Temporary Restaining Order Issued For Concealed Carry Improvement Act (merged thread)
- Thread starter Glock_USA
- Start date
Shadow2
6.5 Creedmoor
Historically a business could post a sign and can ask you leave. A felony charge for violating a sign you possibly didn't see is not consistent with tradition.
Far king
.357 mag
22years ago after moving to Oneida co from Atlanta l looked into obtaining my pistol Permit. The first requirement was that l had to be a resident of the county for 1 year before l was even eligible to apply! I was told this was an added burden the county tagged on and not a state requirement.
So I year later when l applied l was required to provide 4 character witnesses whom l had known for a minimum of 10 years, non of which could be family or law enforcement officers. Since my wife was from here and we made annual visits here l had that part covered but here’s the kicker.
The 4 character witnesses were given a document containing 20 questions pertaining to my character that THEY had to get notarized then THEY had to send the damn things in to the PP office.
6 months later l received my license. What a hassle and a inconvenience, not just for me but my four character witnesses.
I believed this was standard procedure in all NYcounties .
Saltwater60
.950 JDJ
Thank you for the clarification on armed church security. I read it the same way as you did. I’m a sanctioned armed security worker for my church. I’m on a safety team and I’m vetted by my church. The pastor actually wrote me a letter for the judge to get my restrictions removed for this purpose so I have prior authorization and I will get more updated authorization as well.
I will essentially have them wrote that we are there for life saving measure AED and narcan use as well as the safety and security for the church members in case of a violent attack.
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
It depended on the community as to the training standard.
And some places said you were automatically a part of the militia. If you were a free man, between certain ages, you were required to participate in the militia so gun ownership question would be moot.
It was the recognition that definition of militia for when the constitution was written was the common man who brought his own weapon made the majority of the court side with Salicia’s opinion.
yes, the 7 round limit was struck down, but somehow it meant going back to another arbitrary limit of 10, even though that was not in the law?
Or did they make sure to add "you can only load 7, but if this is struck down you can only load 10"?
Except it is not "almost entirely defeated".
A few infringements are, hopefully, going to be enjoined, and that is good, but there is still a LOT in this crap law that is not.
Requiring people to spend a lot of money to exercise a right (egregious training requirements).
Requiring people to get background checked for ammo (don't recall hearing THAT one in historical documents).
etc.
subsonic
.44 mag
To remind you what happened, the first version of SAFE had a 7 round mag limit but the legislature "fixed" it to be 10 round but you can only load 7 since 7 round mags did not really exist in the market. The 7 round magazine limit was never in effect. The federal Western District court found the "load only 7" part unconstitutional (pre-Bruen) and invalidated it but left the pre-SAFE 10 round mag limit in place. Even though they weren't really giving proper weight to Heller, it was found totally irrational to only allow law-abiding citizens to partially load legal magazines, with absolutely nothing stopping criminals from fully-loading those same legally-available magazines with legally-available bullets and outgunning compliant citizens.
That case was NYSRPA v. Cuomo in 2013, the judge was Skretny, and the case was basically a loss for NYSRPA since the broad challenge to the SAFE Act failed and the 7 round loading limit was the only part that was overturned.
There was a brief period of time when some charges were made (usually or always with related charges) for 10-round loaded magazines outside the Western District, but those never stuck. I'm not sure the loading limit was ever officially repealed by the legislature but it's been ruled unconstitutional and law enforcement should disregard it.
You would hope they would have taken that logic a bit further, but Bruen is now supposed to change the standard to a true 2nd Amendment "right to bear" standard, not the old "prove the law is irrational" burden that was being imposed.
Last edited:
Only A and G of the sensitive places can still be enforced according to this.
Keep in mind and this is important. This doesn’t go in effect until October 10th and the state still has three BUSINESS days to reply to this. That means Today, Tuesday and Wednesday.
Watch yourselves as I wouldn’t be surprised if the state sent something to the NYSP to tell them to make arrest over the weekend.
Keep in mind and this is important. This doesn’t go in effect until October 10th and the state still has three BUSINESS days to reply to this. That means Today, Tuesday and Wednesday.
Watch yourselves as I wouldn’t be surprised if the state sent something to the NYSP to tell them to make arrest over the weekend.
subsonic
.44 mag
The semi-auto rifle licensing requirement? ALL of the SAFE Act "assaulty-rifle" bans? The new total bans on "others" (up to and including pistol-grip-only muzzleloaders? The backdoor gun registry? And oh yeah making buying and selling ammo expensive and onerous.
I don't think any of that has been enjoined or most if any of that is even challenged in this case.
STS556
.223 Rem
I never got my pistol permit here in NY because I don't believe in going through a vetting process for a constitutional right to possibly get denied for nothing. Maybe when this is all over and we become a free 2A state, then I will apply for a permit.
The TRO only addressed a few of the imminent things that were putting people in immediate danger of arrest. It is not the final decision of the case. Training requirements and others are still being reviewed and a decision will come soon on those. Also the bar is much higher for a TRO than it is for the case itself.
The charges wouldn't stick past Wednesday. No DA's office would even bother with this. Charge someone Tuesday and drop charges Wednesday? Nah. I dont think so.
Maybe when its all over you won't need a permit.
maverick52
.223 Rem
Totally different laws. They passed the laws on semi autos, others and ammo before the CCIA. I would hope there is a lawsuit in process already on those
John Stark
.44 mag
When its appealed to a higher court, the higher court has most/all options on the table and can basically "pick through" the entire content of any given lower decision. There are certain legal "niceties" and matters of jurisprudence that are considered required and traditional legal practices that courts are supposed to adhere to, and which a higher court (or a full court reassessing a case heard only by a smaller panel of that same specific court) can point out as how a case was wrongly handled and force the lower court to make corrections.
Indeed, a higher court can (in a practical sense) toss an entire lower court decision, even if that lower decision hewed closely to the law and court precedent, or hold up parts and strike others, etc. That higher court can then be overruled by the next highest of course, but each step of the way is another rung in the ladder that points out how difficult it can be to win, even on the merits of the case.
its not clear to me if the requirement for a sign allowing CC in a private place is no longer valid. Was that struck down as well? Sure, some sensitive places were removed. But can i now CC at say, the local supermarket, even if they don't have a sign allowing it? Sorry, i read thru the whole tread this morning, but i didnt see this specifically mentioned. but, i'm still not fully caffeinated so who knows.
subsonic
.44 mag
This decision is still really not great for churches. While there are a few churches like yours that are proactive about having specifically tasked volunteer armed security with specific protocols, the vast majority don't.
I would say the majority of churches are simply "agnostic" about guns, in that they have members who are all over on the issue and they don't want to divide over guns as this is not a doctrinal issue for them. So, there is no policy in place, and under previous law licensed members and communicants were free to conceal carry without any special permission. Even asking for permission to carry would cause a major problem for many churches because this would stir up unwanted controversy. Simply having members conceal carry and not make a big deal about it caused no issues but provided protection.
With this decision, even getting permission isn't enough. A church is still not free to just grant permission to someone to carry, either individual or blanket. They have to task them with a "duty" to "maintain order." Most churches are not going to be willing to task an armed volunteer with a duty to maintain order, as that's a huge liability issue. Now this directly puts the church on the line as liable if anything goes wrong. And this is by design. And what church is going to provide a blanket "duty to maintain order" and be armed while doing so to anyone in the church? That's a recipe for chaos and definitely for getting sued if there's ever a shooting at church under any circumstances.
As far as paid security, many faithful churches would see that as problematic in terms of Sabbath-breaking. It could be an "work of mercy and necessity" but maybe not if worshippers could just bring their own pistols. Plus most churches can't afford and don't want that anyway.
maverick52
.223 Rem
From what I am hearing and reading it appears the fight is far from over. It may be too soon for celebration like many are doing.
subsonic
.44 mag
But I did read the entire decision, and I'm not finding any declaration, temporary or final, that law is held to be constitutional, or that the TRO applies to anyone not enjoined. The defendants were specifically enjoined, so the State Police must respect this state-wide. I agree that it's a matter of time and speed-bumps to get this statewide, I'm just not sure what you're saying is accurate now. The judge found it more likely than not that the law is unconstitutional and enjoined the defendants from enforcing it as specified while the litigation continues.
Looks to me like you are reading more into it than that. I think for right now it is up to other local authorities not enjoined to take their cues how to proceed, which will likely depend on guidance from their local attorneys and the state, as well as local political considerations including upcoming elections.
Does this have any effect on the ammo buying BS?
subsonic
.44 mag
subsonic
.44 mag
Ain't nobody got time for that!
thanks, i will.
If you were charged by a DA in "X" county the charges are still the state of NY v. You. The state has been restrained. Each local jurisdiction is acting on behalf of the state. The ruing applies to everyone.
subsonic
.44 mag
Going in circles here. The state was not restrained, the governor, superintendent of state police, and specific district attorneys and sheriffs were. The DA in X county is not Governor Hochul or acting on behalf of Governor Hochul. Governor Hochul may be the chief executive but she is not the State of New York nor is she law enforcement; if you think she is then I'd like to see the authority for that argument. Anyway I'm not going to beat that dead horse anymore.
The law was deemed unconstitutional, no?
The AG was restrained, no?
The AG = top law enforcement officer. If she cant enforce then why would anyone under her be able to? I think you are worrying about nothing here. If you want to follow unconstitutional laws go ahead. I won't.
Far king
.357 mag
It seems to me that the majority of the forum members are looking to the TRO becoming a reality on Wednesday or at least extremely optimistic. Knowing how no holds barred dirty the thugs in the capital can play, I’m hoping for the best but expecting the worst. I would be interested in your take on this.
The
so i read thru the courts decision - link in the very first post. on pages 45 and 46 is where the private establishment signs are restrained. now, after readying all 53 pages, i need a nap. here is the specific text from that decision/ those pages:
During oral argument, counsel for the State Defendants defended the CCIA’s “restricted location” provision (which prohibits license holders from carrying in other persons’ buildings and or on their land, enclosed or not, unless expressly permitted to do so) on the ground that it enables a “homeowner . . . to make an informed decision” regarding who is and who is not allowed to bring a gun onto his or her property. (Dkt. No. 23, at 32-33 [Oral Argument Tr.].) The Court respectfully disagrees with that argument, because (through this prohibition) the State of New York is now making a decision for private property owners that they are perfectly able to make for themselves (and, in fact, did before the CCIA was enacted), as well as arguably compelling speech on a sensitive issue. In any event, however, this policy dispute is irrelevant, because it does not regard the Supreme Court’s “historical tradition” standard. The sole historical analogues provided for the CCIA’s “restricted location” provision (which prohibit license holders from carrying in other persons’ buildings and or on their land, enclosed or not, unless expressly permitted to do so) are three statutes prohibiting carrying firearms on other people’s “inclosed” lands. However, on their face, the purpose of those statutes appears to be merely to stop poaching. If this were not the case, then why did those statutes require the farmland to be enclosed? Defendants have not persuasively answered this question, and (again) it is their burden to do so; that is the unavoidable effect of the presumption recognized in NYSRPA. As a result, the Court orders the enforcement of this provision temporarily restrained, except with regard to fenced-in farmland owned by another or fenced-in hunting ground owned by another.