There's some pretty biting criticism in the lawsuit against New York's new concealed carry law. https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...33931409_Antonyuk Petition for Cert final.pdf "Moments after this Court issued N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), striking down New York's discretionary firearms licensing regime, New York politicians decried that decision as 'reprehensible,' vowing to resist the 'insanity' of 'gun culture' that 'possessed ... the Supreme Court.' Rather than following this Court's decision, New York sought to nullify it through a 'Concealed Carry Improvement Act' that makes it more difficult to exercise the right to bear arms in public than before Bruen was decided." . . . "'The Second Amendment's plain text ... presumptively guarantees ... a right to 'bear' arms in public for self-defense.' N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 33 (2022). But just days after that statement was made, New York defiantly enacted its 'Bruen response bill,' purporting to comport with this Court's decision, but instead seeking to nullify it. Intent on maintaining its de facto prohibition on public carry, New York decided that, if it must issue licenses to ordinary citizens after Bruen, it first would do whatever it could to discourage applicants by imposing novel and onerous licensing requirements, and then render any remaining licenses a practical nullity by prohibiting carry virtually everywhere in the State by declaring a multitude of brand new 'sensitive locations.'" . . . "If New York's challenged law was its 'Bruen response bill,' then the panel's decision represents the Second Circuit's 'Bruen response opinion.' Brazenly, the panel repeatedly justified wholesale rejection of Bruen's methodology, claiming that Bruen was an 'exceptional' case, and that in 'less exceptional' cases -- like this one, apparently -- courts are free to contrive their own approach. Audaciously, the panel repeatedly chastised the district court for having hewed too closely to Bruen. And in one instance, the panel faulted the district court for having 'failed to properly appreciate' a historical analogue that appears never to have existed."
SCOTUS says: The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for further consideration in light of United States v. Rahimi https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/070224zor_2co3.pdf The Rahimi ruling, as I recall, reiterated that the standard set down in Bruen is to be adhered to by the lower courts.
bannerrhoid politicians hate the supreme court's rulings. Hopefully, they will piss the high court off so much that the court lays waste to all sorts of bannerrhoid laws
