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

L

livingston

20×102mm Vulcan
Messages
43,439
Reaction score
119,246
Location
livingston county
Phazer said:
NYC "home rule" was not challenged.

For the sake of permitting, NYC is not in NY state.
Click to expand...
Set your ass down and read the 184 pages and then report back to us.... This seems like a valid question. :p Someone said it will only take a few minutes to read all that lawyer speak. ... My head spins trying to decipher all that legal talk. I can read Chinese easier....
 
M

ManualF150

.308 Win
Messages
3,747
Reaction score
6,611
Location
Cayuga
Say for instance if Zeldin won and replaced Hochul, is there a possibility he can reverse what Hochul did without all this court nonsense? Basically the overnight nonsense that Hochul did, but in reverse? I would much prefer that because it does save taxpayer monies and folks' time.

I know a pipe dream...
 
C

cranberry

9mm
Messages
74
Reaction score
75
Location
westchester
ManualF150 said:
Say for instance if Zeldin won and replaced Hochul, is there a possibility he can reverse what Hochul did without all this court nonsense? Basically the overnight nonsense that Hochul did, but in reverse? I would much prefer that because it does save taxpayer monies and folks' time.

I know a pipe dream...
Click to expand...
I don’t believe he can overturn what they have done without us getting a majority in Albany .
 
togmaster

togmaster

.450/400 Nitro Ex
Messages
12,891
Reaction score
19,038
Location
Buoy 42
ManualF150 said:
Say for instance if Zeldin won and replaced Hochul, is there a possibility he can reverse what Hochul did without all this court nonsense? Basically the overnight nonsense that Hochul did, but in reverse? I would much prefer that because it does save taxpayer monies and folks' time.

I know a pipe dream...
Click to expand...
He would need the democrat infested legislature to do this. So no.
 
Cavalry

Cavalry

.308 Win
Messages
3,861
Reaction score
6,598
Location
Behind Enemy Lines
Cooolone said:
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.
Click to expand...
While I agree with you, I was reading somewhere (cannot remember if it was a legitimate source) that training would be a hard one to get rid off with the Bruen decision. The militia had to muster regularly (training). Looking at a 1790 analogue, training was required for all free, able bodied men ages 18-45.
I am sure a clever lawyer could somehow turn this around and state that they were armed with state of the art military grade weapons of war, that they owned personally, along with supplying their own shot and powder.
 
Far king

Far king

.45 acp
Messages
441
Reaction score
780
Location
Barneveld ny
Saltwater60 said:
Yes immediate, thank God or o don’t know how I would have lived with myself since I carried a gun to wegmans and to get gas today!! Phew I dodged that bullet.
Click to expand...
mk10 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thank you Mark !
 
Saltwater60

Saltwater60

.950 JDJ
Messages
31,494
Reaction score
35,237
Location
Western NY
ManualF150 said:
Say for instance if Zeldin won and replaced Hochul, is there a possibility he can reverse what Hochul did without all this court nonsense? Basically the overnight nonsense that Hochul did, but in reverse? I would much prefer that because it does save taxpayer monies and folks' time.

I know a pipe dream...
Click to expand...
He would need the legislatures help. He could say I’m telling so and so not to enforce the law, but it would still be on the books.
 
R

RBean

.40 S&W
Messages
208
Reaction score
674
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Re NYC. Think about it. Even if your up state permit is no good in NYC, there is a provision to get an NYC endorsement to carry in NYC. Since it is now "shall issue" can't use "good moral character" etc, very limited discretion, I think if you applied for the endorsement, they would have to issue same. Looks like another law suit since they probably wouldn't issue the endorsement. Then also challenge to requirement of a seperate permit for NYC. No tradition or analogy etc. I see lots more lawsuits.
 
Waffles!

Waffles!

9mm
Messages
50
Reaction score
135
Location
23222
RBean said:
Re NYC. Think about it. Even if your up state permit is no good in NYC, there is a provision to get an NYC endorsement to carry in NYC. Since it is now "shall issue" can't use "good moral character" etc, very limited discretion, I think if you applied for the endorsement, they would have to issue same. Looks like another law suit since they probably wouldn't issue the endorsement. Then also challenge to requirement of a seperate permit for NYC. No tradition or analogy etc. I see lots more lawsuits.
Click to expand...
Personally, I would love to stick it to them. And then carry in NYC big time.
 
Waffles!

Waffles!

9mm
Messages
50
Reaction score
135
Location
23222
RBean said:
Re NYC. Think about it. Even if your up state permit is no good in NYC, there is a provision to get an NYC endorsement to carry in NYC. Since it is now "shall issue" can't use "good moral character" etc, very limited discretion, I think if you applied for the endorsement, they would have to issue same. Looks like another law suit since they probably wouldn't issue the endorsement. Then also challenge to requirement of a seperate permit for NYC. No tradition or analogy etc. I see lots more lawsuits.
Click to expand...
Thank you @RBean! It is great having you here!
 
C

cranberry

9mm
Messages
74
Reaction score
75
Location
westchester
RBean said:
Re NYC. Think about it. Even if your up state permit is no good in NYC, there is a provision to get an NYC endorsement to carry in NYC. Since it is now "shall issue" can't use "good moral character" etc, very limited discretion, I think if you applied for the endorsement, they would have to issue same. Looks like another law suit since they probably wouldn't issue the endorsement. Then also challenge to requirement of a seperate permit for NYC. No tradition or analogy etc. I see lots more lawsuits.
Click to expand...
Waffles! said:
Thank you @RBean! It is great having you here!
Click to expand...
The catch there is NYC will make sure you’ve completed the training.
 
Phazer

Phazer

.338 Win Mag
Messages
9,200
Reaction score
18,883
Location
Province of Westchester
livingston said:
Set your ass down and read the 184 pages and then report back to us.... This seems like a valid question. :p Someone said it will only take a few minutes to read all that lawyer speak. ... My head spins trying to decipher all that legal talk. I can read Chinese easier....
Click to expand...
If you just want to cut-to-the-chase, you can just go to the last paragraph of each section to see the decision regarding each point of contention.

There is quite a bit of decent logic and history in the document.

I do not like the training requirement and the cost attached to exercising a right. However, the logic employed was that (paraphrase): "The militia had to spend money to be armed and to train. So, the cost is not completely unacceptable." That said, were people required to spend a significant sum of money every three years in order to remain in the civilian militia?
 
MothMan

MothMan

.338 Win Mag
Messages
6,435
Reaction score
11,040
Location
Point Pleasant, WV
Training costs will be set by trainers / training organizations. Understanding reasonable expenses, ie; range fees. Will they support the 2A in NYS by keeping costs low or try to separate us from our pocketbooks?

I do not agree with required “training” beyond handgun safety course of 2 to 4 hrs similar to hunter safety.
 
camper4lyfe

camper4lyfe

.308 Win
Messages
4,475
Reaction score
6,704
Location
Avon, NY
MothMan said:
Training costs will be set by trainers / training organizations. Understanding reasonable expenses, ie; range fees. Will they support the 2A in NYS by keeping costs low or try to separate us from our pocketbooks?

I do not agree with required “training” beyond handgun safety course of 2 to 4 hrs similar to hunter safety.
Click to expand...
I've seen the trainings run from $400-$600. So no, they won't keep it reasonable, but they'll pad their pockets.
 
T

Truebeliever

6.5 Creedmoor
Messages
2,424
Reaction score
1,571
Location
Nys
Phazer said:
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.
Click to expand...
Getting denied for whom the 4 references and getting denied for whatever is said/seen at a in person interview is subjective but not the requirement to appear or have 4 names.
It’s just a pain to do. And that reason might be why it should be discontinued.
 
T

Truebeliever

6.5 Creedmoor
Messages
2,424
Reaction score
1,571
Location
Nys
ManualF150 said:
Say for instance if Zeldin won and replaced Hochul, is there a possibility he can reverse what Hochul did without all this court nonsense? Basically the overnight nonsense that Hochul did, but in reverse? I would much prefer that because it does save taxpayer monies and folks' time.

I know a pipe dream...
Click to expand...
An easy way is to have the AG throw the case and have the federal judge do it.
 
C

CaliberPlus

.45 acp
Messages
433
Reaction score
775
Location
Mannsville, NY
I think we will see more lawsuits. There is much more that needs to be challenged and if dominoes start to go it should help....I hope.

I wondered if something could be challenged due to the circumstances the CCIA was passed, emergency (that wasn't) and passed under the guise of rather than the minimum time required by state constitution, 72 hours. That would leave the ten big piles of crap passed in June.
 
M

ManualF150

.308 Win
Messages
3,747
Reaction score
6,611
Location
Cayuga
CaliberPlus said:
I think we will see more lawsuits. There is much more that needs to be challenged and if dominoes start to go it should help....I hope.

I wondered if something could be challenged due to the circumstances the CCIA was passed, emergency (that wasn't) and passed under the guise of rather than the minimum time required by state constitution, 72 hours. That would leave the ten big piles of crap passed in June.
Click to expand...
That is what I was referring to. There has to be a way out of this...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top