2A Lawsuits and their progress we have here in NY

R

RBean

.40 S&W
Messages
208
Reaction score
674
Location
Brooklyn, NY
arp228, I have read the entire decision. Have not set down and outlined or marked up etc. I think the judge was careful. He allowed some parts to stand as restricted temporary areas etc. I think the training requirement is burdensome, but he decided to let it stand "for now.". Schools and govt building are set forth in Heller. He had no choice. Good for him on the social media disclosure, public transportation, parks and private property. He knocked all those out. The only thing I have an issue with re the private property is that he allowed the fenced in (enclosed) property to remain "restricted." I think he didn't properly apply the analogy. In the past it was not a felony to go onto someone fenced property even if armed. Also it had to have "posted" signs. Under CCIA no intent to do harm is required. No posted signs required as I recall. In the past it was trespassing not a felony. So he let it stand "for now." They could be ruled unconstitutional later. Remember the burden on the plaintiff is heavier in a TRO or preliminary injunction than in the main case.

With regard to the Second Circuit, Trump appointed two judges as I recall. Also they have already been spanked pretty hard by J. Thomas and I really don't think they will reverse the judge. The Bruen decision is clear and does not leave a lot of room for intentional misinterpretation. They know their decision will be appealed to the Supreme Court if they reverse the decision. If that happens, the Supreme Court will take the case. They can't let the 2nd give them the middle finger like our esteemed governor and legislature did.

That is the other thing, the CCIA is so blatantly a temper tantrum directed at the Supreme Court I don't think the 2nd will want to aid and abet that tantrum. I could be wrong. Never underestimate the vindictiveness of the anti-gun liberals.
 
Acer-m14

Acer-m14

20×102mm Vulcan
Messages
35,954
Reaction score
38,560
Location
Livingston
i watched the video below .. and when i heard the judge kinda skip over the church part .

fist thing that came to mind is the the JEWS have a case pending

which could be why .. just what came to mind at the time ..

 
Acer-m14

Acer-m14

20×102mm Vulcan
Messages
35,954
Reaction score
38,560
Location
Livingston
Jchrisls said:
Historically, thieves and those of I'll repute were those who carried concealed and were viewed as such. It was respectable and even honorable to open carry. They will be hard pressed to find otherwise.
Click to expand...

reminds me of all the old western movies .. cow boys in the saloon at the poker table .. have a pistol concealed up there sleeve or someplace .. specially the the cheaters ;)
 
US RIFLE M1A

US RIFLE M1A

.45 acp
Messages
362
Reaction score
886
Location
PA/NY Border in NEPA
As I said in the topic that is specific to this TRO, this closes the matter for me regarding the CCIA.

The law has been declared unconstitutional in a highly detailed opinion written by the judge, and will be nearly impossible to enforce from this point forward. Last time I checked, private citizens are not required to be federal-court-watchers, and to keep up with every twist and turn in the process. I have a full carry license in my wallet and Judge Suddaby's TRO in my glove compartment. OK, so the 2nd reverses the TRO and the Judge declares the law unconstitutional AGAIN in a full hearing and the 2nd....

I do not need to know the details of the legal system to know that what I am doing by lawfully and peacefully carrying is totally in the right.

It just is.

Carry on. I will be.
 
maverick52

maverick52

.223 Rem
Messages
1,115
Reaction score
2,197
Location
Knowhere
RBean said:
arp228, I have read the entire decision. Have not set down and outlined or marked up etc. I think the judge was careful. He allowed some parts to stand as restricted temporary areas etc. I think the training requirement is burdensome, but he decided to let it stand "for now.". Schools and govt building are set forth in Heller. He had no choice. Good for him on the social media disclosure, public transportation, parks and private property. He knocked all those out. The only thing I have an issue with re the private property is that he allowed the fenced in (enclosed) property to remain "restricted." I think he didn't properly apply the analogy. In the past it was not a felony to go onto someone fenced property even if armed. Also it had to have "posted" signs. Under CCIA no intent to do harm is required. No posted signs required as I recall. In the past it was trespassing not a felony. So he let it stand "for now." They could be ruled unconstitutional later. Remember the burden on the plaintiff is heavier in a TRO or preliminary injunction than in the main case.

With regard to the Second Circuit, Trump appointed two judges as I recall. Also they have already been spanked pretty hard by J. Thomas and I really don't think they will reverse the judge. The Bruen decision is clear and does not leave a lot of room for intentional misinterpretation. They know their decision will be appealed to the Supreme Court if they reverse the decision. If that happens, the Supreme Court will take the case. They can't let the 2nd give them the middle finger like our esteemed governor and legislature did.

That is the other thing, the CCIA is so blatantly a temper tantrum directed at the Supreme Court I don't think the 2nd will want to aid and abet that tantrum. I could be wrong. Never underestimate the vindictiveness of the anti-gun liberals.
Click to expand...
Thank you for this.
 
A

arp228

.38 Special
Messages
41
Reaction score
90
Location
Long Island
RBean said:
arp228, I have read the entire decision. Have not set down and outlined or marked up etc. I think the judge was careful. He allowed some parts to stand as restricted temporary areas etc. I think the training requirement is burdensome, but he decided to let it stand "for now.". Schools and govt building are set forth in Heller. He had no choice. Good for him on the social media disclosure, public transportation, parks and private property. He knocked all those out. The only thing I have an issue with re the private property is that he allowed the fenced in (enclosed) property to remain "restricted." I think he didn't properly apply the analogy. In the past it was not a felony to go onto someone fenced property even if armed. Also it had to have "posted" signs. Under CCIA no intent to do harm is required. No posted signs required as I recall. In the past it was trespassing not a felony. So he let it stand "for now." They could be ruled unconstitutional later. Remember the burden on the plaintiff is heavier in a TRO or preliminary injunction than in the main case.

With regard to the Second Circuit, Trump appointed two judges as I recall. Also they have already been spanked pretty hard by J. Thomas and I really don't think they will reverse the judge. The Bruen decision is clear and does not leave a lot of room for intentional misinterpretation. They know their decision will be appealed to the Supreme Court if they reverse the decision. If that happens, the Supreme Court will take the case. They can't let the 2nd give them the middle finger like our esteemed governor and legislature did.

That is the other thing, the CCIA is so blatantly a temper tantrum directed at the Supreme Court I don't think the 2nd will want to aid and abet that tantrum. I could be wrong. Never underestimate the vindictiveness of the anti-gun liberals.
Click to expand...
@RBean,
Thank you for your analysis. Much appreciated
 
John Stark

John Stark

.44 mag
Messages
937
Reaction score
2,741
Location
IAM
TJ12010 said:
I'm curious that if they did "allow" open carry, would they try to ban or further regulate concealed carry?
Click to expand...
I appreciate that you put "allow" open carry in the quotation marks as you did, because that signals the exact problem we've had going on since the Heller decision. The reporting on Heller, McDonald, Cetano, and now Bruen has been abysmal.

In Heller, Scalia specifically and clearly stated: "open carry is the right protected."

That essentially means that there are very few restrictions on the Right to Bear. The RKBA was defined by the Court essentially in the same terms as most other Rights.

Heller also essentially made it clear that a State absolutely can require a permit to carry concealed, and have requirements that need to be fulfilled in order to get that permit; however, that process has to follow Due Process and Equal Rights before the law, and ought to be the same, uniform, and fair process for all seeking that concealed carry permit.

It should be noted that the Supremes did NOT say that a State MUST require a permit to conceal carry, and more than half the States in the Union have opted for "Constitutional Carry" (a bit of a misnomer IMO, but meh) and allow permitless concealed carry (with varying requirement on both or either).

Whether a state can ban concealed carry completely is an interesting question. I would say there is certainly "history, text, and tradition" that concealed carry had restrictions, and even considered unlawful and criminal; and that there is probably some "history, text, and tradition" showing that banning concealed carry prior to the Civil War exists. However, is that "history, text, and tradition" enough to completely allow concealed carry to be banned?

I'm not sure there is based on the evidence I have reviewed in the past. Further, there are questions that would need to be asked in light of out modern times that were probably pertinent when the Second Amendment was ratified, but for which we may have little or no evidence.

For example, we know law enforcement officers can and do carry concealed; off duty cops is the obvious data point, but in our modern times we also have undercover law enforcement, and the clear need for them to conceal carry in their duties. Spies and other government officials (including politicians) also are allowed to conceal carry. If law enforcement and other government officials can have the special means to carry concealed, at that point we would have to ask if that trickles down to the plebes. I would say obviously yes, since what is good for the goose is good for the gander, but the "law is an ass" (i.e., stubborn and willful) so that is another consideration.

So, the question has to be asked, is there "history, text, and tradition" and other precedent that would make it plain that concealed carry was a thing when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was ratified, and that it could not be banned outright?

This is why Scalia in Hiller was digging around in English Common Law, and went back and referenced the English Civil War where the Protestants won the Right to never be disarmed by the Crown. Etc. and so on.

My opinion on whether concealed carry could be outright banned for everyone by a state is no, but I could be proven wrong... maybe.

My opinion on whether it can be banned for some but allowed for others is a hell no, as Heller clearly requires the States to grant a concealed license as long as the process is fair and uniform. If they offer concealed to anyone (all States do), then all are at least theoretically allowed to apply and obtain the permit if they fit the (strict scrutiny) standards required by the Supremes.

That was what Dick Heller was suing for, after all, and he won.
 
Last edited:
camper4lyfe

camper4lyfe

.308 Win
Messages
4,551
Reaction score
6,825
Location
Avon, NY
TJ12010

TJ12010

9mm
Messages
70
Reaction score
93
Location
Westchester, New York
John Stark said:
I appreciate that you put "allow" open carry in the quotation marks as you did, because that signals the exact problem we've had going on since the Heller decision. The reporting on Heller, McDonald, Cetano, and now Bruen has been abysmal.

In Heller, Scalia specifically and clearly stated: "open carry is the right protected."

That essentially means that there are very few restrictions on the Right to Bear. The RKBA was defined by the Court essentially in the same terms as most other Rights.

Heller also essentially made it clear that a State absolutely can require a permit to carry concealed, and have requirements that need to be fulfilled in order to get that permit; however, that process has to follow Due Process and Equal Rights before the law, and ought to be the same, uniform, and fair process for all seeking that concealed carry permit.

It should be noted that the Supremes did NOT say that a State MUST require a permit to conceal carry, and more than half the States in the Union have opted for "Constitutional Carry" (a bit of a misnomer IMO, but meh) and allow permitless concealed carry (with varying requirement on both or either).

Whether a state can ban concealed carry completely is an interesting question. I would say there is certainly "history, text, and tradition" that concealed carry had restrictions, and even considered unlawful and criminal; and that there is probably some "history, text, and tradition" showing that banning concealed carry prior to the Civil War exists. However, is that "history, text, and tradition" enough to completely allow concealed carry to be banned?

I'm not sure there is based on the evidence I have reviewed in the past. Further, there are questions that would need to be asked in light of out modern times that were probably pertinent when the Second Amendment was ratified, but for which we may have little or no evidence.

For example, we know law enforcement officers can and do carry concealed; off duty cops is the obvious data point, but in our modern times we also have undercover law enforcement, and the clear need for them to conceal carry in their duties. Spies and other government officials (including politicians) also are allowed to conceal carry. If law enforcement and other government officials can have the special means to carry concealed, at that point we would have to ask if that trickles down to the plebes. I would say obviously yes, since what is good for the goose is good for the gander, but the "law is an ass" (i.e., stubborn and willful) so that is another consideration.

So, the question has to be asked, is there "history, text, and tradition" and other precedent that would make it plain that concealed carry was a thing when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was ratified, and that it could not be banned outright?

This is why Scalia in Hiller was digging around in English Common Law, and went back and referenced the English Civil War where the Protestants won the Right to never be disarmed by the Crown. Etc. and so on.

My opinion on whether concealed carry could be outright banned for everyone by a state is no, but I could be proven wrong... maybe.

My opinion on whether it can be banned for some but allowed for others is a hell no, as Heller clearly requires the States to grant a concealed license as long as the process is fair and uniform. If they offer concealed to anyone (all States do), then all are at least theoretically allowed to apply and obtain the permit if they fit the (strict scrutiny) standards required by the Supremes.

That was what Dick Heller was suing for, after all, and he won.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your insightful reply. I found it thought provoking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top