Temporary Restaining Order Issued For Concealed Carry Improvement Act (merged thread)

[99cummins]

It’s a cop out to vote the way the state wants him to. He said it’s unconstitutional so why not rule this way? The standing thing is Suddaby’s cop out to appease the powers that be. Standing has been ruled on and you didn’t even have to have the intent to break the law. All you need to have standing is a concealed carry permit or even the desire to obtain one. This law could prevent people from wanting a permit.
This is bullshit!!

The recent documents from the court seem to read like they are setting up to rule in favor of the state. Guess we shouldn’t be surprised by this in ny. Everyone is bought and paid for. After the court rules in favor of the state, look for further restrictions from ny.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

Come on Frey's get arrested already

 

[maverick52]

Suddaby confuses me. He writes his opinion on the first case saying it’s unconstitutional. Then grants a TRO on this round and now all of the sudden he’s back peddling? WTF?

 

[tirwin1]

Suddaby confuses me. He writes his opinion on the first case saying it’s unconstitutional. Then grants a TRO on this round and now all of the sudden he’s back peddling? WTF?

Think he's getting some pressure behind the scenes? I'm sure they are dangling the carrot but perhaps also a stick. Are there skeletons in his closet that he is being reminded of? Family member that has business before the state or is possibly in trouble?

I don't trust the politicians in this state. His backtracking is highly suspicious.

 

[arp228]

Suddaby confuses me. He writes his opinion on the first case saying it’s unconstitutional. Then grants a TRO on this round and now all of the sudden he’s back peddling? WTF?

He knows the majority of this CCIA is unconstitutional as you said above. But he also knows that NYS is going to appeal his ruling up to the 2nd Circuit. He is trying to make this as solid as can be so that the 2nd Circuit cannot overturn any part of his decision

 

[SomeSoldier]

Soap Box
Ballot Box
Jury Box
hmmm

 

[spat]

Quoting this part for clarity:

"the Court is carefully considering whether Plaintiffs have sufficiently shown a concrete intention to carry concealed in the immediate future ..."

What a load of bullshit. This essentially boils down to NY's now defunct "Proper Clause" requirement to get a permission slip, in a manner of speaking.

Every place on the list is a place almost all people are going to want to visit at some time, or will be forced to visit due to various life circumstances and situations.

As Americans, we not only have the right to travel between the States and visit all places that are open to the public when we do so, but we obviously have the right to travel and visit anywhere WITHIN NY that is likewise open to the public in some manner.

Proving that we have to meet some standard to exercise our Second Amendment rights in the "immediate future" before we can go somewhere and be able to protect ourselves (which the Second Amendment is clearly predicated on and the strongest basis upon which Scalia decided Heller) is nothing but fuckery and court/legal politics and shenanigans.

"Well your honor I'm really looking forward to driving through the hood while exercising my Rights really, really soon. Look, I'm not even crossing my fingers behind my back!!!"

We have the Right to defend ourselves, our families, our property, and our other Rights practically anywhere except a few places, and those places would be defined just like other Rights have been defined: narrowly tailored restrictions that are highly dependent on time, place, and manner, and the government proving that in those few places, it would be ill advised for anyone to freely visit.

Military bases, prisons, courts of law; that is, places where this is an ACTUAL government interest to make sure things are run properly and criminals, terrorists, spies, foreign invaders, and so on cannot disrupt the duty to serve the People through those few venues where practicality weighs more heavily on the scales of Justice.

Suddaby has completely dropped the ball on this. That wiggle room he's giving the state of NY has a huge chance to be exploited to our great detriment, and perhaps with regards to other cases in other states depending on how this all falls out.

How many times have we seen this shitshow where wiggle room is found because a plaintiff was "to broad in his suit?" What fucking part of Shall Not Be Infringed does bullshit "standing" have any bearing on whether or not we are going to exercise a fundamental Right in the "immediate future"?

A real judge would know this and call NY out on their bullshit legal claims.

"I am booking a flight to Mount Rushmore as we speak your honor!" was never a predicate to having a Right to go there, armed or otherwise.

Fuck him.

You'd think filing a lawsuit to strike down the prohibition is a pretty concrete demonstration of intent to carry.....

Is he seriously suggesting these guys are going to all this time and expense for a prank ?

 

[OwnTheRide]

Did you notice they didn’t try that seven round nonsense again? That’s why this full retard thing is going to backfire on them again. Once it’s case law ( post all appeals) that they can’t do that, don’t worry about it again.

They're creative, they'll approach it from a different angle. They don't care about the means, only the ends, and they feel they are fully justified in whatever they do.

 

[OwnTheRide]

Just rule that to be a sensitive location you need controlled access.

If you aren't taking positive steps to make sure criminals are disarmed there, then you can't demand everyone else is.

I.e., no metal detectors or searches to enter means not a sensitive location.

I'd take it further and say that any place that prohibits your access to effective self defense is taking on responsibility and liability in relation to your safety. As in, "no guns" and no metal detectors/effective screening/effective response plan = they are now liable for any/all injury resulting from you being attacked by another.

 

[VietnamEraVet]

I'd take it further and say that any place that prohibits your access to effective self defense is taking on responsibility and liability in relation to your safety. As in, "no guns" and no metal detectors/effective screening/effective response plan = they are now liable for any/all injury resulting from you being attacked by another.

I wish GOA & company would make this exact argument in the court. And I really wish someone would raise the argument over those of us with CCW permits outside NYC being prevented from carrying there. As I recall someone here posting on that before, it violates our equal rights. Since when should it be legal to discriminate which counties you can or cannot carry in, in your own state?

 

[John Stark]

Here's another question to ponder when it comes to this bullshit.

What is NY's standing on any of this? Has that been explicitly stated and rigorously documented, backed by "history, tradition, and text," with lots of cites to other pertinent cases that would actually uphold any of this new round of garbage?

The Supreme Court crushed NY guns laws, particularly the concealed carry bullshit. What fucking leg do they have to stand on with any of this, other than their attempt to throw everything they can think of against the wall to see what sticks while EVERY citizen in this state suffers under this draconian dictate from the Whore in Albany?

Funny how the State can step in and claim broad standing and oversight on just about fucking anything, but We the People have to beg a judge to consider our claims in the minutest possible detail, and bend over backwards to show the so-called "court" that we really are going to exercise our Rights "immediately" and "concretely."

It turns our entire Constitutional order on its head. The Citizens have to answer to the fucking government, but the government NEVER has to answer to the plebes.

That is not government "of, by, and for the People."

Our Rights are guaranteed. They are not at the whim of the dictators and mob bosses who run this wretched State. They serve at our fucking pleasure, and the fact that this shithole votes Demrat has fuck all to do with fundamental Rights.

I'm fucking sick and tired of having our political masters dictate to us on their terms. Their terms are NOT the agreed upon terms set forth in our Constitution.

The States agreed to certain terms under the Constitution, and those terms were reinforced and applied STRONGLY under the 14th Amendment.

 

[spat]

Here's another question to ponder when it comes to this bullshit.

What is NY's standing on any of this? Has that been explicitly stated and rigorously documented, backed by "history, tradition, and text," with lots of cites to other pertinent cases that would actually uphold any of this new round of garbage?

The Supreme Court crushed NY guns laws, particularly the concealed carry bullshit. What fucking leg do they have to stand on with any of this, other than their attempt to throw everything they can think of against the wall to see what sticks while EVERY citizen in this state suffers under this draconian dictate from the Whore in Albany?

Funny how the State can step in and claim broad standing and oversight on just about fucking anything, but We the People have to beg a judge to consider our claims in the minutest possible detail, and bend over backwards to show the so-called "court" that we really are going to exercise our Rights "immediately" and "concretely."

It turns our entire Constitutional order on its head. The Citizens have to answer to the fucking government, but the government NEVER has to answer to the plebes.

That is not government "of, by, and for the People."

Our Rights are guaranteed. They are not at the whim of the dictators and mob bosses who run this wretched State. They serve at our fucking pleasure, and the fact that this shithole votes Demrat has fuck all to do with fundamental Rights.

I'm fucking sick and tired of having our political masters dictate to us on their terms. Their terms are NOT the agreed upon terms set forth in our Constitution.

The States agreed to certain terms under the Constitution, and those terms were reinforced and applied STRONGLY under the 14th Amendment.

NY is the defendant in the lawsuits.

Defendants always have standing, since they are the ones being sued.

 

[Phazer]

Suddaby confuses me. He writes his opinion on the first case saying it’s unconstitutional. Then grants a TRO on this round and now all of the sudden he’s back peddling? WTF?

Judge "No Standing" Suddaby.

 

[Saltwater60]

Its the fucking equivalent of saying, "The plaintiff has not shown an immediate intent to exercise his Right:

To vote;

Or to speak (or not to);

Or to read or write something (or not to);

Or to go to church (or not to)..."

And so on.

"The plaintiff has not shown an immediate intent to exercise his right to breathe, so I hope he can hold his breath for awhile as we try to sort out whether he has fucking standing."

Putting that kind of made up, retarded "standard" forward by a federal "judge" ought to be grounds for an impeachment and a horse whipping!

After his trial of course, when maybe he will have an "immediate intent" to prove his innocence and have legal representation in order to defend his Rights in a court of law.

What a fucking cuck!

Well put. Just like I have a right to a criminal lawyer and speedy trial even though I will hopefully never need one. I don’t plan to ever get arrested so does that mean I don’t have those rights.

 

[Saltwater60]

The recent documents from the court seem to read like they are setting up to rule in favor of the state. Guess we shouldn’t be surprised by this in ny. Everyone is bought and paid for. After the court rules in favor of the state, look for further restrictions from ny.

I have word from a fairly reliable source if this stands she will make NYS a gun free zone. I’m sure by that they mean no semi automatic rifles or pistols. I’m fairly pissed off at this point.

 

[arp228]

I have word from a fairly reliable source if this stands she will make NYS a gun free zone. I’m sure by that they mean no semi automatic rifles or pistols. I’m fairly pissed off at this point.

There is no way the entire CCIA stands. Most of it will be deemed unconstitutional. Suddaby threw the plaintiffs a line to button up where he is questioning their standing on the sensitive places issue.

 

[Phazer]

Federal Judge John Sinatra in Buffalo, NY entered a temporary restraining order today declaring New York's ban on carrying guns in churches and places of worship to be unconstitutional..

 

[Saltwater60]

There is no way the entire CCIA stands. Most of it will be deemed unconstitutional. Suddaby threw the plaintiffs a line to button up where he is questioning their standing on the sensitive places issue.

It seems that way, but if he says no one ever has standing then he can say it’s unconstitutional all he wants. Until he deems someone having standing and ruling in our favor then his statements mean nothing.

 

[GOPerfect]

Judge temporarily halts portion of NY concealed carry laws pertaining to houses of worship

The order applies to churches, synagogues, mosques, etc. which were deemed to be “sensitive locations” under state law, where carrying a gun would have been illegal.

www.wgrz.com

I do not attend church, so this does not affect me either way

 

[John Stark]

NY is the defendant in the lawsuits.

Defendants always have standing, since they are the ones being sued.

I understand this, but the point I was trying to make is that the Supremes already ruled on most of the stuff NY has basically asserted in the new laws. Obviously in defiance of the Court. Sensitive places has mostly be addressed going all the way back to Heller for goodness sake, along with other stuff like safe storage in McDonald, both precedents already more than a freaking decade on the books.

Lower courts ought to tell NY they have no standing on matters that is already settled case law, and rule for the defendants without this dancing around deference to the State bullshit.

If there are matters that are not completely clear from Heller, McDonald, Cetano, and Bruen, then fine NY can defend those parts that might pass Constitutional muster. Otherwise, too bad you NY, you were overruled on this a decade ago and you are wasting the time of this court.

 

[spat]

I understand this, but the point I was trying to make is that the Supremes already ruled on most of the stuff NY has basically asserted in the new laws. Obviously in defiance of the Court. Sensitive places has mostly be addressed going all the way back to Heller for goodness sake, along with other stuff like safe storage in McDonald, both precedents already more than a freaking decade on the books.

Lower courts ought to tell NY they have no standing on matters that is already settled case law, and rule for the defendants without this dancing around deference to the State bullshit.

If there are matters that are not completely clear from Heller, McDonald, Cetano, and Bruen, then fine NY can defend those parts that might pass Constitutional muster. Otherwise, too bad you NY, you were overruled on this a decade ago and you are wasting the time of this court.

That's not what standing is.

Standing means you have an actual injury you can seek a legal remedy for.

NY is the party being sued here. It doesn't matter how much you deserve it, you automatically have standing if you are the defendant.

A the closest thing that a ruling that NY didn't have standing here would actually be a win for the state. That would mean they aren't the party that can be sued for this and the case would be dismissed.

In short, lack of standing means case dismissed.

Case dismissed is exactly what NY wants here.

 

[cgrutt]

Unfortunately standing is not as clear cut as it should be especially in Fed Court. Severely limited under Article III. Plaintiffs need to justify injury in fact, prove defendants actions caused harm and courts determination would redress grievance. Hard hurdle to overcome. Fucking Texas was deemed to lack standing due to PA and WI election law for crying out loud...

 

[Grimscale]

In short, lack of standing means case dismissed.

Not necessarily in this case.

The recent Buffalo ruling regarding carry in places of worship, the judge indicated that the Plaintifs do not need to suffer an actual injury to have Standing.
See the following pdf of the ruling, starting at the last paragraph on page 6:

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6619/attachments/original/1666301241/Hardaway_v_Nigrelli_Order_Granting_TRO.pdf?1666301241

suddaby is either trying to make sure this is air-tight, or is just another State lackey willing to throw out his honor to keep in the good graces of tyrants. Or he is completely incompetent.
you decide which.

 

[Glock_USA]

BREAKING: A Federal Judge in Buffalo, NY has ruled churches are legal to carry in .. for now
‘[n]othing in the Second Amendment's text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms,’

U.S. judge blocks New York from banning guns in church

A federal judge on Thursday barred the state of New York, at least for now, from enforcing the part of a closely watched gun law that bans firearms from churches or other places of worship.

www.reuters.com

I'm sure this will be overturned any minute just like everything else has been.

 

[Tisto]

Maybe Judge Suddaby is concerned that Kathy Hochul has called Hillary Clinton to ask her "advice" on how to deal with political adversaries, and doesnt want to be "robbed" like Seth Ritch.

 

[Glock_USA]

 

[Acer-m14]

maybe one day some here in the USA can wear this when they flat out trample your RIGHTS ..

 

[CurlyDave]

I think Suddaby is really saying: "Bring me a plaintiff who lives in NYC and has a carry license and he will have standing."

And, we probably want to do this by ammending the complaint, so that it stays with the same judge.

 

[Glock_USA]

More here:

 

[maverick52]

I think Suddaby is really saying: "Bring me a plaintiff who lives in NYC and has a carry license and he will have standing."

And, we probably want to do this by ammending the complaint, so that it stays with the same judge.

Not sure why GOA hasnt thought of this.