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

[subsonic]

I'm not trying to school you, simply iterating where I'm coming from for the sake of clarity. I do appreciate your posts.

Maybe we need a qualified lawyer with a law license to chime in here (apologies if you are one), rather than someone like myself with enough schooling to be dangerously wrong.

If the defendants in this case ignore the TRO while in effect, they can be hauled into federal court and held in contempt. My understanding of the nature of this restraining order is that it only binds those whom it orders. Since this order was specifically directed only at the named defendants, if another agency not named enforced it, they could not be hauled into court in this case, not unless and until they were served and joined, or there was some motion granted to modify the TRO into something more expansive.

So if, for instance, NYPD still requires an in-person interview etc., the denied applicant would have to either relitigate this and ask their judge to follow this court, or join them into this case, which could be tough since they're not in the northern district. If it was a criminal charge, they would probably be stuck defending themselves in criminal court since federal courts are usually loathe to jump into an ongoing criminal matter. But Sudabby has hopefully provided at least a temporary partial shield from prosecution by NYPD or three counties for now, if the 2nd circuit lets it stand.

 

[John Stark]

Maybe we need a qualified lawyer with a law license to chime in here (apologies if you are one), rather than someone like myself with enough schooling to be dangerously wrong.

If the defendants in this case ignore the TRO while in effect, they can be hauled into federal court and held in contempt. My understanding of the nature of this restraining order is that it only binds those whom it orders. Since this order was specifically directed only at the named defendants, if another agency not named enforced it, they could not be hauled into court in this case, not unless and until they were served and joined, or there was some motion granted to modify the TRO into something more expansive.

So if, for instance, NYPD still requires an in-person interview etc., the denied applicant would have to either relitigate this and ask their judge to follow this court, or join them into this case, which could be tough since they're not in the northern district. If it was a criminal charge, they would probably be stuck defending themselves in criminal court since federal courts are usually loathe to jump into an ongoing criminal matter. But Sudabby has hopefully provided at least a temporary partial shield from prosecution by NYPD or three counties for now, if the 2nd circuit lets it stand.

Consider who is ultimately restrained here: Whorchul, the chief law enforcement officer of the entire state.

Yes there are jurisdictions involved here, but they are lesser jurisdictions and shit flows downhill.

Consider that both Whorechul and Latetia are already putting out statements on how wrong this is and how "they" are going to appeal this TRO and decision.

The TRO is obviously a shot across the bow of the officials restrained, but its clearly also a shot aimed directly at the law itself. The ruling here is about the law, hence the restraint of State officials. When enforcement of any given piece of legislation (law) is restrained against the top law enforcer of an entire political realm (for want of a better word), then I'm going to go ahead and presume that trickles down.

Do county Sheriffs and local cop shops get funding from NYS to enforce state law? Do permit offices? Are there State guidelines that only come from the CCIA with regards to the new pistol (and semi-auto) tyranny we're looking at in this shithole? Can a Sheriff enforce a State law that the chief law enforcement officer of the entire state cannot?

I may well be wrong in a technical, legal sense, but in a logical sense as I see most things, it does not make sense to me to say that "Officer Smith of the Rochester PD arrested someone for violating the CCIA" when Whorechul herself (as our top law enforcement official) is restrained and cannot now order anyone in the state to make such an arrest.

However, the labyrinth of legalese and bullshit that lawyers can pull out of their ass, which has always struck me as nothing more than three-card Monty, never fails to amaze me.

For all practical purposes IMO, NY is restrained here. New York as a state only has a "life of its own," so to speak, in terms of people, specifically the elected people who supposedly represent us.

 

[m1_ping]

What is the concensus opinion of when the TRO takes effect (if not reversed on appeal)? The TRO is "stayed for three business days." Does today count as one of the days? Does Monday (Columbus Day) count as one of the days? Depending on what counts the TRO could beign to take effect anywhere from Tuesday to Thursday.

 

[John Stark]

What is the concensus opinion of when the TRO takes effect (if not reversed on appeal)? The TRO is "stayed for three business days." Does today count as one of the days? Does Monday (Columbus Day) count as one of the days? Depending on what counts the TRO could beign to take effect anywhere from Tuesday to Thursday.

Goes in effect next Wednesday. Business days in FedGov terms essentially means "banking days." Today would defer to the next "banking day" (i.e., tomorrow, Friday), Saturday and Sunday are not technically "banking days," nor is a federal holiday.

 

[Saltwater60]

This just dawned on me and I would say state parks are now good to go. I would not say a state park would fall under this.
a) “any place owned or under the control of federal, state or local government, for the purpose of government administration, including courts” (as contained in paragraph “2(a)” of Section 4);

 

[VietnamEraVet]

What is the concensus opinion of when the TRO takes effect (if not reversed on appeal)? The TRO is "stayed for three business days." Does today count as one of the days? Does Monday (Columbus Day) count as one of the days? Depending on what counts the TRO could beign to take effect anywhere from Tuesday to Thursday.

Nothing would surprise me about this. I would think next Friday just to be safe, but in all likelihood, the 2nd Circuit will strike the TRO down before then anyways.

 

[Far king]

Nothing would surprise me about this. I would think next Friday just to be safe, but in all likelihood, the 2nd Circuit will strike the TRO down before then anyways.

Can the 2nd circus pick through the TRO and reject certain parts of it or is it all or nothing?

 

[Saltwater60]

This goes into greater detail on where we can carry. Parks are specifically mentioned as good to go place. I know we don’t like CNN but I liked the description of where we can go now.

Federal judge temporarily blocks parts of New York gun law

A federal judge has temporarily blocked the enforcement of parts of a New York gun law that was enacted in the wake of a Supreme Court decision earlier this summer striking down certain protections.

amp.cnn.com

 

[SonOfSun]

Training is required to exercise the 1st? How about 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc...

Then NO, it's not likely to stick around!

Any other requirements that are inconsistent with the other 43 Shall Issue States and their requirements won't stand a chance in argument before the highest court, they have already set the bar. Including the sensitive places consideration.

NY actually hurt their chances of encroaching over the line by going so far away from the nature of the ruling. This Fed Judge at least had some balls as compared to the other one who said the law was likely unconstitutional but refused to act. But this judge is also playing games and has little balls... NY is malfeasant towards it's citizens and their 2A Rights. Period!

Fuck NY!

It's the same judge. The prior case didn't move forward because of lack of standing.

 

[VietnamEraVet]

Here is a news article by ABC News in my MSN newsfeed on my desktop that is factually wrong. They state that carrying on subways and public transport is still prohibited. Yet if you read Page 37/53 of his decision, Judge Suddaby clearly says the opposite. I would love to comment and post a correction to their article, but there were no comments allowed. Naturally.

MSN

 

[subsonic]

….

One way or another the constitutional issues will be resolved statewide, it’s just a matter of time and cases. For this one the timing depends on what the second circuit does too.

The SAFE act 7 round loading limit was struck down in the western district US federal court and it took a while but eventually that held up statewide.

 

[Phazer]

Here is a news article by ABC News in my MSN newsfeed on my desktop that is factually wrong. They state that carrying on subways and public transport is still prohibited. Yet if you read Page 37/53 of his decision, Judge Suddaby clearly says the opposite. I would love to comment and post a correction to their article, but there were no comments allowed. Naturally.

MSN

View attachment 175621

But, would train stations, subway stations, and bus stations count as "government buildings" where carrying could be illegal? I do not think so since those are not "any place owned or under the control of federal, state or local government, for the purpose of government administration, including courts."

 

[Phazer]

Here is a news article by ABC News in my MSN newsfeed on my desktop that is factually wrong. They state that carrying on subways and public transport is still prohibited. Yet if you read Page 37/53 of his decision, Judge Suddaby clearly says the opposite. I would love to comment and post a correction to their article, but there were no comments allowed. Naturally.

MSN

Provisions of the law that are not impacted by the judge's decision include requirements that an applicant provides a list of character references and takes 18 hours of training. Additionally, sensitive locations that remain in effect, where carrying arms is prohibited, include mass transit, polling places, public assemblies and places controlled by federal, state or local government.​

No, ABC. Not only did you miss the point on mass transit, but you also missed the point on "places controlled by federal, state, or local government." Those latter sites must be used for "government administration" purposes to be considered sensitive places.

 

[subsonic]

In this case and in Antonyuk 1, I find it really annoying that the 4 references requirement was let to stand and the plaintiffs 1. Did not even seem to address the in-county reference requirement, and 2. Did not testify that it was a burden.

maybe because that’s not a statutory requirement and the counties involved aren’t requiring that? But around here they are. And it’s easy to find people for whom the in-county reference is prohibitive. Including people who moved recently (including for constitutionally significant reasons, such as to flee a dangerous person and lay low and hide), or who live in one county and work, worship and socialize in another. Many such cases. But not represented here, so the judge says “no big deal, get 4 references.” When for many people that is a big deal, when our licensing authority requires them to be in-county.

 

[VietnamEraVet]

But, would train stations, subway stations, and bus stations count as "government buildings" where carrying could be illegal? I do not think so since those are not "any place owned or under the control of federal, state or local government, for the purpose of government administration, including courts."

Seems clear to me that airports, train and bus stations would be OK to carry in under this TRO. See below:

 

[gun_slinger_boy]

There is a historical context for a training requirement for a “ militia”. Individual men ( the militia of that time) had training requirements and were required to be a part of the common defense.

No one here is joining a militia though. At least they haven't said so. The second really has nothing to do with a militia. That's an argument the left uses. As clear as it is I really wish the second was worded even more concisely. It should have read "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed". Because that's exactly what it meant. Another way to word it would be "Because a well regulated Militia, is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

[livingston]

BIGGEST WIN YET: New York's Insane Gun Carry Laws Almost Entirely DEFEATED!​

 

[dsdmmat]

There is a historical context for a training requirement for a “ militia”. Individual men ( the militia of that time) had training requirements and were required to be a part of the common defense.

There was no class or test required to pass, nor a shooting component which was graded to possess or carry a weapon. Not even a requirement to regurgitate the laws or hit your target.

You were expected to show up with your own equipment and know how to use it.

 

[byron]

 

[Deplorable Me]

TRO DOESN'T TAKE EFFECT FOR 3 DAYS.. I FOR ONE WON'T BE WAITING.

3 days is more than they gave for public review and comment of the unSafeAct.

 

[John Stark]

No one here is joining a militia though. At least they haven't said so. The second really has nothing to do with a militia. That's an argument the left uses. As clear as it is I really wish the second was worded even more concisely. It should have read "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed". Because that's exactly what it meant. Another way to word it would be "Because a well regulated Militia, is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I have written similar wording with regards to the way that the Second Amendment is stated in terms of modern English usage, so I have no problem with that for the sake of clarity on what its really saying.

That being said, saying that "The second really has nothing to do with a militia" is just as wrong as someone stating that the Founders were completely against standing armies. Provisions and law for both a standing Army and Navy are included in the US Constitution, and how they must be funded, as well as provisions and law to call up the militia, and exactly how that worked between FedGov and the States.

-----------

"Article 1 Section 8

The Congress shall have Power....

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

Article 2 Section 2

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;"

--------------

That is a topic for a different thread than this one though, but the "history, text, and traditon" (i.e., Originalist) view of the Second Amendment as it has been laid out in Heller, McDonald, Cetano, and Bruen are completely at odds with your assertion.

The terms "organized" militia and "unorganized" militia are important distinctions that play into the connection between the notion of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and the notion of what militia means in the Constitutional context, and to separate those notions does great damage to our Constitutional Republic and good jurisprudence (or what's left of it at this point).

 

[Saltwater60]

Provisions of the law that are not impacted by the judge's decision include requirements that an applicant provides a list of character references and takes 18 hours of training. Additionally, sensitive locations that remain in effect, where carrying arms is prohibited, include mass transit, polling places, public assemblies and places controlled by federal, state or local government.​

No, ABC. Not only did you miss the point on mass transit, but you also missed the point on "places controlled by federal, state, or local government." Those latter sites must be used for "government administration" purposes to be considered sensitive places.

I think this was on purpose.

 

[gun_slinger_boy]

I have written similar wording with regards to the way that the Second Amendment is stated in terms of modern English usage, so I have no problem with that for the sake of clarity on what its really saying.

That being said, saying that "The second really has nothing to do with a militia" is just as wrong as someone stating that the Founders were completely against standing armies. Provisions and law for both a standing Army and Navy are included in the US Constitution, and how they must be funded, as well as provisions and law to call up the militia, and exactly how that worked between FedGov and the States.

-----------

"Article 1 Section 8

The Congress shall have Power....

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

Article 2 Section 2

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;"

--------------

That is a topic for a different thread than this one though, but the "history, text, and traditon" (i.e., Originalist) view of the Second Amendment as it has been laid out in Heller, McDonald, Cetano, and Bruen are completely at odds with your assertion.

The terms "organized" militia and "unorganized" militia are important distinctions that play into the connection between the notion of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and the notion of what militia means in the Constitutional context, and to separate those notions does great damage to our Constitutional Republic and good jurisprudence (or what's left of it at this point).

My reading of the second stands. What you're pointing out are two separate issues. Hence the need for explicitly creating provisions for raising/supporting/governing standing armies. The second is for the people as it reaffirms a right and what the govt CAN'T do. Article 1 Section 8 prescribes what the govt CAN do. Could you not have standing armies without the citizens having the right to bear arms? Of course, it can be observed in countries all over the globe. Does this interpretation not cover "organized" and "unorganized" militias in your view?

 

[redtail]

Thank you GOA and Judge Suddaby.
Now do the safe act.

 

[John Stark]

There was no class or test required to pass, nor a shooting component which was graded to possess or carry a weapon. Not even a requirement to regurgitate the laws or hit your target.

You were expected to show up with your own equipment and know how to use it.

I agree with this layman's way of putting it for the most part; indeed, as well read and as well as our Founders wrote and spoke, I think the way you have put this in such layman's terms was a key part of the reason the People loved the Constitution and their nation. They didn't feel talked down to, and they thought that they could have a conversation with their leaders and representatives, and be heard on their own terms. I could see having a talk with Jefferson over a pint in a tavern and him putting it in a similar fashion.

I would add some caveats though; that men knew they would be expected to follow through with training, good military discipline, and so on, whether they were "called forth" by their county sheriff, State officials, or for Federal service. I think you would agree with this, but I am not trying to put words in your mouth.

I would also state that men understood their duty back then, and what that meant with regards to their own, personal, God-given Right to Keep and Bear. That they knew it was a sacred trust that ensures their own right of self-defense, which in turn ensures the existence of a free People governed by a just and lawful system of laws and representation where they have a real voice in how they are governed.

 

[US RIFLE M1A]

I have not read the full decision, only the court's summary. However, I can add some clarification to certain issues.

- The little admin buildings in some parks are off limits, but they have already been so. I went into a federal ranger station in New Hampshire to buy a coffee mug last year and left my gun in the car. That restriction, on any gov't level, stays.

- All government admin buildings being gun free stays, which is an expansion of restrictions from pre-CCIA. The building I work in has no local law prohibiting firearms, so up until CCIA, we allowed (actually ignored) lawful carry. No more.

- This does not allow county licenses to carry in NYC.

- This does prevent a licensee from going to church armed without permission. Someone in charge at the church does have to designate people to keep the peace, but notice he does not use the word security. It can be anyone with a handgun license.

- NO there is no conflict with being armed security without an actual armed security license because unpaid part-time volunteers providing security get a pass from licensing.

- Judge S. works in Syracuse. However unless otherwise specified, the ruling is state-wide.

- Each and every law enforcement agency does not have to be specifically named as being enjoined from enforcement in order for the law to be tossed. His ruling applies statewide.

As far as I am concerned, this TRO pretty much closes the matter for me. Judge S. has put his opinions on paper, and has declared the law unconstitutional. From this point forward, the law and the constitution are on my side, and I will be exercising my lawful right to carry. Any appeals or other changes that do not reflect my best interest are mere bumps in the road from victory today to victory at SCOTUS.

Carry on. I certainly will be.

 

[Acer-m14]

There is a historical context for a training requirement for a “ militia”. Individual men ( the militia of that time) had training requirements and were required to be a part of the common defense.

there may have been training back then .. but it was NOT!! training to buy or have a gun ..


PS .. what was the "militia" training requirements back then ???

 

[Acer-m14]

i see he kicked the social media and some other things .. but you still need 4 fking character references ..


well at least i have 3 ferrets and a bulldog that i can use for that ...

 

[spat]

That's probably a different kettle of fish. NY is going to have a tough time selling "businesses can now ban Arms from their premises instead" without legislative action. At least, that is probably what would be required if we still lived in a constitutional Republic.

I have a lot of thoughts about this I have not yet had the time to formulate, but there are many considerations that must be taken into account when we talk about where people are "allowed" to Bear Arms. A lot more than most are willing to entertain, even among the 2A faction of these Disunited States.

There is a ridiculous and long thread about this you can read in this very formum that comes to the conclusion that businesses "open to the public" can obviously ban anyone from entering their premises for "any reason," but it is a very uninformed and one sided debate, and does not take into account controlling law, or "history, tradition, and text."

It's really only likely to come up when a concealed carrier has to defend themselves in such an area.

While there are a few DAs in NY that might prosecute that, I think most won't want to touch it with a 10 foot pole.

 

[spat]

i see he kicked the social media and some other things .. but you still need 4 fking character references ..


well at least i have 3 ferrets and a bulldog that i can use for that ...

Someone needs to point out to the judge that even if they may require 4 references, to meet the requirements of Bruin they can't actually do anything more than verify that they exist.

"Yea, cousin Eddie will attest to the fact that I'm a drunk impulsive asshole, but he *did* attest to the fact, so you need to give me the permit".