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

[RBean]

Ok, my guess was a day early. Came out Monday instead of Friday. Most of the absolutely horrible stuff was thrown out in this decision. On Friday you will have a real carry permit, unless the 2nd intervenes. More cases will be filed re the subways, public transportation etc. I think the school provision is too broad, but we got a lot in this decision.

The (Un) SAFE act should go. Outlawing a whole class of weapons commonly owned and used by the people is not within traditions in 1791 or any times afterwards until the 1934 firearms act. Which is probably also unconstitutional under Bruen.

 

[Saltwater60]

Yes sorry I was not clear in the post, but that detour around Cornell University-controlled streets has been a long time bugaboo of mine. It's true of many campuses around this state.

Oh I get it. I’d be aggravated by it as well.

 

[ManualF150]

Judge Issues A Temporary Restraining Order Against The CCIA | Gun Owners Foundation

www.gunowners.com

 

[livingston]

Video!! I want text

The decision is like 184 pages

 

[mk10]

Video!! I want text

Text of video, as requested:

Breaking news out of New York. A major win for the Second Amendment in the Antonyuk versus Hochul case. We're going to talk about this big win in the Northern District of New York and how it struck down considerable numbers of New York's crazy gun control laws. We're to get to it in just one second.

Hey folks I'm Mark Smith host of the Four Boxes Diner, proud American Gunner, constitutional attorney, member of the United States Supreme Court bar and New York Times best-selling author. If you haven't subscribed to the Four Boxes Diner Second Amendment Channel please do, show and show your love to keep and bear arms.

All right, we have breaking news here. We just got a decision literally within the last, not even the last hour or so in the Antonyuk versus Hochul case. This is the challenge in the Northern District of New York to New York State's crazy gun control laws. This turns out to be a major win. Many, many aspects of the, of the, of the new gun control laws passed by the liberal Democrats and Kathy Hochul just recently in the aftermath of NYSRPA versus Bruin, the Supreme Court decision. Many of these laws have now been struck down. Let me be very clear about what this means. Judge Suddaby had previously issued an order on what's known as a temporary restraining order. A temporary restraining order is somewhere between the start of a lawsuit and the moment in time where the judge issues his ruling on what's known as a preliminary injunction. That is what the first decision the judge sought to be issued, an order on his temporary restraining order. This new decision on a preliminary injunction replaces, its supplants and replaces his decision on the motion for a temporary restraining order, which he largely granted in favor of the gun rights plaintiffs. But this motion for a preliminary injunction, he had a hearing and he is granting a preliminary injunction striking down many aspects of New York New York's gun control laws. Not all of it, we'll talk about that in just one second, but he did so. Now what a preliminary injunction is, a preliminary injunction goes from the day the decision is issued, which is today until the case is over and then at the end of the case the judge makes a decision whether or not there would, would be a permanent injunction. Injunction in this case, the state of New York, from enforcing the, from enforcing these gun control laws, basically until the end of time. So we just dealt with the TRO. Now we just got an order here on the preliminary, on a motion for a preliminary injunction, which is going to be in, which is going to be, the binding law of the case unless the court of appeals does something about it. We'll see, I'm not sure that's going to happen. But unless the court of appeals intervenes at some point, the decision I'm describing now is going to be, the essentially the law of the case. It's going to be around until the case is ultimately decided, maybe in a year or two from now. But this decision enjoins, which means stops from being enforced many, many major aspects of the anti-gun legislation passed just recently by New York State.

So I'm going to cut to the chase here. I'm going to go through what he decided. We'll talk just generally about why they got there, but we'll do a much bigger more detailed geeky video at some point later, because I know a lot of you people are interested in like the election and other things like that. You're very busy right now and I want to hit the highlights now and then we'll break it down in a subsequent video. So cut, the cutting into the chase. Judge Suddaby did the following. He declared as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment the following laws involving the so-called Concealed Carry Improvement Act of 2022. Number one, he says the provision that requires one to be of good moral character as defined by the statute is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. There is no historical analog for such a thing. It appeared to be just another excuse to try to deny law abiding citizens the ability to carry guns, which is what was going on before the Supreme Court decision. He has said that, that is no longer allowed to be enforced, I said that's no longer allowed to be enforced, it's now enjoined. The provision requiring good moral character to be able to carry a gun in the state of New York, he also struck down. And said that it's not constitutional under the Second Amendment for licensing officials to require you to turn over the names and contact information for your current spouse your domestic partner or any other adults residing in the home, including any adult children, including whether or not they're minors, by the way. You no longer have to turn that over, that is no historical analog, it's not constitutional under the Second Amendment according to Judge Suddaby in his ruling today, which I'll put a link to down below. The next thing Judge Suddaby decided was the provision that requires you to list your, this is key, the decision to require you, to the law, the law that requires you to list your former and current social media accounts, um as part of applying for a gun permit for the last three years. That, this has been struck down as unconstitutional according to Judge Suddaby. He says that is no good under the Second Amendment, it violates the Second Amendment. He also said that requiring any other information required to review the licensing application, um is also struck down on the grounds that unless it's some administrative ministerial thing there's no reason for uh, the state to need more additional information than what they're already asking for. I should note that he says that an in-person meeting may be fine, so he did not strike down, as best I can tell from this very long decision. It's 180 page uh, the requirement that you have to meet with someone face to face that appears to be uh, still the law of New York based on Judge. So to be not striking that down or not declaring that unconstitutional. Then he moves on to sensitive places, as you know sensitive places as a euphemism for uh, is a euphemism for gun-free zones, uh government created gun-free zones and he struck down many of these sensitive places as no basis in American law and not allowed. Specifically he says that uh, the government may not enforce the following laws dealing with so-called sensitive locations. Involving any location providing behavioral health or chemical dependence care services. Any place of worship or religious or observation and, by the way this is extremely important part, what I just said he has declared that any place of worship or religious observation um, that is not a sensitive place, under American law you cannot ban guns there uh, meaning the state cannot ban guns there and in the context of saying that he specifically cited to Judge John Sinatra's decision in the Western District of New York and Buffalo which illustrates a critical point I want you to continue to understand, which is every one of these cases that's favorable to the Second Amendment, we use as a brick. Right the movement, uses as a brick and every single case is another brick, and another brick, another brick, and eventually you build a strong wall around the Second Amendment. Here's exactly my point, so here you have Judge Suddaby relying on a decision by Judge Sinatra and he says yeah, I think Judge Sinatra's decision was right on. It was a great opinion I see no problems with it, I'm gonna follow it. That goes back to my point, point that these legal precedents build on each other as other judges follow the precedence of prior judges. That's how the common law works in the United States and in the angle sphere and that's how it worked today when again Judge Suddaby relied on the decision by Judge Sinatra, that said in Buffalo that gun bans on government, mandated gun bans in churches and places of worship uh, was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. But let me carry on with that, what else Judge Suddaby concluded. He also said that gun bans, government mandated gun bans on public parks and zoos, not constitutional. He says airports, to the extent the licensing holder is complying with federal regulations and buses, again buses, and uh, airports, obviously if you're not a lot, you can't violate federal regulations and going through the metal detectors, but those generally speaking at airports and buses uh, he's he's enjoining those, saying that, that's not consistent with the Second Amendment. I suspect that if you get a case involved in New York City they will strike down the gun ban on subways because again people need to be able to go to and from work and be able to protect themselves with guns and that is basically what Judge Suddaby said here. He also says that he is enjoining, he is enjoining sensitive places to the extent they they have issued a license for on-premise consumption of alcohol he says there's no historical preface, isn't for such a thing and thus it violates the Second Amendment. He also says that government mandated gun bans in theaters, conference centers and banquet halls uh, as articulated by part of the statute section 2p uh, that's unconstitutional and not allowed. He also says that uh, the restricted locations provision contain in paragraph five of the Concealed Carry Act is also remains unconstitutional as he previously articulated in his earlier decision. I believe uh, he did say though, what's very interesting though, is he said that the state defendants have requested for a limitation of the scope of this preliminary injunction and a stay of it pending appeal. He denied that, this is extremely interesting because there's a second New York federal court judge, district court Judge Judge Sinatra did it just last week. Now Judge Suddaby just did it when the state asked to stay, which means don't go into effect, don't let it go into effect, yet uh, these, these basically strike down, you know saying that the gun laws, the gun bans are no longer constitutional, cannot be enforced. This is the second judge that says I'm not going to stay my decision, you can take it up with a court of appeals but I'm, I'm letting this go into effect now. This is the second time this has happened. I think that's very good news because when the state says please, please, please you know, let us continue to be able to violate the Second Amendment rights of New Yorkers, Judge Sinatra in Buffalo says no can do. And now Judge today in the Northern District of New York says no can do, sorry state of New York. You cannot continue to violate people's second amendment rights, that is not going to happen, take it up to the court of appeals if you want and take an appeal from my decision, but I'm not going to stay the decision, I want it to go into effect immediately and I think that's again a very big deal.

Is there anything else critically important? Um, there's a lot of other analysis in this case that we can break down at some point, but again this is the highlights I wanted to get this to, information to you ASAP which I've just done and hope you learned something here at the Four Boxes Diner. If you haven't subscribed please do so we really would appreciate your support and we'll see you again soon here at the Four Boxes Diner, orders up table 2A.

 

[camper4lyfe]

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

…yet

 

[Bustedknees]

was the special semi-auto license part of this appeal?

 

[camper4lyfe]

I really need the training thrown out. The cost of that alone is going to be keeping me from applying for my permit.

 

[camper4lyfe]

was the special semi-auto license part of this appeal?

No. Only the CCIA

 

[cranberry]

I really need the training thrown out. The cost of that alone is going to be keeping me from applying for my permit.

Don’t let that deter you from applying all the intrusive stuff got thrown out but you still need 4 references and you’ll be good to go .

 

[Hierlevelz]

Jeeeeeezusssss…. I just watched that video. Holy shit, that fucker loves the sound of his own voice almost as much as the Armed Scholar. What a couple of self-aggrandizing blowhards. 60 seconds would have done it. See post #669

What I dislike about Armed Scholar is that his titles are very often misleading.

 

[Truebeliever]

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 one was asking for an injunction against the NYC restriction. 4 references. People at GOA or some members would sign off as reference. Not a big deal.
If you want to carry in NYC, you can ask for the special permit or help start a new lawsuit . I would send money to GOA for that purpose.

 

[Truebeliever]

in or upon 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;


I will continue to have to detour around the streets that run through Cornell University when I go from Ithaca downtown to Cayuga Heights, much as I have had to for many years now.

Public streets aren’t school property

 

[Truebeliever]

was the special semi-auto license part of this appeal?

Different law. That licensing system is likely okay if the handgun licensing is ruled constitutional .

 

[a2058]

How is 4 character references different than the good moral character bit that was found to be a problem here?

 

[Cippee]

And while some are celebrating this like it's such a huge win, some will quickly realize that the state still won BIG TIME because the most critical aspect of the law, the requirement for all private businesses to use signage and or to give express consent, still stands 100% and wasn't challenged.

No it was blocked under the restricted locations. That’s out it’s not default to illegal anymore.

 

[GOPerfect]

U.S. judge suspends many of New York's new gun restrictions

A federal judge in New York temporarily suspended many parts of the state's new gun restrictions on Monday to allow members of a gun-owners' rights group to continue their lawsuit challenging the new law as unconstitutional.

www.reuters.com

 

[CurlyDave]

Jeeeeeezusssss…. I just watched that video. Holy shit, that fucker loves the sound of his own voice almost as much as the Armed Scholar. What a couple of self-aggrandizing blowhards. 60 seconds would have done it. See post #669

They are both lawyers -- it is an occupational requirement.

If you ever need an attorney you really want one that revels in the sound of his own voice.

 

[Acer-m14]

I really need the training thrown out. The cost of that alone is going to be keeping me from applying for my permit.

25 cents .. introducing the pistol permit machine ..

 

[Acer-m14]

so the judge let stand one on one meeting ..

so what if you plead the 5th when there .. ?

 

[Cooolone]

The Judge fucked this up as the usually do... Half way bullshit! Read the SCOTUS ruling! Not sure how or why it's a "temporary" measure when the law, as enacted, is grossly unconstitutional! The entire thing should be thrown out! Maybe the judge missed that part about the two tier defacto infringement? Does a voter require a training program in order to vote? Does an accused need to demonstrate "need" for invoking their right to not incriminate themselves? If you don't have to do that (anything) in order to exercise a Right, then it applies to all, not selectively maybe, or one or two.

Just do what you want, smile, and enjoy life! That was the idea, and still is. Living by permission, exercising a so called RIGHT, by permission isn't then a Right at all... Not even close!

 

[maverick52]

This is a big win. While I get how some people see this as a loss but it’s a big step forward. The case will be heard and the rest of the law will be fought at trial. Now let’s hope the Second Circuit doesn’t grant a stay to NYS.

 

[Gonzobird]

It is not half way. This means that our permits actually mean something until the trial is done.

The case still needs to go to trial.

This is a good sign as the Judge put a stay on the law until the arguments are heard in court and if the judge is already saying the law is unconstitutional then we will most likely know what he will say after both sides’ arguments are done.

 

[kev74]

The decision is like 184 pages

I've got a really short attention span lately. Can you make it into a meme?

 

[Saltwater60]

Different law. That licensing system is likely okay if the handgun licensing is ruled constitutional .

Maybe, but maybe not. Maybe pistol permits for concealed carry have historical foundation and rifle permits don’t? Also you can’t conceal a rifle very easily. We will have to see.

 

[Phazer]

How is 4 character references different than the good moral character bit that was found to be a problem here?

It isn't! That's why it is still ripe for challenge.

If the goal is to remove subjectivity from the licensing scheme, then only an objective background criminal check is appropriate. The "four references" and "meeting in person" can only be used for subjective determinations.

 

[Cippee]

No one was asking for an injunction against the NYC restriction. 4 references. People at GOA or some members would sign off as reference. Not a big deal.
If you want to carry in NYC, you can ask for the special permit or help start a new lawsuit . I would send money to GOA for that purpose.

Is there still a restriction to carrying in NYC? There was under the old law but is that still in effect?

 

[Phazer]

Is there still a restriction to carrying in NYC? There was under the old law but is that still in effect?

NYC "home rule" was not challenged.

For the sake of permitting, NYC is not in NY state.

 

[Cippee]

NYC "home rule" was not challenged.

For the sake of permitting, NYC is not in NY state.

They did though at first Times Square was challenged and the subway. I can’t find anything official that says NYC still needs an endorsement to carry with a upstate license. I even looked at the NYC info page and it just says a NY license is required. I’ll find the link.

 

[Cippee]

New York City Concealed Carry

www.nyc.gov