I am going to email GOA and demand my donation/dues back. I am done with the "little victories" now mentality. Fuck them if they are not willing to go for it all here. This BS is unconstitutional. PERIOD!I am very disappointed in the concession it appears GOA is making. Disgusted actually! Is this a matter of get a little now go for more after?
I hope you are correct.I think they saying that they aren’t arguing people possessing guns under the influence not in places that sells alcohol in general
Kind of like telling a stalking victim we can't do anything unless your stalker kills you.Sounds like for standing they are looking for people to have been arrested and charged first. Or denied a permit.
That is often the case with private lawyers. They tend to get very little actual courtroom experience as compared to lawyers in government service or legal aid . It’s how the DA’s office can often attract the the “ best and the brightest “ ( their words -not mine) to public service . Court room experience.Shit show does not begin to describe this. And while plaintiff's Atty. Stambouleih may have submitted a well written petition, he appears to suck in terms of his verbal argument abilities.
What a fucking nightmare.
Don’t panic yet. Judges don’t base their opinions just on the courtroom performance but on the briefs. Why? Because that is what the appeals courts will focus on rather than the hearing transcripts.“Our” attorney was unprepared and stumbling over his words the whole time. Kept losing his place too. The other side was polished and has sources for everything they mentioned. I can’t see the judge ruling in our favor after hearing this.
Neither of which (arrest or permit denial) ought to be in play here, for numerous reasons.Sounds like for standing they are looking for people to have been arrested and charged first. Or denied a permit.
This is not needed for standing. This is on Suddaby and him being a bought and paid for scum.Sounds like for standing they are looking for people to have been arrested and charged first. Or denied a permit.
I’m sure, but the judge did say it was all unconstitutional so how can he not?? This is a shit show.“Our” attorney was unprepared and stumbling over his words the whole time. Kept losing his place too. The other side was polished and has sources for everything they mentioned. I can’t see the judge ruling in our favor after hearing this.
Problem is now if they aren’t challenging those locations the judge can’t side in our favor for them any longer.Neither of which (arrest or permit denial) ought to be in play here, for numerous reasons.
For starters, prior to Bruen, NY "allowed" carry with the permit in many places. Now the rug has been yanked out from under permit holders on that... IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF BRUEN. SCOTUS has already ruled on this horseshit when it comes to "sensitive places," and NY is in flagrant disregard of that ruling. The plaintiffs have been harmed, or at least are in threat of direct harm, by NYs bullshit.
Further, where is the "history, text, and tradition" about carry (Bearing) arms that delimits such broad and vast restrictions where Americans can exercise their Second Amendment right (or any other right) to be armed and take care of their own self-defense? Did the state filing have anything to back up their bullshit on that? Rhetorical question...
Are Americans allowed to travel to any state? Yes. Are they allowed to travel withing their state? Yes. Then they are allowed to exercise all of their rights, with certain exceptions (can't vote in a state they do not have residency, can't speak out of turn in a court of law, can probably be restricted from bringing a gun into a courthouse or onto a military base, etc. I.E., very circumstantial restrictions). Can we speak almost anywhere in NY? YES! Can we exercise out religion almost anywhere in NY? YES! Can we read and write printed materials (on paper or digitally) in NY? YES! Can I Assemble with other citizens in NY? YES! Then WE the People can Keep and Bear Arms in NY too!!!
And that includes the Rotten Apple! Its part of NY, and anytime any of us want to visit there and exercise our rights there we absolutely can. Clearly so (prima facie)!
There is NO NEED TO PROVE that we are ever, sometimes in the "imminent" future, going to visit every single available place open to the public or that is otherwise a place we are lawfully allowed to be in order to exercise our Rights. Its a fucking ABSURD standard, and utterly unconstitutional.
As well, being arrested or denied the right to Keep & Bear (with or without a permit) are another egregious standard that NO fucking court in this Union should ever demand, suggest, or hint at. If a law clearly violates our Constitutional rights as enumerated, then it ought to be tossed as soon as ANY citizen has the gumption to stand up again that tyranny and bring a suit against the jackboots. Period!
As well, a law that is unconstitutional, especial prima facie (on its face, i.e., obviously so at a glance) is NULL and VOID (Marbury vs. Madison).
The US Constitution is not a suicide pact. It does not demand that we have our lives ruined by rotting in jail or prison, or become bankrupted by the government in legal and court fees while the jackboots use our own tax dollars against us, in order to have some kind of fucking standing with any given court when it comes to fundamental rights. There is NO interpretation of the Constitution that could or should demand that, be it from some asshole judge who doesn't want to do his job, to any politician, cop, or any other citizen or non-citizen walking down any street in this nation.
Any judge who rules that way is utter trash, and if Suddaby is doing so he ought to be removed from the bench as a traitor to his oath.
Anyone else remember that clause in the US Constitution that states, "Any citizen wishing to defend and uphold their Rights protected by Article or Amendment must first submit to arrest, punishment, confinement, and loss of job, family, wealth, property, dignity, etc., before have fucking STANDING to seek relief from any American court" ???????
Me neither.
I did hear him say this. What about what Cippee commented above? That they aren’t arguing people possessing guns under the influence not in places that sells alcohol in general. Did you hear it this way?Did anyone else who called in to listen hear the states attorney say that 2A covers weapons in common use? I couldn't believe they actually said that in court. How are we not fighting for mags and real AR's? Seems like a big missed opportunity.
I heard the state start talking about other states that prohibit carrying in bars generally then he mentioned carrying while intoxicated as a separate item. The judge then said they weren't arguing that and the state atty moved on to something else. So not sure if that means the entire thing isn't being challenged or just part of it. I would think it's the entire thing since they moved on to the next thing.I did hear him say this. What about what Cippee commented above? That they aren’t arguing people possessing guns under the influence not in places that sells alcohol in general. Did you hear it this way?
As has been the case in the past. He has allowed them to site inappropriate timeframes in past hearings. I expect nothing.Also for those who couldn't listen live, the judge said he'll issue his decision "as soon as possible" for whatever that's worth. I listened to the entire thing. I'm not trying to be negative but I don't think it went very well for us. The judge let them get away with a lot of stuff. Citing wrong time periods, militia training requirements disguised as safety training and more. It was about a 3 hour call so I cant remember everything off the top of my head.
I don’t drink but I go to restaurants that serve alcohol so that’s what they are referring to. I should be able to carry and yes I get if you’re smashed carrying isn’t a good idea. There’s a lot of in between.I heard the state start talking about other states that prohibit carrying in bars generally then he mentioned carrying while intoxicated as a separate item. The judge then said they weren't arguing that and the state atty moved on to something else. So not sure if that means the entire thing isn't being challenged or just part of it. I would think it's the entire thing since they moved on to the next thing.
Something not being a good idea and something having historical analogue to be constitutionally legal are two vey different things. There is no tradition in this country of banning guns in bars. This was already addressed in the TRO.I don’t drink but I go to restaurants that serve alcohol so that’s what they are referring to. I should be able to carry and yes I get if you’re smashed carrying isn’t a good idea. There’s a lot of in between.
Agreed. I’m just sick of the games.Something not being a good idea and something having historical analogue to be constitutionally legal are two vey different things. There is no tradition in this country of banning guns in bars. This was already addressed in the TRO.