arp228
.38 Special
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
2A Lawsuits and their progress we have here in NY
- Thread starter Edwardteach72
- Start date
kev74
20×102mm Vulcan
They don't expire. They'll just take them away if you don't recertify.
camper4lyfe
.308 Win
I don't believe GOA has to respond. They were the ones that filed the complaint.
camper4lyfe
.308 Win
Only those granted before 2013 when unSAFE set a 5 year renewal period.They don't expire. They'll just take them away if you don't recertify.
They filled today. I'll see if I can find it
Correct but the judge even held GOAs hand and walked them through how they should respond.
So they would be stupid not to
arp228
.38 Special
Thanks. I am looking forward to seeing all the inaccuracies and outright falsehoods and lies get called out
I think there are two different lawsuits being discussed here?
The Antonyuk v. Bruen (1:22-cv-00734) lawsuit is being heard tomorrow, 08/23 in Syracuse, and Judge Suddaby (Chief Justice of the Northern District of NY) gave the plaintiffs until today to submit additional papers to detail why their suit has standing (because Letitia James pulled the same bullshit out of her ugly fat ass in both Antonyuk v Bruen, and Vanchoff v James to say that they didn't have standing either).
Vanchoff V. James is being heard by Judge Brown of the Eastern District Court of New York. (See above)
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on this.
Also, I am very interested to see what the plantiffs in Antonyuk file with the court by their deadline at 5PM today.
The Antonyuk v. Bruen (1:22-cv-00734) lawsuit is being heard tomorrow, 08/23 in Syracuse, and Judge Suddaby (Chief Justice of the Northern District of NY) gave the plaintiffs until today to submit additional papers to detail why their suit has standing (because Letitia James pulled the same bullshit out of her ugly fat ass in both Antonyuk v Bruen, and Vanchoff v James to say that they didn't have standing either).
Vanchoff V. James is being heard by Judge Brown of the Eastern District Court of New York. (See above)
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on this.
Also, I am very interested to see what the plantiffs in Antonyuk file with the court by their deadline at 5PM today.
There are actually 5 Lawsuits being discussed in this thread
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
Inside Albany with Marjorie Byrnes
What happened when folks were summoned to Albany to vote on the gun bill
What happened when folks were summoned to Albany to vote on the gun bill
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
NYPD Forced To Issue CCW Permits 8/22/22
US RIFLE M1A
.45 acp
Be advised that there was an amended order sent down from the judge this past Friday the 19th, for a total of two orders on the same day. First order said that he wanted plaintiffs to give examples such as a store or gas station.
The amended order said that plaintiffs had already mentioned stores and gas stations and to give any other locations that plaintiff may want to visit armed.
US RIFLE M1A
.45 acp
Today's filing for Plaintiff...
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nynd.133602/gov.uscourts.nynd.133602.40.0.pdf
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nynd.133602/gov.uscourts.nynd.133602.40.0.pdf
Thank you
gunpoliticsny
6.5 Creedmoor
Just saw this on reddit
Steal2B
.700 Nitro Express
Leticia James claiming that the neutered piece of shit NY compliant 223/5.56 is an AR15 is alot like Leticia James claiming she is a desirable woman.
camper4lyfe
.308 Win
That is a thing of beauty
speedkills27
6.5 Creedmoor
this is an epic beat down, hopefully the court sees it that way too
camper4lyfe
.308 Win
I'm noticing similar arguments: "FPC/GOA aren't directly injured, so they can't sue," and "plaintiffs haven't been injured by the not yet active new law nor have they been charged, so sorry no."
Weird. It worked in NYSRPA v. Bruen.
It's amazing how NYS has a 1 page argument while the plaintiffs are coming in with 40+ page rebuttals. It really shows where the power is shifting to, I think.
Dr. Evil
20×102mm Vulcan
I'll ask here too. What exactly does this mean?
US RIFLE M1A
.45 acp
See the other thread.
FrankenCub
.338 Win Mag
Because this is NY, NY judges don't GAF. If their master Hochul don't care what SCOTUS says, why should they. There are no repercussions.
It will have to work its way up to SCOTUS in the next few years.
ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
So likely, with this new Supreme Court precedent, there will be judges that have integrity and follow their oath and respect the rulings of higher courts (regardless of their political leanings). There will also be judges who don't. For whatever reason ; be it personal belief over rule of law or actual corruption. Regardless, I do believe gun control's days are numbered.
Dr. Evil
20×102mm Vulcan
We have been seeing good things going on too in a flurry as of recent related to CA, CO, NYC, etc.. You lose a battle sometimes while winning the war. Doing my best not to have a defeatist attitude. That is what they are hoping for.
ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
We've had so much victory doc. Everyone has to stop and remember that so much, a majority of the country actually, is and has been very pro 2A, especially compared to NY, Etc.. These recent legal issues, while they do affect every state in the country, for now only directly affect the states with the draconian laws in question. While it certainly helps fortify the 2A in all 50 states, the "history and tradition", not to mention the state sanctioned mind fucking NY and other states have given their residents, will definitely take some time to be cast off....my point being that these are the death throws of anti-gun laws. It would be great if NY and other ban states would respect the rule of law immediately, but they don't and it will take a lot of court losses to make them come about.
Beerman
6.5 Creedmoor
Well, that didn’t work out at all like we had hoped. But Suddaby’s 78 pages of tricky talk sort of spelled out how the next plaintiff should proceed for victory.