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

kev74

kev74

20×102mm Vulcan
Messages
49,982
Reaction score
158,149
Location
Orange Co.
I didn't think the GOA lawyer was that bad. Definitely not as polished of a speaker as the others, but I thought he got his point across.
 
Saltwater60

Saltwater60

20×102mm Vulcan
Messages
36,770
Reaction score
41,138
Location
Western NY
maverick52 said:
The attorney representing Antonyuk was horrible. He’s the GOA attorney. Real embarrassment. He also did a shabby job in front of Suddaby if you recall. The one thing we have to remember is that oral arguments are only one aspect. There are a lot of briefs that have been filed. The panel must read through all of the briefs and through Bruen before rendering a decision. I still think that the court shows their cards. They are true blue liberals and I think they will side with the state. This will be a long slog and most of us won’t be living around here by the time it’s settled.
Click to expand...
Correct and I agree he did a terrible job. He spent so much time off track his point was never made. When asked what makes a sensitive location sensitive the guy sucked terribly. The statement should have been courts are sensitive because police control the entry and exit with screenings and metal detection. He stumbled horribly.
 
W

Willyone

6.5 Creedmoor
Messages
2,158
Reaction score
3,982
Location
Elbridge, NY
camper4lyfe said:
Feel like giving a synopsis for those without a subscription?
Click to expand...
Yeah, can't read the article unless/until... bla bla bla...

What I think it means is this; Andy won't let Barney put a bullet in his gun. So Barney now needs to take it up with Aunt Bee. Aunt Bee might say it's ok for Barney to load a bullet into his gun. But then Andy probably won't allow Barney to have a bullet. So it seems to be going....
 
John Stark

John Stark

.44 mag
Messages
937
Reaction score
2,741
Location
IAM
camper4lyfe said:
Feel like giving a synopsis for those without a subscription?
Click to expand...
It basically briefly rehashes how Hardaway v. Nigrelli went in front of the 3 judge panel @ the 2nd Circuit; the case that deals with Arms in houses of worship. There's just about nothing new in the article beyond a little commentary on how the judges behaved and predictions of how its going to pan out:

The president of the New York County Lawyers’ Association, Vincent Chang, told the Sun that based on the oral arguments Monday, the Hardaway case will likely make its way to the Supreme Court by the end of the next term in 2024.

“I think the judges probably think this is going to the Supreme Court,” Mr. Chang said after listening to the oral arguments. The three judges “definitely want to get this right with respect to the historical antecedents of firearms regulation in houses of worship.”

The three judges on the panel — Dennis Jacobs, Gerard E. Lynch, and Eunice C. Lee — were appointed by Presidents George H.W. Bush, Obama, and Biden, respectively.

Judge Jacobs seemed especially enlivened by the case. Just minutes into the oral arguments, he told the lawyer who was defending the law that houses of worship and schools are two sides of the same coin — both important for civic life, one being religious and one being secular. Because banning firearms from schools is constitutional, then it could be logical that banning firearms from churches should be too, he told counsel.

The judge also showed little patience for the arguments of those seeking to challenge the law, often interrupting and asking pointed questions. The Second Amendment advocates engaged in a “selective reading of history,” Judge Jacobs said as one lawyer attempted to recount the history of 18th and 19th century firearms regulation...

....Last year, Judge Glenn Suddaby of the Western District of New York sided with Reverend Hardaway, ruling that the state could not prove the necessary historical tradition of regulating firearms in places such as churches or synagogues...

“Since the plain text of the Second Amendment presumptively protects Plaintiffs’ proposed course of conduct—carrying handguns for self-defense—the State bears the burden of ‘demonstrating’ that its modern enactments are ‘consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,’” Reverend Hardaway’s lawyers wrote in their argument. “In order to do so, the State needs to come forward with evidence of historical laws that similarly burden the right to bear arms for similar reasons.”

Mr. Chang says Judge Suddaby’s decision could fall on deaf ears, though. “My prediction is that they’ll reverse the lower decision, based on what I’ve heard,” he said. He also predicted that the nine justices may have to find some stricter guidelines than the ones they set forth last year so that the Supreme Court won’t be hearing gun rights cases every few months.

“In Bruen, Kavanaugh was the swing vote, if there was one,” Mr. Chang said. “He constructed a narrower set of guidelines than the majority did. He’ll look very closely so that they can provide clear guidelines going forward.”
Click to expand...

Article is essentially pointless and comes across as filler clickbait as far as I'm concerned.
 
pshift

pshift

.338 Win Mag
Messages
9,125
Reaction score
26,920
Location
Stalag 13
Here is the article in question...
 

Attachments

  • nysun.com-2nd Circuits Fumble of New York Gun Law Could Soon Return the Issue to Supreme Court...pdf
    143.6 KB · Views: 12
maverick52

maverick52

.223 Rem
Messages
1,115
Reaction score
2,197
Location
Knowhere
camper4lyfe said:
Feel like giving a synopsis for those without a subscription?
Click to expand...
Nothing new other than they like many others are predicting this is all going to the Supreme Court and that the Second Circuit wont bend an inch. It appears the writer is familiar with the second circuit and feels they were hostile. Just a confirmation of what we all already know.
 
dwa12479

dwa12479

.338 Win Mag
Messages
7,213
Reaction score
14,822
Location
Dark Side of the Moon
kev74 said:
I didn't think the GOA lawyer was that bad. Definitely not as polished of a speaker as the others, but I thought he got his point across.
Click to expand...
I don't know, I thought he sounded like a babbling fool at times, getting WAY off topic. And a lot of searching for answers rather than having them at the ready. Like trying to do a book report in front of your English class and you only read the cliff notes on the bus ride in to school that morning. (Not that I have experience with that....)
 
maverick52

maverick52

.223 Rem
Messages
1,115
Reaction score
2,197
Location
Knowhere
I know this was mentioned before. But can one of the mods change the title of this post? This is the CCIA lawsuits page. The TRO is long behind us. Any idea how to change it?
 
kev74

kev74

20×102mm Vulcan
Messages
49,982
Reaction score
158,149
Location
Orange Co.
I believe the hearings last week were to determine the status of the stays placed on the TROs.

Ridiculous as it is, the thread title is still applicable.
 
maverick52

maverick52

.223 Rem
Messages
1,115
Reaction score
2,197
Location
Knowhere
kev74 said:
I believe the hearings last week were to determine the status of the stays placed on the TROs.

Ridiculous as it is, the thread title is still applicable.
Click to expand...
Actually the hearings were for the preliminary injunctions…not the TROs. TROs are temporary.
 
M

ManualF150

.308 Win
Messages
4,836
Reaction score
8,834
Location
Cayuga
They are silencing us by not allowing us to carry and it's all by design.

360_F_136247519_7L6ROGrO1yKckgram0jivLDV8XSPayIY.jpg
 
Acer-m14

Acer-m14

20×102mm Vulcan
Messages
35,960
Reaction score
38,567
Location
Livingston
Saltwater60 said:
They had enough time and they should have had a decision prior to their vacation. I know you’re not endorsing their move I’m just saying.
Click to expand...

that was sarcasm lol .. on the vacation ...

didn't they have to respond on March 30th .. from the March 20th .. crickets

i'm getting tired trying to follow this BS ..
 
Saltwater60

Saltwater60

20×102mm Vulcan
Messages
36,770
Reaction score
41,138
Location
Western NY
Acer-m14 said:
that was sarcasm lol .. on the vacation ...

didn't they have to respond on March 30th .. from the March 20th .. crickets

i'm getting tired trying to follow this BS ..
Click to expand...
I don’t think there was a date established as in March 30 th but I’m not sure. I didn’t hear of a hard date just that the SC said better make it quick and right or we will take it up. Well we’re getting orettt long and drawn out here so tick tock SC.
 
VietnamEraVet

VietnamEraVet

.308 Win
U.S. Military
Messages
4,306
Reaction score
9,069
Location
Ex WNY as of 08/2018. Screw FUAC & FUKH too!
I have plenty of experience with courts in NY taking their sweet ass time. My company was involved in a lawsuit back in 1995 that took 8 years before it finally ended. And I am currently in one that just hit the 8 year mark,- and is still not settled, and may take another year or two.

Justice delayed truly is justice denied.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top