Recent content by arp228

Stay tuned. We will be on the winning end of this. The question is how long will it take to get there?

Taken from another site. As of 3/13/2023. The far right column is the one to look at.

Will be interesting to see what happens in Jersey tomorrow as Judge Bumb is holding hearings on the TRO she issued regarding the restricted places and many of the same sensitive places

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.

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...

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. This is being challenged in Illinois in their Assault Weapons Ban under the Equal Protection Clause and so far both a federal judge and...

True. But if they end the requirement to take a class, then the live fire requirement goes away (even though you only fire 1 round). Without the live fire requirement, they may lose reciprocity with a lot of states. Right now, the Florida license is one of the best to have in terms of reciprocity

This bill will die. The Florida legislature has a Republican super majority and as everyone knows a Republican pro gun governor. This bill has about as much of a chance passing as a constitutional carry bill does here in NY.

It took NYS 1 week to pass these unconstitutional laws, yet it is taking months to unravel them. So frustrating

GOA's response to NYS opposition on the Supreme Court lifting the 2nd Circuit's stay. They took out the sledgehammer. Beautiful. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22A557/251449/20230105103816229_SCOTUS%20reply%20complete%20FINAL.pdf

I believe their response will be on procedure, not the merits. They have no shot on the merits.

This judge needs to read the Bruen decision. He is using tiers of scrutiny which the Supreme Court in Bruen said this could no longer be used in 2A cases. There needs to be consequences for judges as well as legislators ignoring the Supreme Court

We can only hope. All we would need is this to happen just once. See how fast they would stop the nonsense.

I believe Sinatra has both the restricted areas (Christian v. Nigrelli), and the places of worship. I can't remember the name of this case.

If this is the case, then I stand corrected. And I'm happy to be corrected. I did not attend the meeting. It was from a post on another forum where a member said he attended.