The Supreme Court has issued this ruling as well. No actual injury is needed and only to show intent or say that you would be harmed by it.
Why would that person have standing? The NYC ban isn’t being challenged expect for time square as a sensitive place and there are many sensitive places all across NYS. The lack of standing is supposed to be from Suddaby’s doubt that they would violate the law so why would a NYCite violate the law or be more believable?
In defense Bruen was just handed down and safe act wasn’t clearly unconstitutional previous to this IMO. It is now and should go now.
Doubtful this is the case. His court (US District Court for the Northern District of New York) would likely not have jurisdiction for a plaintiff living in NYC.
But....the Liberal Progressive anti-2A legislators only acknowledge SCOTUS decisions when those rulings reinforce the Progressive agenda. All other times, those legislators do whatever they want, "For the good of the people."
Well , Some one wispered in his ear, I was hoping this law would be challeneged in total. once the place of worship is over turned we lose the help of the Block vote. they have a direct connection to albany . I was hoping this would of turned the block vote away from the current machine now operating in albany with the support of the block vote. You folks north of the catskills may not know what the block vote is or how strong it is,
That's a ruling that they *have* standing despite no individualized injury.
All of these lawsuits are not cheap .. Several hundreds of thousands of Dollars in some cases. per/case.. Often more.
I doubt any administration would ever send the national guard for gun rights since it would be the kids of death. Not enough people believe in gun rights strong enough to do that.
What I meant is if a guy in say Buffalo didn’t have standing in the Suddaby case then why would some one in NYC?
Gun shops have one also. This is about security requirements at the shops. Cameras have to be installed and film preserved for 2 years I believe. ... High quality cameras at that folks. This alone could put many shops out of business.
Yup, and this is why the system is broken. The founders never intended for it to be bastardized this way.
Cameras are to come from an "approved" list NY puts out. Internet based as they need to be remotely monitored. We have our own, hardwired cameras. I do not want someone watching me 24/7 or have the things hackable. Talk about being set up. And at what $$$$$$$. Oh, and there is supposed to be one over the point of sale and there is something about audio....there are conversations in this shop that do not need to be kept on record, people bitch and rightly so. Social media history gets expanded to include this crap??
Wait till the IRS uses the POS footage as grounds to audit you etc..
Just for example look at the public transportation issue. The act calls out busses, subways, ferries, airports...on and on. The plaintiffs are all from upstate NY where there are no subways, and their license is not good in NYC. So they have standing to challenge busses, but not public transportation types where they have no realistic chance to carry. Same for Times Square. Suddaby wants to have an air-tight case for his decision.
You have a right to privacy in your home and place of business. I’d love to see this get challenged. My God this is getting outrageous.
Really? This violates many things like your right to privacy and freedom of speech. They are mandating you be recorded while in a private place of business. That’s fine if they want to play this game but then politicians need to be recorded 100% of the time.
The NYC restrictions are next, right after the sensitive places thing is overturned.
It was clearly unconstitutional since the day it was drafted.
Idk about other cities but Buffalo has a subway and Boron vs Bruen was challenging that.
All cities of any size have train stations, airports, and all have Uber/Lyft.
Agreed but the Bruen decision makes the safe act being overturned have zero wiggle room and it now must be overturned. I could see safe not being overturned previously because no guns were actually banned only cosmetic features on guns.
Incorrect. Under Safk'd, guns over a certain weight were banned and considered assault weapons (ex. Desert Eagle despite it AFAIK never having been used and fired in any reported crime). Unless that was overruled lmk.
