Search results

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.

I sure hope so. But they have no fear of this happening because they aren't personally liable. Who ends you paying the fine? We, the taxpayers. So they can do whatever they want without fear

On another forum, a member attended a meeting last night where the commanding officer of the Suffolk County Pistol License Bureau spoke and said even though Judge Sinatra put a preliminary injunction on the restricted places, Suffolk County was still enforcing it. Even when we get a win, it's...

I have a Tulster Profile IWB for my Glock 26 and Sig P365. They are kydex, the quality is great, and even though it's IWB, it is comfortable

I did hear him say this. What about what Cippee commented above? That they aren’t arguing people possessing guns under the influence not in places that sells alcohol in general. Did you hear it this way?

I hope you are correct.

Why would they back off on restaurants where alcohol is sold? Don't they go out to eat? This is nuts

I thought I heard the same thing. What the hell are they doing?

Besides Times Square, do you remember what other places they said they will not challenge?

There is no way the entire CCIA stands. Most of it will be deemed unconstitutional. Suddaby threw the plaintiffs a line to button up where he is questioning their standing on the sensitive places issue.

He knows the majority of this CCIA is unconstitutional as you said above. But he also knows that NYS is going to appeal his ruling up to the 2nd Circuit. He is trying to make this as solid as can be so that the 2nd Circuit cannot overturn any part of his decision

Many of these sensitive places are downstate specific. Looks they they may need to make a trip downstate and get on a NYC subway, LIRR, taxi, etc

This is just for the injunction, correct? If prohibiting carry in the other places is unconstitutional, then shouldn't these other places be struck down in the overall case?

@RBean, Thank you for your analysis. Much appreciated

@RBean, I am very interested to hear your critique of the judges decision and how you see it going from here. Especially with regards to the state appealing to the 2nd Circuit (which we all know isn't very pro 2A)

Strike 1 right out of the gate. This is the judge who is getting the case: Mae A. D'Agostino is a federal judge for the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. She joined the court in 2011 after being nominated by President Barack Obama. EXT ORDER denying Direct...

My concern is they filed this too soon. They should have waited for Judge Suddaby's ruling as it seems he basically outlined how to proceed once finding a plaintiff who has standing. He gave the roadmap. Also, the training part will not apply to upstate license holders and both these...

But getting rid of the permitting scheme still wouldn’t solve the sensitive places issue. That is the worst part of this law. There is no place that you can legally carry.

Hopefully the get the standing part right, unlike the last debacle

Thank you for attending and giving the update. I don't think any of the comments were directed towards you. I know mine sure wasn't.

From what is written, I interpret it the same way you do. But hopefully it was written incorrectly.

This has to be incorrect. This is probably the worst part of the entire law. This is what makes the entire state a sensitive place. No way GOA would have agreed to this

Look at this Introduction. Right to the point in calling them out "In his 65-page filing, Defendant has adopted a see-what-sticks approach in responding to Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. First, offering a smorgasbord of theories, Defendant claims that none of the Plaintiffs...

Thanks. I am looking forward to seeing all the inaccuracies and outright falsehoods and lies get called out

Has the plaintiff (GOA and Antonyuk) filed their response to NYS's opposition? I thought this is due by today and can't find it on Courtlistener.com. The last thing that shows is Giffords BS from 8/17

The LEOSA training is not 15 hours every year. Between the classroom and range time it is 2 1/2 hours and $50. Going to be a lot longer and more expensive for us

The "Other businesses would have to explicitly say that they allow guns on their property" needs to be challenged on day 1. This is way to broad. The legislation should be if they don't want guns on their property they need to post a sign as many of the shall issue states do.