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.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.
Make it private and they can see nothing.I have so many SM accounts I forgot half of them.... On my 4th Twitter Account - no politics this time.
Any idea why Boron dropped out?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.
No reason given at all from FPC as usual...Any idea why Boron dropped out?
There will be oral arguments for plaintiff's motion for a TRO inSo 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.
The Virginia suit gives me some hope.There will be oral arguments for plaintiff's motion for a TRO in Antonyuk v. Bruen today. This lawsuit is much more broad than Boron/Christian v. Bruen.
Thank you for the clarification. Fingers crossed.There will be oral arguments for plaintiff's motion for a TRO inAntonyuk v. BruenAntonyuk v. Hochul today. This lawsuit is much more broad than Boron/Christian v. Bruen.
Edit: accidentally used the case name of the old case...
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.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.
I hope there is standing and I hope the line plaintiff doesn’t back out.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)
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.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)
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)
Meaning?UPDATE: The judge reserves decision on a TRO. A written decision will be forthcoming.
The judge did not decide on the TRO at the hearing today. He will issue a written decision later. I expect it tomorrow or Monday, but it could come at any time.Meaning?
I don't understand the legalese stuff at all.