously ignored taking up any Second Amendment cases, for more than 50 years. But now, the highest court has made it quite clear that the right to keep and bear arms is nigh-on absolute.

I’ve mentioned the Bruen decision before in SurvivalBlog. But today, I’d like like to examine it more closely.

The majority opinion for Bruen was written by one of my heroes, Justice Clarence Thomas. He had previously lamented that the Second Amendment had been treated as “a disfavored right.”  But in the 2022 decision, Justice Thomas set things write. He forthrightly wrote that the only gun regulations that can be deemed constitutional are ones that don’t infringe on conduct that is plainly covered by the text of the Second Amendment and that are “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition.” This part of Bruen means that any gun law enacted at any level must have a demonstrable parallel in regulations that were in place at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights — meaning circa December, 1791. Thus, Bruen sets a very high bar for legislators to hurdle. If lawmakers cannot cite a similar law that existed after the War of Independence but before December, 1791, then any statute pertaining to arms of any description would be unconstitutional!

It’s an interesting rehearsal of some little known history, and with Bruen, history matters. In light of the decision, one has to ask by what authority does the F exist in ATF? Read the rest.

Surprising no one, if you haven’t been following the NY case of Ivan Antonyuk v. NY, the state of NY still hasn’t accepted Bruen, and won’t until the SCOTUS slaps them down again.  The federal district court ruled in favor of Antonyuk in a lengthy and well crafted decision that issued a stay on the recently enacted NY law, only to be blocked and held in abatement by the 2nd Circuit by a three-judge panel who said nothing about the merits of the decision.  The 2nd circuit overrode the district court decision with only a few cursory sentences.

The Antonyuk case was appealed directly to the supreme court, with Sotomayor demanding that NY reply.  They did with this brief.  In it, the state of NY insults the SCOTUS and tells them they aren’t needed.

NY to the Supreme Court

Friend of TCJ Stephen Stamboulieh, a terrific attorney, genuinely good man and defender of liberty, issued his reply, and it’s a wonderful thing to behold.

Stamboulieh to the Supreme Court in Response to NY

As Gandalf the Grey said (before he became Gandalf the White), “Until at last I smote my enemy and threw down his ruin upon the mountainside.”

This may not be over so the conclusory sentiment may be wrong, but may Stephen be victorious over his enemies and throw down their ruin upon the mountainside.