US RIFLE M1A
.45 acp
Because Plaintiff Antonyuk’s License Does Not Expire, He Will Never Be
Subject To The Interview, Social Media Disclosure, or Training
Requirements He Is Challenging
I would have to be extremely naive to believe that the so-called CCIA actually said what the State's brief in Antonyuk said it said. The above statement, taken directly from the State's brief, is in direct conflict with what the legislation says. The legislation says that those requirements will be necessary upon recertification, and EVERY license holder recertifies every 3 years now, so everyone is caught up in this.
So what the AG is saying NOW (in the brief) is that; 'Oh, it does not mean recertification (every 3 years) it means renewal, which a huge population of NY State license holders never have to do, so don't worry about it. Oh, and that this judge cannot shoot down the requirements because the plaintiff in this case will never have to do them.
Is this just another case such as when NYC all of a sudden allows out-of-city travel with guns, thereby mooting the case? Is this a clarification that works in the benefit of everyone north of Westchester? Is it just a lie, and everyone is still responsible for those recertification roadblocks?
?????
Subject To The Interview, Social Media Disclosure, or Training
Requirements He Is Challenging
I would have to be extremely naive to believe that the so-called CCIA actually said what the State's brief in Antonyuk said it said. The above statement, taken directly from the State's brief, is in direct conflict with what the legislation says. The legislation says that those requirements will be necessary upon recertification, and EVERY license holder recertifies every 3 years now, so everyone is caught up in this.
So what the AG is saying NOW (in the brief) is that; 'Oh, it does not mean recertification (every 3 years) it means renewal, which a huge population of NY State license holders never have to do, so don't worry about it. Oh, and that this judge cannot shoot down the requirements because the plaintiff in this case will never have to do them.
Is this just another case such as when NYC all of a sudden allows out-of-city travel with guns, thereby mooting the case? Is this a clarification that works in the benefit of everyone north of Westchester? Is it just a lie, and everyone is still responsible for those recertification roadblocks?
?????
