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

[maverick52]

Anyone know when the Frey case is scheduled? Or what about the second NYSRPA case? I think those cases will have better odds.

 

[VietnamEraVet]

Anyone know when the Frey case is scheduled? Or what about the second NYSRPA case? I think those cases will have better odds.

I don't see that anything is happening with it. See referenced link. Says it is "pending".

Frey et al v. Bruen et al

On 06/16/2021 Frey filed a Civil Right - Other Civil Right court case against Bruen in U.S. District Courts. Court records for this case are available from New York Southern District.

unicourt.com

 

[FrankenCub]

Ahhh,- the old Ruger SP101 .357 snubby! My first CCW carry gun! The muzzle flash is a monster! STILL love that gun…, even though it has a pretty good kick!

My first CCW was a snubby too, Bull Dog Pug 44 special. Was actually a fun little gun.
Love to get a 50AE though.

 

[Glock_USA]

Second response from GOA:

Thank you for contacting Gun Owners of America (GOA).

In an article published by GOA on 10/07/2022 titled "Victory: Federal Judge Blocks Extreme Gun Control Law," GOA acknowledges the dangers of recent New York laws.

"Here are the provisions of the law that are blocked under the temporary restraining order secured by Gun Owners Foundation:

1). Requiring businesses to openly state they ALLOW concealed carry
2). Disclosing one’s social media accounts for review
3). Prohibitions on carrying in most so-called “sensitive places,” including doctor’s offices, Times Square, restaurants and places of entertainment, and on public transportation
4). In-person interviews with law enforcement

To read this article in it's entirety, please visit our website at www.gunowners.org/na10072022/

GOA's legal team has been fighting in court this week against the gun control in New York.

I hope this helps. If I can further assist you, please let me know.

Thank you again for contacting GOA and for your support of the Second Amendment.

This is totally misleading and flat out wrong. The TRO never took effect. It was theatre. Shameful of them to put this out there. Doing a victory lap based on a lie.

 

[Saltwater60]

I think the issue here is going for the whole thing. It may be that GOA is using a piecemeal strategy. I mean look at the house of worship lawsuit. TRO by Sinatra done. I think if the lawsuits becomes more specific to certain aspects of the law we can chip away at it. I agree that it’s all bullshit. But given the circumstances it may be our best play.

That was done that was because two pastors brought that suit and that’s all that was presented before the judge from what I’m aware of. The amount of money and time spent challenging each and everything individually is bad practice and bad to show your hand on how we will handle lawsuits going forward. If we do that then the states will pass huge bills and write them that way. We will spend tons of money and time defending them that way.

 

[Saltwater60]

Yea I don't really know what to make of it. I was listening in the background and didn't think too much when they gave up shelters and camps and places with children, then my ears perked up when they also gave up on places that sell alcohol and healthcare centers and public transportation. I just can't understand it. Maybe what I heard was out of context or something but I just can't imagine how it was. Also they had big problems with standing on the transportation one. They argued their church van was public transit which it isn't, and the state pointed that out, and one of the other guys was going for airports but the state showed that he didn't even have a ticket to fly anywhere so no standing there either.

My problem with that is I could take a bus from the NFTA tomorrow or buy an airplane ticket tomorrow. The standing thing is bullshit and honestly if that’s all it took they just needed to buy a cheap airplane ticket and a 30 day bus pass. Not real hard. I’m not coming at you in any way, shape or form I’m just sick of the rookie moves that hurt us in the end. On top of it they constantly are sending me emails asking me for money. Fine I’ll donate but make it worth while or I’ll save up to leave NYS instead.

 

[Saltwater60]

A few more things that popped into my head from the call, our lawyer seemed very unprepared. I specifically remember:

He was asked how many instances in history would he consider enough to create a historical tradition when talking about laws. He said he didn't know. Just said more than a few. I think he should have been prepared with an answer. There has to be a standard. 1 or 2 ordinances in a territorial location that affected .07% of the population shouldn't cut it.

He was speaking about giving up one right to exercise another. He tried to cite SCOTUS but couldn't. He gave up and just said "they don't like it".

On the other side, the sate got yelled at by the judge for claiming the other states who have shall issue permit processes are all constitutional. The judge said they didn't say that. The states lawyer tried to twist their words and gout caught. Just because SCOTUS didn't say they weren't unconstitutional doesn't mean they called them constitutional.

The state pretty much said something along the lines of the law isn't being enforced so nobody has standing to challenge it. The issue is when they do enforce it on a career criminal and the charges stick they will have precedent to keep charging everyone else in the future.

They spoke a lot about "when we get into discovery" so I guess this is gong to be ongoing?


I'll post more if/when any more of it comes back to me.

So hochul didn’t say or demand that Tempe NYSP arrest people for violating it? This is a joke and a game.

 

[Saltwater60]

Second response from GOA:

Thank you for contacting Gun Owners of America (GOA).

In an article published by GOA on 10/07/2022 titled "Victory: Federal Judge Blocks Extreme Gun Control Law," GOA acknowledges the dangers of recent New York laws.

"Here are the provisions of the law that are blocked under the temporary restraining order secured by Gun Owners Foundation:

1). Requiring businesses to openly state they ALLOW concealed carry
2). Disclosing one’s social media accounts for review
3). Prohibitions on carrying in most so-called “sensitive places,” including doctor’s offices, Times Square, restaurants and places of entertainment, and on public transportation
4). In-person interviews with law enforcement

To read this article in it's entirety, please visit our website at www.gunowners.org/na10072022/

GOA's legal team has been fighting in court this week against the gun control in New York.

I hope this helps. If I can further assist you, please let me know.

Thank you again for contacting GOA and for your support of the Second Amendment.

??? Thanks for telling me about a TRO that is no more and you’re not challenging all those locations anymore.
They should say here’s what we are trying to do but we can’t comment on our ongoing legal strategy. I get that because they don’t know who you are, maybe you’re a hochul spy to them!!!

 

[gun_slinger_boy]

Love to get a 50AE though.

Tis well worth the price of admission.

 

[FrankenCub]

Tis well worth the price of admission.

I shot the hell out of my brother in laws 357 mag DE and loved it!

 

[Glock_USA]

UPDATE FROM HEARNG:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nynd.134829/gov.uscourts.nynd.134829.71.0.pdf

 

[US RIFLE M1A]

Please accept this letter as clarifying a restriction in the Concealed Carry Improvement Act that I believe the Court may have misunderstood me as conceding yesterday.1 During yesterday’s hearing, during Plaintiffs’ opening argument, I had attempted to make a distinction for Plaintiffs’ challenge to subsection (o), restaurant carry. While I do not have a transcript available, my intention was to make clear that, although asking the Court to strike subsection (o), we were not asking the Court to “approve” carrying while intoxicated. However, this was not meant as a statement that Plaintiffs concede carrying a firearm in a restaurant that also serves alcohol is constitutional, or that the Plaintiffs were abandoning that challenge. Plaintiffs Terrille and Johnson announced their intent to carry in “restaurants that serve alcohol” in their Complaint

 

[Saltwater60]

Please accept this letter as clarifying a restriction in the Concealed Carry Improvement Act that I believe the Court may have misunderstood me as conceding yesterday.1 During yesterday’s hearing, during Plaintiffs’ opening argument, I had attempted to make a distinction for Plaintiffs’ challenge to subsection (o), restaurant carry. While I do not have a transcript available, my intention was to make clear that, although asking the Court to strike subsection (o), we were not asking the Court to “approve” carrying while intoxicated. However, this was not meant as a statement that Plaintiffs concede carrying a firearm in a restaurant that also serves alcohol is constitutional, or that the Plaintiffs were abandoning that challenge. Plaintiffs Terrille and Johnson announced their intent to carry in “restaurants that serve alcohol” in their Complaint

@drevil you sure got under their skin. I’m sure emails like yours led to this. Good job!! No sarcasm and I’m sure it helped!!

 

[VietnamEraVet]

Probably too bad this happened AFTER the hearing in Judge Suddaby's Court on 10/25. It is a perfect example of why CCW holders need to be able to carry on all forms of Public Transit!

Bus hijacked in NYC, crashes into utility pole; gunman in custody: police

A gunman is in custody in New York City after forcing a bus driver to drive at gunpoint and crashing into a utility pole in Queens early Thursday, authorities said.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Saltwater60]

7 am, criminals are working early these days. I guess there is tough competition for criminals too.

 

[Glock_USA]

Antonyuk v. Hochul amicus brief filed:

 

[Saltwater60]

Antonyuk v. Hochul amicus brief filed:


View attachment 177635 View attachment 177636 View attachment 177637 View attachment 177638

All I see is another guy seeking privileges and seeks to leave us all out in the cold. This doesn’t seem like a good case to hang out hats on and will only help those seeking to do business on the courts behalf. Sorry for kissing in your cheerios but that’s the way I see this going.

 

[Truebeliever]

All I see is another guy seeking privileges and seeks to leave us all out in the cold. This doesn’t seem like a good case to hang out hats on and will only help those seeking to do business on the courts behalf. Sorry for kissing in your cheerios but that’s the way I see this going.

He isn’t asking for special exceptions. Thsts the legislature’s job but because they didn’t give him an exemption, that whole part of the law should be thrown out.

 

[Acer-m14]

CCIA

can we please start calling it by its real name ...


Concealed Carry Infringement Act

 

[Acer-m14]

page 7 item "d " mental health . you can't have a gun

I'll add on .. disabilities too ... you can't have a gun

tell me why the guy below cannot have a gun ??

did the wheel chair strip him of his 2a RIGHTS ??

where in history text tradition say a 6 month old baby can't have a gun ???

 

[spat]

So what you're saying is the "soap box" and the "jury box" have come up empty.
And others here are saying the "voting box" is useless.


Hmm... wonder what box is left.

I'm certainly not opening that box.

I'm just saying I'm not going to condemn anyone else who does at this point.

 

[spat]

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 our 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, sometime 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 both egregious "standards" 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 he has fucking STANDING to seek relief from any American court" ???????

Me neither.

Unfortunately there *is* history of local gun control.

The famous gunfight at the OK corral was the local law enforcement (the Earps with Doc Holliday) trying to enforce the gun prohibition enacted by the city of Tombstone against the Clanton's who were violating it.

But, none of that ever survived any sort of appeal, so I'm not sure how binding it would be as "history and tradition".

 

[Acer-m14]

So what you're saying is the "soap box" and the "jury box" have come up empty.
And others here are saying the "voting box" is useless.


Hmm... wonder what box is left.

I'm certainly not opening that box.

I'm just saying I'm not going to condemn anyone else who does at this point.

this box LOL ..

 

[Acer-m14]

Unfortunately there *is* history of local gun control.

The famous gunfight at the OK corral was the local law enforcement (the Earps with Doc Holliday) trying to enforce the gun prohibition enacted by the city of Tombstone against the Clanton's who were violating it.

But, none of that ever survived any sort of appeal, so I'm not sure how binding it would be as "history and tradition".

was that a state or a territory at the time ? i think that makes a difference

 

[spat]

I don't know who NoloContendere is, but he refers to the plaintiffs as 'we.'

Nolo Contendre is a plea of "no contest".

You are not admitting guilt, but are basically saying just "it's not worth fighting this, but I didn't do it".


Imagine a traffic ticket you know anf can prove you weren't guilty of. The fine is $50, but a lawyer to contest it would be $500.

You plead Nolo Contendre and pay the $50 and keep the other $450, without admitting any guilt.

 

[spat]

this box LOL ..

Well, a lot of people are going to need that one, on both sides, if things go there.

 

[spat]

was that a state or a territory at the time ? i think that makes a difference

Territory, but it was under US federal jurisdiction.

AZ wasn't a state until nearly WWI (1912).

 

[Saltwater60]

He isn’t asking for special exceptions. Thsts the legislature’s job but because they didn’t give him an exemption, that whole part of the law should be thrown out.

Is like to think that will happen but as we’ve seen on these other lawsuits that they can apply the exception to just the person filing the suit or just those types of people. I don’t see this being broadly applied since the whole standing thing has been such an issue. I could see standing being applied to people like this but not the rest of us.

 

[Saltwater60]

Unfortunately there *is* history of local gun control.

The famous gunfight at the OK corral was the local law enforcement (the Earps with Doc Holliday) trying to enforce the gun prohibition enacted by the city of Tombstone against the Clanton's who were violating it.

But, none of that ever survived any sort of appeal, so I'm not sure how binding it would be as "history and tradition".

I thought it was deemed that one or two, or a few local laws didn’t make it a tradition and would not be applied. It seems Suddaby has gotten that part wrong.

 

[US RIFLE M1A]

Nolo Contendre is a plea of "no contest".

I understand that, what I was referring to was the use of that term as a screen name on another discussion site (AR15.com). Written in the 'first person' as if he were the lawyer in Antonyuk. Maybe he is. Pretty sure he goes by 2ALitigator on Reddit in NY Guns. See AR15.com/Hometown/NY