New NRA-ILA Backed Lawsuit Challenges New York's Unconstitutional Carry Restrictions.

Edwardteach72

Edwardteach72

.475 A&M Magnum
U.S. Military
Messages
14,883
Reaction score
15,064
Location
New York
NYSRPA has just filled a new lawsuit of their own challenging the CCAI

NYSRPA v. Bruen updated to add the actual filing


www.nraila.org

NRA-ILA | New NRA-ILA Backed Lawsuit Challenges New York's Unconstitutional Carry Restrictions.

Last June—in an NRA-ILA backed case—the United States Supreme Court declared that the Second Amendment protects the right of law abiding citizens to carry a firearm for personal protection and struck the “proper cause” requirement in New York’s Sullivan Law.
www.nraila.org www.nraila.org
 
Last edited:
kev74

kev74

20×102mm Vulcan
Messages
48,015
Reaction score
150,942
Location
Orange Co.
Edwardteach72 said:
NYSRPA has just filled a new lawsuit of their own challenging the CCAI

NYSRPA v. Bruen


www.nraila.org

NRA-ILA | New NRA-ILA Backed Lawsuit Challenges New York's Unconstitutional Carry Restrictions.

Last June—in an NRA-ILA backed case—the United States Supreme Court declared that the Second Amendment protects the right of law abiding citizens to carry a firearm for personal protection and struck the “proper cause” requirement in New York’s Sullivan Law.
www.nraila.org www.nraila.org
Click to expand...
I was wondering where they've been hiding.
 
Celt

Celt

.338 Win Mag
Messages
9,439
Reaction score
19,255
Location
Westchester
Lets say a cout case is successful and we get ou rights back (in part) in a few years, they leftists will maximize their time by passing more laws until then, and after a positive ruling they will ignore it and find ither work arounds.

Scotus needed to disallow a permitting scheme altogether, too bad they said permits are ok.

I cant stress enough how politicians need to be held liable for blatant constitutional violations. How can they steal our rights without consequence? I wish SCOTUS could somehow penalize them for ignoring them.
 
Last edited:
A

arp228

.38 Special
Messages
41
Reaction score
90
Location
Long Island
Celt said:
Lets say a cout case is successful and we get ou rights back (in part) in a few years, they leftists will maximize their time by passing more laws until then, and after a positive ruling they will ignore it and find ither work arounds.

Scotus needed to disallow a permitting scheme altogether, too bad they said permits are ok.

I cant stress enough how politicians need to be held liable for blatant constitutional violations. How can they steal our rights without consequence? I wish SCOTUS could somehow penalize them for ignoring them.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Acer-m14

Acer-m14

20×102mm Vulcan
Messages
35,368
Reaction score
37,549
Location
Livingston
arp228 said:
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.
Click to expand...

the Govt can't compel you to place a sign on your door on a Right .. .. unconstitutional .. 1A ..
 
A

arp228

.38 Special
Messages
41
Reaction score
90
Location
Long Island
Edwardteach72 said:
Update
Click to expand...
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 plaintiffs reside upstate. They needed to find a downstate plaintiff
 
Phazer

Phazer

.450/400 Nitro Ex
Messages
9,580
Reaction score
20,129
Location
Province of Westchester
Acer-m14 said:
the Govt can't compel you to place a sign on your door on a Right .. .. unconstitutional .. 1A ..
Click to expand...
THAT would be my 1A contention. The government cannot compel speech that simply supports an acknowledged legal right (in this case, signage stating that "firearms are permitted"). Such compelled speech would be redundant and anathema in liberal progressive jurisdictions. If someone wishes to freely exercise their 1A rights by posting a sign stating their private property policy against the federal 2A, that is acceptable speech...which is not compelled.
 
A

arp228

.38 Special
Messages
41
Reaction score
90
Location
Long Island
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 Assignment. The cases are not related, and the Clerk is directed to randomly reassign the case. So Ordered by U.S. District Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 9/1/22. (lmw) (Entered: 09/01/2022)

TEXT ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case randomly reassigned to U.S. District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino for all further proceedings. U.S. District Judge Glenn T. Suddaby no longer assigned to case. So Ordered by Chief Judge Brenda K. Sannes on 9/1/22. (lmw) (Entered: 09/01/2022)
 
Cavalry

Cavalry

.308 Win
Messages
4,439
Reaction score
7,761
Location
Behind Enemy Lines
Edwardteach72 said:
I'd say check the filing and see their argument and make your own opinion (not trying to sound like a dick as much as I know that sounds it)
Click to expand...
Reading it currently, thats why I asked. The bulk of the suit appears to be based on the onerous process of obtaining a permit as of today. If they are not affected, how can they sue?
 
Saltwater60

Saltwater60

.950 JDJ
Messages
33,130
Reaction score
37,268
Location
Western NY
Edwardteach72 said:
There could be more lawsuits coming.

Or NYSRPA already saw what Suddaby had put forth in his original response to the first fillings in the last case.

I just got done glancing over the 29 pages.. mainly looking at their arguments for the "sensitive places" and I think they may have a better shot than GOA did.. but I'm no expert and not sure what these two are doing differently to have standing over the GOA case
Click to expand...
I hope this one goes better than the last one. The sensitive places needs to go.
 
Saltwater60

Saltwater60

.950 JDJ
Messages
33,130
Reaction score
37,268
Location
Western NY
Ev
Cavalry said:
Reading it currently, thats why I asked. The bulk of the suit appears to be based on the onerous process of obtaining a permit as of today. If they are not affected, how can they sue?
Click to expand...
Every pistol permit holder in NYS is impacted and we are literally impacted by having gun rights or not having rights. If caught carrying it’s a felony and say good bye to all gun rights then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top