2A Lawsuits and their progress we have here in NY

Tisto

Tisto

.308 Win
Messages
3,345
Reaction score
5,598
Location
Tonawanda
Without the court defining exactly what a "social media" platform is, there is nothing to lie about. Is NYGF "social media ? Some would say yes, others would say no. The vagueness of the law itself dooms it.
 
Saltwater60

Saltwater60

.950 JDJ
Messages
31,376
Reaction score
35,090
Location
Western NY
LibertyWins said:
I still want to know what would happen if one were to simply say they don't have any social media. I mean, honestly, many people really don't have any. It's not like it's a law to have and use social media accounts.

What are they going to do? Deny your application and tell you to create social media accounts, let them mature and then reapply in a few years? Hell no! I don't see how they can deny anyone who says they don't use social media.
Click to expand...
I don’t have one. I’m on here and a couple other forums, but forums aren’t social media and there is no definition of what social media is in the law.
 
Saltwater60

Saltwater60

.950 JDJ
Messages
31,376
Reaction score
35,090
Location
Western NY
FRB said:
I have so many SM accounts I forgot half of them.... On my 4th Twitter Account - no politics this time.
Click to expand...
Make it private and they can see nothing.
I deleted mine months ago. It wasn’t worth it. I do t even remember my handle.
 
Day444

Day444

.223 Rem
Messages
1,057
Reaction score
922
Location
Town of Newburgh
I'm still trying to figure this whole mess out. Seems to get more confusing then me finding answers. "Show Cause": Judge said it wasn't done. Well my though is by the defendant showing cause he would have to violate the law. By stating he is/was willing to do so, would seem to infringe on his 5th amendment right. We have the right not to incriminate ones self. This is not a criminal case and maybe I'm not understanding all the rules?
 
M

m1_ping

9mm
Messages
51
Reaction score
123
Location
Oneida County
John Boron is no longer a plaintiff in Boron v. Bruen, which will now be Christian v. Bruen. This case is now down to a single individual plaintiff along with FPC and SAF.
 

Attachments

  • gov.uscourts.nywd.142551.17.0.pdf
    120.1 KB · Views: 11
M

m1_ping

9mm
Messages
51
Reaction score
123
Location
Oneida County
A motion for preliminary injunction has been filed in Boron v. Bruen. This lawsuit challenges the public parks and public transportation sensitive area prohibitions and the private property restricted area by default prohibition. We can expect for the state to file a response in opposition and the court to schedule a hearing. Hopefully the law is already enjoined via Antonyuk v. Hochul when the court gets to this, but if not we have another chance at getting parts of CCIA enjoined in this case.

In the future this case may be known as Christian v. Bruen as Boron has dropped out of the lawsuit.
 

Attachments

  • gov.uscourts.nywd.142551.19.0.pdf
    182.2 KB · Views: 10
  • gov.uscourts.nywd.142551.19.1.pdf
    455 KB · Views: 5
Dr. Evil

Dr. Evil

20×102mm Vulcan
Messages
35,120
Reaction score
74,509
Location
My Underground Lair
m1_ping said:
A motion for preliminary injunction has been filed in Boron v. Bruen. This lawsuit challenges the public parks and public transportation sensitive area prohibitions and the private property restricted area by default prohibition. We can expect for the state to file a response in opposition and the court to schedule a hearing. Hopefully the law is already enjoined via Antonyuk v. Hochul when the court gets to this, but if not we have another chance at getting parts of CCIA enjoined in this case.

In the future this case may be known as Christian v. Bruen as Boron has dropped out of the lawsuit.
Click to expand...
Any idea why Boron dropped out?
 
Jchrisls

Jchrisls

6.5 Creedmoor
Messages
1,678
Reaction score
2,737
Location
Incognito
So please help me out. Which one is being heard today, what does it entail as I'm getting lost in Which lawsuit could potentially end the sensitive places portion of the CCIA.
 
M

m1_ping

9mm
Messages
51
Reaction score
123
Location
Oneida County
Jchrisls said:
So please help me out. Which one is being heard today, what does it entail as I'm getting lost in Which lawsuit could potentially end the sensitive places portion of the CCIA.
Click to expand...
There will be oral arguments for plaintiff's motion for a TRO in Antonyuk v. Bruen Antonyuk v. Hochul today. This lawsuit is much more broad than Boron/Christian v. Bruen.

Edit: accidentally used the case name of the old case...
 
Last edited:
Jchrisls

Jchrisls

6.5 Creedmoor
Messages
1,678
Reaction score
2,737
Location
Incognito
m1_ping said:
There will be oral arguments for plaintiff's motion for a TRO in Antonyuk v. Bruen Antonyuk v. Hochul today. This lawsuit is much more broad than Boron/Christian v. Bruen.

Edit: accidentally used the case name of the old case...
Click to expand...
Thank you for the clarification. Fingers crossed.

Ps- would you care to do some "pre game analysis " for us ? I'm certain it would be interesting.
 
M

m1_ping

9mm
Messages
51
Reaction score
123
Location
Oneida County
Jchrisls said:
Thank you for the clarification. Fingers crossed.

Ps- would you care to do some "pre game analysis " for us ? I'm certain it would be interesting.
Click to expand...
This is my non-lawyer understanding. I have done a lot of reading of free resources available online from a few different law schools so I can understand what is going on, but my understanding certainly falls short of a legitimate law degree.

Background:
This case comes from GOA after their previous case Antonyuk v. Bruen was dismissed for lack of standing. Plaintiff did not state any plans to violate the law, they only stated a desire to. The court ruled that this is not enough for standing under Second Circuit precedent. In that case Judge Suddaby dismissed the case but continued on to give "judicial dictum" stating that many of the challenged parts of the law are not deeply rooted in the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation and if his finding that the plaintiffs have no standing were to be reversed on appeal, the dictum would become the ruling of the court. A firearm regulation not deeply rooted in the Nation's historical tradition cannot be constitutional per NYSRPA v. Bruen (SCOTUS). The challenged sections of CCIA that the court found to be unconstitutional are social media disclosure, sensitive locations (with the exception of a few that SCOTUS explicitly allows), restricted locations. The dismissal and the dictum the judge included was issued in response to plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, the judge would have issued a preliminary injunction on these parts of CCIA had standing not been an issue.

In this case Antonyuk v. Hochul GOA has added more plaintiffs and they have all stated plans to violate the challenged CCIA. Hopefully this satisfies the requirements for standing which were not met last time. This case was deemed to be related to Antonyuk v. Bruen and the same judge has been assigned the case (Suddaby). The court is considering a motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). This is different from a preliminary injunction. A TRO is more of an emergency tool a court can use on a short term basis. The court can even issue a TRO without giving the defendant any time to respond. In this case the court gave the defendant the opportunity to write a letter in opposition and hold oral arguments. These oral arguments are what is happening today. If the court issue a TRO it will only be for 14 days unless the state gives consent for it to last longer; the court can also choose to renew before it expires. The purpose of the TRO would be to protect the defendants until the court can consider a preliminary injunction. The process to consider a preliminary injunction can take a few weeks or more. GOA has also filed a motion for preliminary injunction and that hearing will be scheduled for late October or early November.

There are legal requirements that dictate how and when a court issues a TRO, a preliminary injunction, and a permanent injunction. There are all different and the plaintiff needs to demonstrate different criteria for each of them. Just because we get or don't get a TRO or preliminary injunction does not mean we will get or not a permanent injunction. A permanent injunction is the ultimate goal which would effectively strike down the CCIA (unless reversed on appeal).

The state defendants have filed their brief in opposition and signaled their intent to appeal any ruling against them immediately. This can get complicated as appeals at the second circuit occur while the case continues in district court.

Possible outcomes to watch for today:
  • The court issues or declines to issue a TRO on all or some parts of the challenged sections of CCIA. This may happen today in court at the end of arguments or anytime after in a written order
  • The court dismisses the case for lack of standing (again)
 
Saltwater60

Saltwater60

.950 JDJ
Messages
31,376
Reaction score
35,090
Location
Western NY
m1_ping said:
This is my non-lawyer understanding. I have done a lot of reading of free resources available online from a few different law schools so I can understand what is going on, but my understanding certainly falls short of a legitimate law degree.

Background:
This case comes from GOA after their previous case Antonyuk v. Bruen was dismissed for lack of standing. Plaintiff did not state any plans to violate the law, they only stated a desire to. The court ruled that this is not enough for standing under Second Circuit precedent. In that case Judge Suddaby dismissed the case but continued on to give "judicial dictum" stating that many of the challenged parts of the law are not deeply rooted in the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation and if his finding that the plaintiffs have no standing were to be reversed on appeal, the dictum would become the ruling of the court. A firearm regulation not deeply rooted in the Nation's historical tradition cannot be constitutional per NYSRPA v. Bruen (SCOTUS). The challenged sections of CCIA that the court found to be unconstitutional are social media disclosure, sensitive locations (with the exception of a few that SCOTUS explicitly allows), restricted locations. The dismissal and the dictum the judge included was issued in response to plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, the judge would have issued a preliminary injunction on these parts of CCIA had standing not been an issue.

In this case Antonyuk v. Hochul GOA has added more plaintiffs and they have all stated plans to violate the challenged CCIA. Hopefully this satisfies the requirements for standing which were not met last time. This case was deemed to be related to Antonyuk v. Bruen and the same judge has been assigned the case (Suddaby). The court is considering a motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). This is different from a preliminary injunction. A TRO is more of an emergency tool a court can use on a short term basis. The court can even issue a TRO without giving the defendant any time to respond. In this case the court gave the defendant the opportunity to write a letter in opposition and hold oral arguments. These oral arguments are what is happening today. If the court issue a TRO it will only be for 14 days unless the state gives consent for it to last longer; the court can also choose to renew before it expires. The purpose of the TRO would be to protect the defendants until the court can consider a preliminary injunction. The process to consider a preliminary injunction can take a few weeks or more. GOA has also filed a motion for preliminary injunction and that hearing will be scheduled for late October or early November.

There are legal requirements that dictate how and when a court issues a TRO, a preliminary injunction, and a permanent injunction. There are all different and the plaintiff needs to demonstrate different criteria for each of them. Just because we get or don't get a TRO or preliminary injunction does not mean we will get or not a permanent injunction. A permanent injunction is the ultimate goal which would effectively strike down the CCIA (unless reversed on appeal).

The state defendants have filed their brief in opposition and signaled their intent to appeal any ruling against them immediately. This can get complicated as appeals at the second circuit occur while the case continues in district court.

Possible outcomes to watch for today:
  • The court issues or declines to issue a TRO on all or some parts of the challenged sections of CCIA. This may happen today in court at the end of arguments or anytime after in a written order
  • The court dismisses the case for lack of standing (again)
Click to expand...
I hope there is standing and I hope the line plaintiff doesn’t back out.
Thanks for this and my understanding is similar to yours, although I have to admit I was not as fimilar with the TRO, preliminarily, and permanent injunctions as you are.
As they say time will tell.
 
Jchrisls

Jchrisls

6.5 Creedmoor
Messages
1,678
Reaction score
2,737
Location
Incognito
m1_ping said:
This is my non-lawyer understanding. I have done a lot of reading of free resources available online from a few different law schools so I can understand what is going on, but my understanding certainly falls short of a legitimate law degree.

Background:
This case comes from GOA after their previous case Antonyuk v. Bruen was dismissed for lack of standing. Plaintiff did not state any plans to violate the law, they only stated a desire to. The court ruled that this is not enough for standing under Second Circuit precedent. In that case Judge Suddaby dismissed the case but continued on to give "judicial dictum" stating that many of the challenged parts of the law are not deeply rooted in the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation and if his finding that the plaintiffs have no standing were to be reversed on appeal, the dictum would become the ruling of the court. A firearm regulation not deeply rooted in the Nation's historical tradition cannot be constitutional per NYSRPA v. Bruen (SCOTUS). The challenged sections of CCIA that the court found to be unconstitutional are social media disclosure, sensitive locations (with the exception of a few that SCOTUS explicitly allows), restricted locations. The dismissal and the dictum the judge included was issued in response to plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, the judge would have issued a preliminary injunction on these parts of CCIA had standing not been an issue.

In this case Antonyuk v. Hochul GOA has added more plaintiffs and they have all stated plans to violate the challenged CCIA. Hopefully this satisfies the requirements for standing which were not met last time. This case was deemed to be related to Antonyuk v. Bruen and the same judge has been assigned the case (Suddaby). The court is considering a motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). This is different from a preliminary injunction. A TRO is more of an emergency tool a court can use on a short term basis. The court can even issue a TRO without giving the defendant any time to respond. In this case the court gave the defendant the opportunity to write a letter in opposition and hold oral arguments. These oral arguments are what is happening today. If the court issue a TRO it will only be for 14 days unless the state gives consent for it to last longer; the court can also choose to renew before it expires. The purpose of the TRO would be to protect the defendants until the court can consider a preliminary injunction. The process to consider a preliminary injunction can take a few weeks or more. GOA has also filed a motion for preliminary injunction and that hearing will be scheduled for late October or early November.

There are legal requirements that dictate how and when a court issues a TRO, a preliminary injunction, and a permanent injunction. There are all different and the plaintiff needs to demonstrate different criteria for each of them. Just because we get or don't get a TRO or preliminary injunction does not mean we will get or not a permanent injunction. A permanent injunction is the ultimate goal which would effectively strike down the CCIA (unless reversed on appeal).

The state defendants have filed their brief in opposition and signaled their intent to appeal any ruling against them immediately. This can get complicated as appeals at the second circuit occur while the case continues in district court.

Possible outcomes to watch for today:
  • The court issues or declines to issue a TRO on all or some parts of the challenged sections of CCIA. This may happen today in court at the end of arguments or anytime after in a written order
  • The court dismisses the case for lack of standing (again)
Click to expand...
Thanks ping. I actually envisioned this as somewhat of a pre game commentary, with the major difference being I was really interested in this, and additionally, this was factually based with knowledge and research to which I "listened" in entirety.
 
M

m1_ping

9mm
Messages
51
Reaction score
123
Location
Oneida County
UPDATE: The judge reserves decision on a TRO. A written decision will be forthcoming.

TEXT Minute Entry for proceedings held before U.S. District Judge Glenn T. Suddaby: Motion Hearing held on 9/29/2022 re 6 Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order filed by Ivan Antonyuk, Corey Johnson, Leslie Leman, Joseph Mann, Lawrence Sloane, and Alfred Terrille. Oral argument is heard by counsel. District Judge Suddaby RESERVES DECISION and a written decision on the 6 Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order will be forthcoming. Briefing has been set on the 6 Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and a hearing will be scheduled on that portion of the motion in due course. APP: Stephen D. Stamboulieh, Esq. for Plaintiffs. James M. Thompson, Esq. and Michael G. McCartin, Esq. for NYS Defendants. Edward Melvin, Esq. for Oswego County Defendants. Time: 11:10 AM - 12:25 PM. (Court Reporter Jodi Hibbard) (sal) (Entered: 09/29/2022)
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top