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

[John Stark]

Ummm....just to make it easier to read, there are A LOT of "gun-free zone" restrictions that the judge left in place:

(5) the “sensitive locations” provision contained in Section 4 of the CCIA EXCEPT with regard to the following sensitive locations (where the restrictions remain): ​

​

(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); ​

​

(b) “any location being used as a polling place” (as contained in paragraph “2(q)” of Section 4); ​

​

(c) “any public sidewalk or other public area restricted from general public access for a limited time or special event that has been issued a permit for such time or event by a governmental entity, or subject to specific, heightened law enforcement protection, or has otherwise had such access restricted by a governmental entity, provided such location is 52 identified as such by clear and conspicuous signage” (as contained in paragraph “2(r)” of Section 4); ​

​

(d) “any place of worship or religious observation” (as contained in paragraph “2(c)” of Section 4), EXCEPT for those persons who have been tasked with the duty to keep the peace at the place of worship or religious observation; ​

​

(e) “nursery schools” and “preschools” (as contained in paragraph “2(f)” of Section 4);​

​

(f) “any building or grounds, owned or leased, of any educational institutions, colleges and universities, licensed private career schools, school districts, public schools, private schools licensed under article one hundred one of the education law, charter schools, non-public schools, board of cooperative educational services, special act schools, preschool special education programs, private residential or non-residential schools for the education of students with disabilities, and any state-operated or state-supported schools” (as contained in paragraph “2(m)” of Section 4); ​

​

(g) “any gathering of individuals to collectively express their constitutional rights to protest or assemble” (as contained in paragraph “2(s)” of Section 4); and (6) the “restricted locations” provision contained in Section 5 of the CCIA EXCEPT for fenced-in farmland owned by another or fenced-in hunting ground owned by another (where the restriction stands)​

Still cannot legally carry in a house of worship or at a protest/assembly. There are other suits challenging the house of worship provision.

So...is the "no carry unless signs allow it" struck, for now?

(Man...I gotta read the decision carefully after work)

Most of the "sensitive places" listed here are likely listed because there is Federal law pertaining to these.

GOA in their press release is stating that this ruling basically allows people in NY to carry again:

"Washington, D.C. – Today, Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) secured a temporary restraining order in federal court against the poorly named New York “Concealed Carry Improvement Act.” This follows GOA and GOF re-filing their lawsuit against New York just two weeks ago.

Provisions of this law that are blocked under this TRO include:

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

GOA Victory: Federal Judge Grants TRO Against Most of New York Concealed Carry Law | GOA

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 6, 2022 Washington, D.C. – Today, Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) secured a temporary restraining order in federal court against the poorly named New York “Concealed Carry Improvement Act.” This follows GOA and GOF re-filing their lawsuit...

www.gunowners.org

 

[Glock_USA]

I wonder if private business "no guns allowed" signs will now be considered legally binding therefore making those areas sensitive places or is that not a possibility unless they write a new law?

 

[Saltwater60]

Ummm....just to make it easier to read, there are A LOT of "gun-free zone" restrictions that the judge left in place:

(5) the “sensitive locations” provision contained in Section 4 of the CCIA EXCEPT with regard to the following sensitive locations (where the restrictions remain): ​

​

(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); ​

​

(b) “any location being used as a polling place” (as contained in paragraph “2(q)” of Section 4); ​

​

(c) “any public sidewalk or other public area restricted from general public access for a limited time or special event that has been issued a permit for such time or event by a governmental entity, or subject to specific, heightened law enforcement protection, or has otherwise had such access restricted by a governmental entity, provided such location is 52 identified as such by clear and conspicuous signage” (as contained in paragraph “2(r)” of Section 4); ​

​

(d) “any place of worship or religious observation” (as contained in paragraph “2(c)” of Section 4), EXCEPT for those persons who have been tasked with the duty to keep the peace at the place of worship or religious observation; ​

​

(e) “nursery schools” and “preschools” (as contained in paragraph “2(f)” of Section 4);​

​

(f) “any building or grounds, owned or leased, of any educational institutions, colleges and universities, licensed private career schools, school districts, public schools, private schools licensed under article one hundred one of the education law, charter schools, non-public schools, board of cooperative educational services, special act schools, preschool special education programs, private residential or non-residential schools for the education of students with disabilities, and any state-operated or state-supported schools” (as contained in paragraph “2(m)” of Section 4); ​

​

(g) “any gathering of individuals to collectively express their constitutional rights to protest or assemble” (as contained in paragraph “2(s)” of Section 4); and (6) the “restricted locations” provision contained in Section 5 of the CCIA EXCEPT for fenced-in farmland owned by another or fenced-in hunting ground owned by another (where the restriction stands)​

Still cannot legally carry in a house of worship or at a protest/assembly. There are other suits challenging the house of worship provision.

So...is the "no carry unless signs allow it" struck, for now?

(Man...I gotta read the decision carefully after work)

You can carry in a house of worship if you’re there to keep the peace. That’s pretty board to me and doesn’t say that you need a security guard license or need to be employed by the church for such tasks. My pastor will happily write me a letter or whatever is needed saying I am part of an armed security detail for the church. It’s organized, we had background checks done, and it’s a church program with a budget and everything at my church.

 

[John Stark]

I wonder if private business "no guns allowed" signs will now be considered legally binding therefore making those areas sensitive places or is that not a possibility unless they write a new law?

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."

 

[Saltwater60]

What about NYC being an entire sensitive area unless you get your permit issued in those 5 boroughs?

 

[Truebeliever]

You can carry in a house of worship if you’re there to keep the peace. That’s pretty board to me and doesn’t say that you need a security guard license or need to be employed by the church for such tasks. My pastor will happily write me a letter or whatever is needed saying I am part of an armed security detail for the church. It’s organized, we had background checks done, and it’s a church program with a budget and everything at my church.

I read the decision the same way as you

 

[John Stark]

What about NYC being an entire sensitive area unless you get your permit issued in those 5 boroughs?

GOA is claiming that this TRO stops enforcement of the Times Square nonsense without going into specifics any further than that.

 

[VietnamEraVet]

I'm really looking forward to that ugly tyrannical shitbag Hochul holding a news conference to decry this decision. Fresh batteries in the remote; DVR primed and ready; recliner all set; and cold beverages on ice.

Bring it on!

 

[WestchesterDoc]

So maybe a technical question. If the TRO holds and isn’t overturned on appeal, and you have a full carry permit issued upstate (e.g. not NYC), do you still need to get endorsement of the NYC police chief for your permit to be valid in NYC? Is that part of the original law still in effect?

 

[That_FNG]

I'm really looking forward to that ugly tyrannical shitbag Hochul holding a news conference to decry this decision. Fresh batteries in the remote; DVR primed and ready; recliner all set; and cold beverages on ice.

Bring it on!

Be sure to bring the worlds tiniest violin to play when she complains and cries

 

[Egret-II]

GOA is claiming that this TRO stops enforcement of the Times Square nonsense without going into specifics any further than that.

I think he meant that if you already have a NYS pistol permit you should be good to go to NYC without having to apply for a NYC permit.

 

[Glock_USA]

So maybe a technical question. If the TRO holds and isn’t overturned on appeal, and you have a full carry permit issued upstate (e.g. not NYC), do you still need to get endorsement of the NYC police chief for your permit to be valid in NYC? Is that part of the original law still in effect?

I don't see how the charges could stand. We may need another lawsuit to settle out first though for a definitive answer.

 

[Saltwater60]

GOA is claiming that this TRO stops enforcement of the Times Square nonsense without going into specifics any further than that.

I saw that, but if you can’t designate time square as a sensitive location I would assume the entirety of NYC being designated as a sensitive location is no good either, but no details as you state. Hmm??!!

 

[John Stark]

I think he meant that if you already have a NYS pistol permit you should be good to go to NYC without having to apply for a NYC permit.

Yes that is exactly the sense to which I was replying.

In a strictly legal sense, most questions being asked right now about this TRO are getting ahead of themselves. That TRO is probably going to last only as long as it takes for the 2nd Circuit to overrule it.

Everything is going to hinge on what the 2nd Circuit does, and then what (and if) the Supremes then do if the 2nd Circuit goes full retard.

 

[Glock_USA]

I would be careful with the "church security" thing. I could see the state charging people for working as armed guards without the proper license for it.

 

[Glock_USA]

Yes that is exactly the sense to which I was replying.

In a strictly legal sense, most questions being asked right now about this TRO are getting ahead of themselves. That TRO is probably going to last only as long as it takes for the 2nd Circuit to overrule it.

Everything is going to hinge on what the 2nd Circuit does, and then what (and if) the Supremes then do if the 2nd Circuit goes full retard.

The 2nd Circuit knows though that if they get cute this is going right back to SCOTUS and this time they are likely to be even more strict and limit the state even further.

 

[John Stark]

The 2nd Circuit knows though that if they get cute this is going right back to SCOTUS and this time they are likely to be even more strict and limit the state even further.

Yes that is the way is should and is supposed to work. We are in agreement.

However, the practical and political dimensions must always be taken into account. We waited 12 long years from McDonald, which "incorporated" the Second Amendment to the states (an odious doctrine that the Court arrogated to itself after the passage of the 14th Amendment) 2 years after the Heller decision. Lots of things can happen before this has a chance of being taken up again by the Supremes, and that includes the Supremes allowing time for more "churn" wherein they wait and wait for lower courts to finally get with the program and correct themselves in light of SCOTUS rulings and precedent. That is just the judicial "politics" in play. For 12 freaking years, states were practically able to do what they wanted on the Second Amendment as the Supremes tried to decide if they were going to shit or get off the pot.

American politics is rancid. Money and Muscle rule this nation now, and as much as we want to cling to our "legal" system, we must not rule out chicanery. There is far more at play than just what the various courts say.

 

[subsonic]

This is finally some progress against the new NY gun package, with some caveats:

Obviously, this will be appealed and the 2nd circuit has time to come in and stay the TRO. In either case, the litigation carries forward. The legislature may also throw some more bombs in reaction.

Also, the TRO is against the governor, state police, and local officials in Albany, Greene, and Onondaga county, along with Syracuse. As far as the licensing provisions in the TRO go, it seems other local county licensing officials could ignore this, unless and until they get joined in and restrained. Regarding the sensitive locations etc, this would protect statewide against state police charges, but also parsing the order seems to leave the door open to other county or local law enforcement outside these jurisdictions from making arrests and pressing charges, again, unless and until they get joined and restrained.

 

[Deplorable Me]

Live from the moron incubator:

And another attempt at suppressing RKBA gets slapped down - Democratic Underground Forums

www.democraticunderground.com

 

[Glock_USA]

This is finally some progress against the new NY gun package, with some caveats:

Obviously, this will be appealed and the 2nd circuit has time to come in and stay the TRO. In either case, the litigation carries forward. The legislature may also throw some more bombs in reaction.

Also, the TRO is against the governor, state police, and local officials in Albany, Greene, and Onondaga county, along with Syracuse. As far as the licensing provisions in the TRO go, it seems other local county licensing officials could ignore this, unless and until they get joined in and restrained. Regarding the sensitive locations etc, this would protect statewide against state police charges, but also parsing the order seems to leave the door open to other county or local law enforcement outside these jurisdictions from making arrests and pressing charges, again, unless and until they get joined and restrained.

The order would effect the jurisdiction of the Court that issued it as far as I know.

 

[subsonic]

The order would effect the jurisdiction of the Court that issued it.

I’m not sure what you mean. If you mean that the order applies through the entire jurisdiction of the court (northern district of New York) and only that jurisdiction, you are incorrect. District judges have in many cases issued nationwide injunctions.

in this case though, it appears from the language of the TRO, it is only restraining the named defendants and those acting on their behalf. I am not sure that would apply to officials outside the county officials named unless it is argued somehow they are acting on behalf of the governor or the state police which I don’t think is the case for local law enforcement. I think the judge probably had that power but decided it was not asked to use it.

I want to add that I am especially disappointed in the scope of the TRO for houses of worship, and hope that gets broadened down the line. As it stands a church has to specifically assign a duty to keep the peace to someone for them to be excepted. I don’t see many church leaderships granting that to everyone in attendance, even if they wanted to allow concealed carry.

 

[camper4lyfe]

I don't see anything about the 16 hours training.

As of right now it's still allowed. It's not part of the TRO

 

[Glock_USA]

I’m not sure what you mean. If you mean that the order applies through the entire jurisdiction of the court (northern district of New York) and only that jurisdiction, you are incorrect. District judges have in many cases issued nationwide injunctions.

in this case though, it appears from the language of the TRO, it is only restraining the named defendants and those acting on their behalf. I am not sure that would apply to officials outside the county officials named unless it is argued somehow they are acting on behalf of the governor or the state police which I don’t think is the case for local law enforcement. I think the judge probably had that power but decided it was not asked to use it.

I want to add that I am especially disappointed in the scope of the TRO for houses of worship, and hope that gets broadened down the line. As it stands a church has to specifically assign a duty to keep the peace to someone for them to be excepted. I don’t see many church leaderships granting that to everyone in attendance, even if they wanted to allow concealed carry.

The charges would be the state of NY V you. The state is restrained.

 

[TJ12010]

I just can't fathom how the whole house of worship thing wasn't one of the very first things tossed, separation of church and state and all.. especially since relief was granted in a private business which are regulated by the state in nearly all circumstances.

 

[camper4lyfe]

What about NYC being an entire sensitive area unless you get your permit issued in those 5 boroughs?

That wasn't part of the lawsuit

 

[Saltwater60]

That wasn't part of the lawsuit

Make sense and doesn’t at the same time. I get the judge can’t rule outside the case set before him but if a small part of NYC a can’t be a sensitive area logic would say all of NYC can’t be a sensitive place. I know logic doesn’t apply here.

 

[Glock_USA]

Make sense and doesn’t at the same time. I get the judge can’t rule outside the case set before him but if a small part of NYC a can’t be a sensitive area logic would say all of NYC can’t be a sensitive place. I know logic doesn’t apply here.

Because NYC isn't sensitive. You just dont have a license to carry there. Thats the difference.

 

[byron]

 

[subsonic]

The charges would be the state of NY V you. The state is restrained.

I mean that's a good argument and I hope any right-thinking law enforcement and DA's across the state take their cue from this case, but that's not the world we live in and I'm not sure that's right. "The State of New York" is not a defendant here, and the judge did not make issue a preliminary judgment on the validity of the law statewide, but rather temporarily restrained the defendants from enforcing part of it. Which include the governor, superintendent of state police, law enforcement and district attorneys of three specific counties. I would not put it past, for instance, NYPD, which is not enjoined, to make arrests, and the Manhattan DA, who is not enjoined, to press charges, though that would provide another venue to challenge the law.

 

[John Stark]

I’m not sure what you mean. If you mean that the order applies through the entire jurisdiction of the court (northern district of New York) and only that jurisdiction, you are incorrect. District judges have in many cases issued nationwide injunctions.

in this case though, it appears from the language of the TRO, it is only restraining the named defendants and those acting on their behalf. I am not sure that would apply to officials outside the county officials named unless it is argued somehow they are acting on behalf of the governor or the state police which I don’t think is the case for local law enforcement. I think the judge probably had that power but decided it was not asked to use it.

I want to add that I am especially disappointed in the scope of the TRO for houses of worship, and hope that gets broadened down the line. As it stands a church has to specifically assign a duty to keep the peace to someone for them to be excepted. I don’t see many church leaderships granting that to everyone in attendance, even if they wanted to allow concealed carry.

Your point about "the TRO, it is only restraining the named defendants and those acting on their behalf. I am not sure that would apply to officials outside the county officials named unless it is argued somehow they are acting on behalf of the governor or the state police which I don’t think is the case for local law enforcement." I think is erroneous (with all due respect).

Yes it is restraining specific, named officials, but what is it restraining them from doing?

Enforcing state law.

If a sheriff deputy or local cops makes an arrest that falls within the scope of the CCIA, that is going to be a tough row to hoe in court for ANY official to say that "we're not state authorities" when their own county or local jurisdiction is predicated on State law in the first place in order to file criminal charges that are based on the CCIA.

Any enforcement of anything in the CCIA from "county officials" is predicated on State law.

Controlling law and precedent works from the top down, not from the bottom up. Federal law overrides State law, but only in those areas granted by the Constitution (theoretically at least, not practically in our post-Constitution era); State law trumps county law, county law trumps local law, etc., and only in those areas where the hierarchy has preeminence.

Now, if the TRO applied only to Onondaga county (for example), or only to one particular federal district, then your point would probably be valid. I don't "think" that's the case here.

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