OwnTheRide
.223 Rem
Just what, precisely, do you think SCOTUS would do?
NY has repeatedly demonstrated that stern words and terse rulings do not matter to them. They are in blatant violation of the Bruen decision and just. don't. care.
Temporary Restaining Order Issued For Concealed Carry Improvement Act (merged thread)
- Thread starter Glock_USA
- Start date
NY has repeatedly demonstrated that stern words and terse rulings do not matter to them. They are in blatant violation of the Bruen decision and just. don't. care.
minderasr
6.5 Creedmoor
If NYS doesn't follow the law of the land, why should we follow the (un)law of NYS?
gunpoliticsny
6.5 Creedmoor
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
Because they have the ability to arrest you and throw you in jail. .. Then it could cost 50 thousand and up to have a lawyer work on your behalf.
Saltwater60
.950 JDJ
If it gets to this you could file a federal civil right lawsuit and be very, very wealthy.
Love this from the judge.
"the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the status quo, not 2022 legislation on the books for nine weeks."
"The State requests a three-day stay pending appeal, which Plaintiffs oppose. The State's request is denied."
"Legislative enactments may not eviscerate the Bill of Rights. Every day they do is one too many."
Too bad the judge in the big case doesn't feel the same way and is dragging his feet.
"the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the status quo, not 2022 legislation on the books for nine weeks."
"The State requests a three-day stay pending appeal, which Plaintiffs oppose. The State's request is denied."
"Legislative enactments may not eviscerate the Bill of Rights. Every day they do is one too many."
Too bad the judge in the big case doesn't feel the same way and is dragging his feet.
maverick52
.223 Rem
Suddaby should take notes
99cummins
.308 Win
And find his balls…
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
Why Every State With an "Assault Rifle" Ban Better Watch This Case
gun_slinger_boy
.338 Win Mag
This seems to be where every case is right now. Stall tactics and years of litigation for things that should have happened immediately after the Bruen decision.
The plaintiff's lawyer in Antonyuk v Nigrelli just notified Judge Suddaby in writing about Judge Sinatra's ruling on the church lawsuit. Hopefully, Judge Suddaby takes their arguments and Judge Sinatra's ruling into account on this suit.
Saltwater60
.950 JDJ
We should just switch venues.
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
a few words from GOA ..
the same goes for having to get a pistol permit .. no matter what age you are ..
the same goes for having to get a pistol permit .. no matter what age you are ..
Saltwater60
.950 JDJ
So…….
An order has just been posted! Going to read it now... Decision, and Preliminary Injunction granted in part...184 pages!
Edit: I'm through about the first 50 pages. Judge Suddaby appears to be avaioding granting standing on a number of plaintiff. Kind of like trying to split the baby. I am not happy to see this BS.
Edit: I'm through about the first 50 pages. Judge Suddaby appears to be avaioding granting standing on a number of plaintiff. Kind of like trying to split the baby. I am not happy to see this BS.
Last edited:
C3D
.308 Win
That_FNG
.308 Win
HUZZAH! Suck on that you unelected tyrannical whore!
Dr. Evil
20×102mm Vulcan
Where's the damn videos already?!?!?!? 
Dr. Evil
20×102mm Vulcan
Hoping you can say the same thing after tomorrow.
Phazer
.450/400 Nitro Ex
WOW!
Looks like A LOT was enjoined (stayed) for now.
Based on very cursory review (and memory), judge let stand: 4 references for application, training requirements, meeting with officer in person for permitting, banning in schools and playgrounds.
Judge gave his own summary of what is stayed at the end:
PRELIMINARILY ENJOINED from enforcing the following provisions of the Concealed
Carry Improvement Act, 2022 N.Y. Sess. Laws ch. 371 (“CCIA”):
(1) the following provisions contained in Section 1 of the CCIA:
(a) the provision requiring “good moral character”;
(b) the provision requiring the “names and contact information for the applicant’s current spouse, or domestic partner, any other adults residing in the applicant's home, including any adult children of the applicant, and whether or not there are minors residing, full time or part time, in the applicant’s home”;
(c) the provision requiring “a list of former and current social media accounts of the applicant from the past three years”; and
(d) the provision contained in Section 1 of the CCIA requiring “such other information required by review of the licensing application that is reasonably necessary and related to the review of the licensing application”;
(2) the following “sensitive locations” provision contained in Section 4 of the CCIA:
(a) “any location providing . . . behavioral health, or chemical dependance care or services” (except to places to which the public or a substantial group of persons have not been granted access) as contained in Paragraph “2(b)”;
(b) “any place of worship or religious observation” as contained in Paragraph “2(c)”;
(c) “public parks, and zoos” as contained in Paragraph “2(d)”;
(d) “airports” to the extent the license holder is complying with federal regulations, and “buses” as contained in Paragraph “2(n)”;
(e) “any establishment issued a license for on-premise consumption pursuant to article four, four-A, five, or six of the alcoholic beverage control law where alcohol is consumed” as contained in Paragraph “2(o)”;
(f) “theaters,” “conference centers,” and “banquet halls” as contained in Paragraph “2(p)”; and
(g) “any gathering of individuals to collectively express their constitutional rights to protest or assemble” as contained in Paragraph
“2(s)”; and
(3) the “restricted locations” provision contained in Section 5 of the CCIA
Dr. Evil
20×102mm Vulcan
I like to read the ending of books first. This seems to be the meat and potatoes:
F. Scope and Stay
As they did with regard to a Temporary Restraining Order, the State Defendants have
requested that any Preliminary Injunction that is issued by the Court be (1) either limited in
scope to Plaintiffs or the Northern District of New York, and (2) stayed for three business days
pending appeal. (Dkt. No. 48, at 115-16.)
After carefully considering the matter, the Court denies this request for the reasons stated
by Plaintiffs in their reply papers and during oral argument, and for the reasons stated recently by
U.S. District Judge John L. Sinatra in Hardaway v. Nigrelli. (Dkt. No. 69, at 54 [Plfs.’ Reply
Memo. of Law]; Dkt. No. 71, at 107-08 [Prelim. Inj. Tr.].) See also Hardaway v. Nigerelli, 22-
CV-0771, 2022 WL 16646220, at *18-19 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 3, 2022). To those reasons, the Court
adds the fact that five of the nine Defendants in this action have not even opposed Plaintiffs’
139 See Doctor's Assocs., Inc. v. Distajo, 107 F.3d 126, 136 (2d Cir.1997) (affirming district
court decision to not require a franchisor-plaintiff to post a bond for either of its injunctions
because the franchisee-defendants “would not suffer damage or loss from being forced to
arbitrate in lieu of prosecuting their state-court cases”); Doctor’s Assocs., Inc. v. Stuart, 85 F.3d
975, 985 (2d Cir. 1996) (“Defendants have not shown that they will likely suffer harm absent the
posting of a bond by [Plaintiff].”); Clarkson Co. v. Shaheen, 544 F.2d 624, 632 (2d Cir.1976)
(“ecause, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65[c], the amount of any bond to be given upon the issuance
of a preliminary injunction rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, the district court
may dispense with the filing of a bond.”); Ferguson v. Tabah, 288 F.2d 665, 675 (2d Cir.1961)
(“[The phrase ‘in such sum as the court deems proper’] indicates that the District Court is vested
with wide discretion in the matter of security and it has been held proper for the court to require
no bond where there has been no proof of likelihood of harm, or where the injunctive order was
issued “to aid and preserve the court's jurisdiction over the subject matter involved.”).
Case 1:22-cv-00986-GTS-CFH Document 78 Filed 11/07/22 Page 181 of 184
182
motion to preliminarily enjoin the below-enjoined provisions of this patently unconstitutional
law. See, supra, Part I of this Decision. Although the Court has not considered that de facto
consent in evaluating the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims,140 the Court does find it relevant in
evaluating any possible injury to the public that would be caused by this Preliminary Injunction
if, on appeal, this Court’s Decision were to be held to be in error.
For all of these reasons, the Court denies the State Defendants’ request for a limitation
and stay.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Defendant Hochul is DISMISSED from this action as a party; and it is
further
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 6) is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part in accordance with this Decision; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendants, as well as their officers, agents, servants, employees, and
attorneys (and any other persons who are in active concert or participation with them) are
PRELIMINARILY ENJOINED from enforcing the following provisions of the Concealed
Carry Improvement Act, 2022 N.Y. Sess. Laws ch. 371 (“CCIA”):
(1) the following provisions contained in Section 1 of the CCIA:
(a) the provision requiring “good moral character”;
(b) the provision requiring the “names and contact information for
the applicant’s current spouse, or domestic partner, any other adults
residing in the applicant's home, including any adult children of the
applicant, and whether or not there are minors residing, full time or part
time, in the applicant’s home”;
(c) the provision requiring “a list of former and current social
media accounts of the applicant from the past three years”; and
(d) the provision contained in Section 1 of the CCIA requiring
“such other information required by review of the licensing application
that is reasonably necessary and related to the review of the licensing
application”;
(2) the following “sensitive locations” provision contained in Section 4 of
the CCIA:
(a) “any location providing . . . behavioral health, or chemical
dependance care or services” (except to places to which the public or a
substantial group of persons have not been granted access) as contained in
Paragraph “2(b)”;
(b) “any place of worship or religious observation” as contained in
Paragraph “2(c)”;
(c) “public parks, and zoos” as contained in Paragraph “2(d)”;
(d) “airports” to the extent the license holder is complying with
federal regulations, and “buses” as contained in Paragraph “2(n)”;
(e) “any establishment issued a license for on-premise
consumption pursuant to article four, four-A, five, or six of the alcoholic
Case 1:22-cv-00986-GTS-CFH Document 78 Filed 11/07/22 Page 183 of 184
184
beverage control law where alcohol is consumed” as contained in
Paragraph “2(o)”;
(f) “theaters,” “conference centers,” and “banquet halls” as
contained in Paragraph “2(p)”; and
(g) “any gathering of individuals to collectively express their
constitutional rights to protest or assemble” as contained in Paragraph
“2(s)”; and
(3) the “restricted locations” provision contained in Section 5 of the
CCIA; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiffs are EXCUSED from giving security; and it is further
ORDERED that the State Defendants’ request for a limitation in the scope of this
Preliminary Injunction and for a stay of it pending appeal (Dkt. No. 48, at 115-16) is DENIED.
Dated: November 7, 2022
Syracuse, New York
Is it fair to say the state got spanked?
F. Scope and Stay
As they did with regard to a Temporary Restraining Order, the State Defendants have
requested that any Preliminary Injunction that is issued by the Court be (1) either limited in
scope to Plaintiffs or the Northern District of New York, and (2) stayed for three business days
pending appeal. (Dkt. No. 48, at 115-16.)
After carefully considering the matter, the Court denies this request for the reasons stated
by Plaintiffs in their reply papers and during oral argument, and for the reasons stated recently by
U.S. District Judge John L. Sinatra in Hardaway v. Nigrelli. (Dkt. No. 69, at 54 [Plfs.’ Reply
Memo. of Law]; Dkt. No. 71, at 107-08 [Prelim. Inj. Tr.].) See also Hardaway v. Nigerelli, 22-
CV-0771, 2022 WL 16646220, at *18-19 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 3, 2022). To those reasons, the Court
adds the fact that five of the nine Defendants in this action have not even opposed Plaintiffs’
139 See Doctor's Assocs., Inc. v. Distajo, 107 F.3d 126, 136 (2d Cir.1997) (affirming district
court decision to not require a franchisor-plaintiff to post a bond for either of its injunctions
because the franchisee-defendants “would not suffer damage or loss from being forced to
arbitrate in lieu of prosecuting their state-court cases”); Doctor’s Assocs., Inc. v. Stuart, 85 F.3d
975, 985 (2d Cir. 1996) (“Defendants have not shown that they will likely suffer harm absent the
posting of a bond by [Plaintiff].”); Clarkson Co. v. Shaheen, 544 F.2d 624, 632 (2d Cir.1976)
(“ecause, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65[c], the amount of any bond to be given upon the issuance
of a preliminary injunction rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, the district court
may dispense with the filing of a bond.”); Ferguson v. Tabah, 288 F.2d 665, 675 (2d Cir.1961)
(“[The phrase ‘in such sum as the court deems proper’] indicates that the District Court is vested
with wide discretion in the matter of security and it has been held proper for the court to require
no bond where there has been no proof of likelihood of harm, or where the injunctive order was
issued “to aid and preserve the court's jurisdiction over the subject matter involved.”).
Case 1:22-cv-00986-GTS-CFH Document 78 Filed 11/07/22 Page 181 of 184
182
motion to preliminarily enjoin the below-enjoined provisions of this patently unconstitutional
law. See, supra, Part I of this Decision. Although the Court has not considered that de facto
consent in evaluating the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims,140 the Court does find it relevant in
evaluating any possible injury to the public that would be caused by this Preliminary Injunction
if, on appeal, this Court’s Decision were to be held to be in error.
For all of these reasons, the Court denies the State Defendants’ request for a limitation
and stay.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Defendant Hochul is DISMISSED from this action as a party; and it is
further
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 6) is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part in accordance with this Decision; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendants, as well as their officers, agents, servants, employees, and
attorneys (and any other persons who are in active concert or participation with them) are
PRELIMINARILY ENJOINED from enforcing the following provisions of the Concealed
Carry Improvement Act, 2022 N.Y. Sess. Laws ch. 371 (“CCIA”):
(1) the following provisions contained in Section 1 of the CCIA:
(a) the provision requiring “good moral character”;
(b) the provision requiring the “names and contact information for
the applicant’s current spouse, or domestic partner, any other adults
residing in the applicant's home, including any adult children of the
applicant, and whether or not there are minors residing, full time or part
time, in the applicant’s home”;
(c) the provision requiring “a list of former and current social
media accounts of the applicant from the past three years”; and
(d) the provision contained in Section 1 of the CCIA requiring
“such other information required by review of the licensing application
that is reasonably necessary and related to the review of the licensing
application”;
(2) the following “sensitive locations” provision contained in Section 4 of
the CCIA:
(a) “any location providing . . . behavioral health, or chemical
dependance care or services” (except to places to which the public or a
substantial group of persons have not been granted access) as contained in
Paragraph “2(b)”;
(b) “any place of worship or religious observation” as contained in
Paragraph “2(c)”;
(c) “public parks, and zoos” as contained in Paragraph “2(d)”;
(d) “airports” to the extent the license holder is complying with
federal regulations, and “buses” as contained in Paragraph “2(n)”;
(e) “any establishment issued a license for on-premise
consumption pursuant to article four, four-A, five, or six of the alcoholic
Case 1:22-cv-00986-GTS-CFH Document 78 Filed 11/07/22 Page 183 of 184
184
beverage control law where alcohol is consumed” as contained in
Paragraph “2(o)”;
(f) “theaters,” “conference centers,” and “banquet halls” as
contained in Paragraph “2(p)”; and
(g) “any gathering of individuals to collectively express their
constitutional rights to protest or assemble” as contained in Paragraph
“2(s)”; and
(3) the “restricted locations” provision contained in Section 5 of the
CCIA; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiffs are EXCUSED from giving security; and it is further
ORDERED that the State Defendants’ request for a limitation in the scope of this
Preliminary Injunction and for a stay of it pending appeal (Dkt. No. 48, at 115-16) is DENIED.
Dated: November 7, 2022
Syracuse, New York
Is it fair to say the state got spanked?
Phazer
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Looks like the judge spent a considerable amount of time on his opinion. There is a lot of judicial logic and thought put into the decision. We may not agree with some of the findings. But, nobody can take issue with how in-depth the opinion is.
Phazer
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Yes. It appears that almost all of the state's hastily concocted "new stuff" was stayed...for now.
Now we need to find some way to address the onerous training requirements.
C3D
.308 Win
Disappointing to me.
No injunction against NYC carry requiring a separate endorsement from NYPD
No injunction against walking past a school on the street not violating CCIA
No injunction against 4 references which serve no purpose since there is no longer a good moral character requirement
And no injunction against over the top and onerous training requirements
No injunction against NYC carry requiring a separate endorsement from NYPD
No injunction against walking past a school on the street not violating CCIA
No injunction against 4 references which serve no purpose since there is no longer a good moral character requirement
And no injunction against over the top and onerous training requirements
Dr. Evil
20×102mm Vulcan
enjoin the below-enjoined provisions of this patently unconstitutional
law.
My favorite line that pretty much sums it all up.
law.
My favorite line that pretty much sums it all up.
C3D
.308 Win
and also no injunction against carry in Times Square
That_FNG
.308 Win
I did not see where it stayed having all private property being a defacto ban on carry unless signs were posted. Pardon me as I may have missed it
That_FNG
.308 Win
Fingers crossed
That_FNG
.308 Win
So is this effective immediately? The last sentence says that defendants request for stay pending appeal is DENIED.