Temporary Restaining Order Issued For Concealed Carry Improvement Act (merged thread)

[livingston]

"The modifications to the Concealed Carry “Improvement” Act that Kathy Hochul wants to see in place are so minor that I’m honestly not sure why she included them in her recent budget proposal."

She`s only doing it just to show her voter base that she`s, DOING, something. "well, i tried"

From the comments section

Dragonstalon1001​

1 day ago
New York is trying to affect the current 2nd Amendment Lawsuits, like they did in a previous New York Pistol and Rifle Association vs City of New York lawsuit that was headed for the U.S. Supreme Court and was thrown out for 'Mootness', which made the Lawsuit need to be refiled and start back at the beginning once they had more Plaintiff's that showed they were affected exactly the same as the previous Plaintiff's.

 

[ManualF150]

This should be illegal to try to "amend" these laws until it go through the proper channels if it's under a current lawsuit. It should be locked until further review by higher courts.

 

[Saltwater60]

This should be illegal to try to "amend" these laws until it go through the proper channels if it's under a current lawsuit. It should be locked until further review by higher courts.

They vote on it with the budget so it does go through the proper channels. However the issue is if they don’t pass the budget the way NYS is only the governor gets paid. The legislature doesn’t get paid so it’s essentially extortion and bribery when she does this bullshit.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

It's nice in winter wearing a jacket knowing that there is only like a .00001% chance of getting caught somewhere empress hochul would frown upon. I can't keep up with the laws and constant challenges and court cases and revisions and frankly I'm losing interest in trying to.

 

[JunkBoxFull]

It's nice in winter wearing a jacket knowing that there is only like a .00001% chance of getting caught somewhere empress hochul would frown upon. I can't keep up with the laws and constant challenges and court cases and revisions and frankly I'm losing interest in trying to.

That`s the whole idea behind the scheme. You either, forget, or confused, or give up, then they catch you off guard, and nail you for it.

Its the oldest trick in the gubba`mint`s playbook, right down to the combat boot`s of the unconstitutional coppers who arrest you.

 

[US RIFLE M1A]

"LEOSA does not exempt the individual carrying a weapon from following laws of the state they are visiting, does not exempt them from on/near school grounds restrictions, they cannot carry in national parks, post offices, and cannot carry in areas of the state deemed sensitive areas unless the state law specifically exempts them."

Not true. LEOSA exempts Police officers and qualified retired police officers from all state and local concealed handgun laws, with two exceptions. Those exceptions involve private property and government property. Areas deemed sensitive by the state have no effect on this.

§ 926C. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified retired law enforcement officers​

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified retired law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that--

(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or

(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

The specific citations of law above support everything I said in my post. The normally accepted sensitive (restricted, off-limits, whatever) state-imposed locations such as government buildings and parks are no more welcoming of LEOSA than they are of a CCW holder.

In addition, LEOSA does not protect the person carrying within 'Gun Free School Zones' and they are everywhere, especially in cities, a CCW legally protects right up to the outer wall of a school building if the school adjoins an urban sidewalk (but not within the fenced school yard of course).

GFSZs extend out onto sidewalks and into streets, possibly even across interstate highways, (but the interstate highway situation is debatable.) Anyone carrying under LEOSA and who is as law-abiding as most CCW holders are would consider this worse than the CCIA in its darkest moments.

Besides, now (since 2010) that a state CCW license gets you into National Parks no worries, I could not imagine purposely avoiding them on a trip made for sightseeing. The cross-country trip I just made to move a car from AZ to NY would have been perfect for LEOSA, but a fun family trip to see the sights? No thanks.

From NRA/ILA:
So what does this mean for you? While there have been no known prosecutions of individuals violating these laws while carrying under LEOSA (one must assume that professional courtesy and the lack of knowledge on the issue has prevented this) you should always protect yourself by obtaining a state issued concealed carry permit in addition to your LEOSA credentials. Most states have reciprocity laws and agreements which allow for vast recognition of their permits throughout the country and some even allow you to apply as a non-resident.** Bottom line; always be aware of your surroundings, as ignorance is not a defense to the law.

NRA-ILA | Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act: Off-Limit Areas?

During a recent presentation on LEOSA at the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association Conference (ILEETA), I addressed the fact that individuals carrying under LEOSA do not qualify for the same exemptions some state permit holders benefit from in terms of carrying...

www.nraila.org

---

 

[Glock_USA]

The whole LEOSA thing is garbage anyway and needs to be challenged. They can use as guidance the recent Illinois ruling that said "assault weapons" and "high capacity magazines" that were allowed for people who got jobs as police officers, but not people in any other profession, was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection clause of that state.

LEOSA should be challenged along similar lines. There aren't alternate versions of the Bill Of Rights depending on who your employer is. Start taking away all of these exemptions and see what happens. Everyone has the same rights. If we can't have something or carry somewhere, then neither can anyone else. It's absurd to be subject to separate laws based on who your employer is.

 

[arp228]

"I don't understand why none of the lawsuits in NY challenged the exemption of retired law enforcement being exempt from the sensitive and restricted places."

These exemptions are immaterial, as retired police officers are already exempt by LEOSA.

Retired police officers are not automatically exempt. They need to take a class every year and live fire qualify. The cost is around $50. LEOSA does not apply to retired officers if they do not take the yearly class. I would have to think the percentage of retired officers that also hold LEOSA (HR 218) credentials is low.

 

[arp228]

From the comments section

Dragonstalon1001​

1 day ago
New York is trying to affect the current 2nd Amendment Lawsuits, like they did in a previous New York Pistol and Rifle Association vs City of New York lawsuit that was headed for the U.S. Supreme Court and was thrown out for 'Mootness', which made the Lawsuit need to be refiled and start back at the beginning once they had more Plaintiff's that showed they were affected exactly the same as the previous Plaintiff's.

That strategy isn't going to work this time. None of her proposed changes are being challenged in any of the lawsuits, with the exception of possibly Adirondack and Catskill parks being removed as a sensitive place. Her little charade here will have no affect on the currently pending lawsuits.

 

[Saltwater60]

That strategy isn't going to work this time. None of her proposed changes are being challenged in any of the lawsuits, with the exception of possibly Adirondack and Catskill parks being removed as a sensitive place. Her little charade here will have no affect on the currently pending lawsuits.

I think the same as you. Also there’s no way this is her backtracking. A police and security guard exemption is just because they rushed and forgot it.
As for the parks there are so many people that live there she knows this would never hold up in court so they are ditching it. As I remember there was one lawsuit where the Adirondack parks ban was brought up but over all that’s a small part of any of the lawsuits if that’s still even in there. I think it was a guy riding his motorcycle and they claimed he lacked standing anyway.

 

[Pale Rider]

"The specific citations of law above support everything I said in my post."

The citations do not support everything in your post. Your post said that persons carrying under LEOSA are required to follow all the laws of the state they are visiting. This is not true. If the state law says no carrying in church, this does not apply to the LEOSA qualified person. Same if the law says no carrying in a place where alcohol is served. Same if the state law says no carrying on private property unless the property owner posts a sign specifically allowing guns. Same if the state law says no hollow point ammo. I could go on and on, but you get the idea. By the way, I am not trying to be argumentative, just instructive. Many people think LEOSA does not exempt the card holder from any state laws.

 

[JunkBoxFull]

"The specific citations of law above support everything I said in my post."

The citations do not support everything in your post. Your post said that persons carrying under LEOSA are required to follow all the laws of the state they are visiting. This is not true. If the state law says no carrying in church, this does not apply to the LEOSA qualified person. Same if the law says no carrying in a place where alcohol is served. Same if the state law says no carrying on private property unless the property owner posts a sign specifically allowing guns. Same if the state law says no hollow point ammo. I could go on and on, but you get the idea. By the way, I am not trying to be argumentative, just instructive. Many people think LEOSA does not exempt the card holder from any state laws.

So, what you`re saying is, is that most of us are still second class citizens...right? I`m just trying to find clarity in all the BS.

 

[JunkBoxFull]

I didn`t watch the potato's "State Of The Confusion" address to the sheeple`s. Any new gun laws coming from the chief potato?

 

[Acer-m14]

I didn`t watch the potato's "State Of The Confusion" address to the sheeple`s. Any new gun laws coming from the chief potato?

i caught bits and parts ..

something about bringing jobs back .. but he left out there illegal alien jobs part lol

 

[Glock_USA]

 

[Grimscale]

Basically the State is just tripling-down on their bullshit, saying what they did is Constitutional and that the district court erred.

The usual lies.

"Sensitive-place restrictions are presumptively lawful,"
Bruen would say that this statement is 100% false.

"Among other things, the court improperly speculated that plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction and improperly based its public-interest finding"

A Right denied is irreparable harm, and "public interest finding" is directly called out in Bruen as a non-starter.

Try again NY. Maybe this time stop using 3-year-old lawyers?

 

[Glock_USA]

Basically the State is just tripling-down on their bullshit, saying what they did is Constitutional and that the district court erred.

The usual lies.

"Sensitive-place restrictions are presumptively lawful,"
Bruen would say that this statement is 100% false.

"Among other things, the court improperly speculated that plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction and improperly based its public-interest finding"

A Right denied is irreparable harm, and "public interest finding" is directly called out in Bruen as a non-starter.

Try again NY. Maybe this time stop using 3-year-old lawyers?

I am certainly looking forward to March 20th. A part of me actually thinks that the 2nd Circuit will finally realize that the jig is up and rule in accordance with Bruen, as other Circuits have recently done. I go back and forth on this fairly regularly though, so maybe not. I just hope a decision comes quickly, but it will probably be 3-4 weeks before we hear anything. That's just my guess.

 

[Saltwater60]

I am certainly looking forward to March 20th. A part of me actually thinks that the 2nd Circuit will finally realize that the jig is up and rule in accordance with Bruen, as other Circuits have recently done. I go back and forth on this fairly regularly though, so maybe not. I just hope a decision comes quickly, but it will probably be 3-4 weeks before we hear anything. That's just my guess.

They will toss us a bone for sure but I’m not sure it will be what we’re hoping for. It’s all about trying to get rid of standing or delay, delay, delay. If they can delay it long enough then the Supreme Court might change hands and they can say well Thomas got it wrong as they did with Roe V Wade. Also 3/20 we will not have an answer and that’s just when they are hearing the case. I do t expect anything for a month or so after.

 

[Glock_USA]

If they can delay it long enough then the Supreme Court might change hands

They can't delay it nearly that long. They've already been told to get it done "in a reasonable time", and that was issued to them approx. 60 days prior to when the hearings were scheduled for.

Also 3/20 we will not have an answer and that’s just when they are hearing the case. I do t expect anything for a month or so after.

That's basically exactly what I said. In the last district court case I called in to hear, the judge said he'd get a decision done quickly and it took about 4 weeks. Forget what case that was.

 

[pshift]

I've got an idea. Loosen the requirements for LEOSA (cant be older than age 90), make us swear an oath to 'uphold the law, etc.", make us all 'deputies in our respective counties, and wham! Problem solved.

 

[Saltwater60]

They can't delay it nearly that long. They've already been told to get it done "in a reasonable time", and that was issued to them approx. 60 days prior to when the hearings were scheduled for.

That's basically exactly what I said. In the last district court case I called in to hear, the judge said he'd get a decision done quickly and it took about 4 weeks. Forget what case that was.

When I see things like I saw where the Supreme Court has been using personal emails for official duty there are things at play. They tied this to the roe v wade overturning case. They are trying their best to get rid of Thomas and Alito. If they are successful this all goes away. A year or less and this could be done. Never put anything past these slime buckets.

 

[livingston]

ANOTHER State "Assault Weapons Ban"... They are pushing to the Supreme Court FAST...​

BREAKING: ANOTHER State "Assault Weapons Ban"... They are pushing to Supreme Court FAST... In tonight's video, we take a look at the Breaking news from New Mexico who have just introduced 7 new Gun Control laws amongst which is an Assault Weapons Ban, hollow point ban, raising of age of purchase, etc.

Legislators in New Mexico Have Proposed 7 New Gun Laws​

Legislators in New Mexico have proposed seven new gun laws in a wide-ranging package of proposals

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/new-mexico/articles/2023-02-08/legislators-in-new-mexico-have-proposed-7-new-gun-laws

 

[livingston]

Another free state joined our fight....You can run ......

 

[Acer-m14]

They can't delay it nearly that long. They've already been told to get it done "in a reasonable time", and that was issued to them approx. 60 days prior to when the hearings were scheduled for.

A new lawsuit reveals Suffolk County, NY is delaying giving gun permits for three years.

nygunforum.com

 

[Glock_USA]

A new lawsuit reveals Suffolk County, NY is delaying giving gun permits for three years.

nygunforum.com

The delay we are discussing was from the 2nd Circuit (not a county permit office) and they've already been told to get it done in a reasonable time. Days after that instruction, they scheduled 4-5 cases for March 20th, so they took the "suggestion" from SCOTUS seriously and acted quickly.

 

[pshift]

What about delays in issuing NYC permits?

 

[Saltwater60]

What about delays in issuing NYC permits?

I saw somewhere that a person received the CCW so apparently nothing.

 

[Acer-m14]

The delay we are discussing was from the 2nd Circuit (not a county permit office) and they've already been told to get it done in a reasonable time. Days after that instruction, they scheduled 4-5 cases for March 20th, so they took the "suggestion" from SCOTUS seriously and acted quickly.

yes ,, was just saying there are other place causing delays too ..

so beside the 2nd who got spanked

we also have LEO and maybe a Judge causing delays

 

[GlockModel29]

Two weeks from tomorrow peeps...

 

[Tisto]

Two weeks from tomorrow peeps...

Don't get too excited....the likelihood of a decision on that day is equal to that of accidently crashing into a unicorn being ridden by a leprechaun while Tiny Tim sings Tiptoe through the tulips because you were blinded by a full all the way across the sky double rainbow.