Dr. Evil
20×102mm Vulcan
Hey, I called Target Sports for you. You owe me one.
Updates on Antonyuk v. Bruen
- Thread starter US RIFLE M1A
- Start date
Hey, I called Target Sports for you. You owe me one.
I'm working on it
Saltwater60
20×102mm Vulcan
Ehh? Maybe good, maybe not.
arp228
.38 Special
Look at this Introduction. Right to the point in calling them out
"In his 65-page filing, Defendant has adopted a see-what-sticks approach in responding to Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. First, offering a smorgasbord of theories, Defendant claims that none of the Plaintiffs has standing. Then, Defendant attempts to justify the CCIA on the outlandish theory that the Supreme Court in Bruen somehow expressly validated thousands of laws, across dozens of states, dealing with concealed carry licensure, none of which were subject to review in that case. Finally, Defendant attempts to validate the CCIA’s enactments by reference to a host of alleged historical analogues, each one more racist, bigoted, and patently unconstitutional than the last, many from irrelevant historical periods, and which (at best) represent one or two outlier jurisdictions with idiosyncratic laws that were neither widely adopted nor generally accepted. Nevertheless, Defendant argues, past constitutional violations “based on racial or religious animus” justify New York’s present day constitutional violations. For the reasons alleged in Plaintiffs’ complaint, motion, and below, the CCIA is patently and uniquely unconstitutional, and should be enjoined."
"In his 65-page filing, Defendant has adopted a see-what-sticks approach in responding to Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. First, offering a smorgasbord of theories, Defendant claims that none of the Plaintiffs has standing. Then, Defendant attempts to justify the CCIA on the outlandish theory that the Supreme Court in Bruen somehow expressly validated thousands of laws, across dozens of states, dealing with concealed carry licensure, none of which were subject to review in that case. Finally, Defendant attempts to validate the CCIA’s enactments by reference to a host of alleged historical analogues, each one more racist, bigoted, and patently unconstitutional than the last, many from irrelevant historical periods, and which (at best) represent one or two outlier jurisdictions with idiosyncratic laws that were neither widely adopted nor generally accepted. Nevertheless, Defendant argues, past constitutional violations “based on racial or religious animus” justify New York’s present day constitutional violations. For the reasons alleged in Plaintiffs’ complaint, motion, and below, the CCIA is patently and uniquely unconstitutional, and should be enjoined."
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Texas (or another red state) should just adopt the NY pistol permit requirements for voter registration. Then let the left do all the footwork to prove it's an infringement.
Then just use that case as precedent when a blue state tries to make some BS for CCW.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Basically means there's a possibility he's not a rabid leftist.
No guarantee, but at least it's possible.
Section G.
"Plaintiff will be required to “recertify” his license in January of 2022" Is the year in this sentence a mistype? 1/2022 is done and gone.
Anyway, that was a very good read. I hope the Courts see fit to throw heil hochul's wet dream in the toilet of history.
Beerman
6.5 Creedmoor
I’m hoping that someone in the background is fervently pro 2A and is setting the State up to lose this one by sneaking all the racist/religious historical prohibitions into the State’s brief. NYS looks completely ignorant here, desperate even, and the new law(s) is/are fatally exposed in this case. Come on, Judge Suddaby!
nortatoga
.338 Win Mag
Even though the Bruen decision does not mention NYC carry, I winder when they will get to (if ever) eliminating that barrier. I want to be able to conceal when buying my legal weed from a weed truck....
camper4lyfe
.308 Win
Any word on how arguments went today?
Yea one sec I'll see if I can find the post I saw of someone who sat through it
Saltwater60
20×102mm Vulcan
Thanks. The fourth bullet point has me nervous where he conceded asking for permission to carry a gun in private places is not burdensome. This makes me think the defacto ban on all private business locations will stand and the plaintiff is agreeing to remove it from the lawsuit. I’m not lawyer, but anyone see that differently? Honestly that’s the worst part of the law to me.
Yea that part confused me, it would be the easiest argument to say how it is burdensome.
Hey judge if I want to do some running around on a Saturday and do some shopping and plan to hit up 5 different places.. I now have to contact the owner (not the manager) and get their explicit approval to carry on their property... so who would I contact for Lowes, or Walmart? Especially in a timely manner
ManrisFrack
6.5 Creedmoor
I'm wondering how asking permission could NOT be burdensome in most cases. How do you find the owner of a particular piece of property? A lesee might give you permission but not technically have the power to do that. You, as the one facing felony charges, would want to be absolutely certain you are getting permission from the one person or entity legally entitled to give it.
ETA: It's not like you could legally enter the building while carrying to obtain any of this information or get this permission either, right?
ETA: It's not like you could legally enter the building while carrying to obtain any of this information or get this permission either, right?
Dr. Evil
20×102mm Vulcan
I'm not a lawyer but this is what I got from the summary. Go get some Vaseline. Hope I'm wrong.
arp228
.38 Special
This has to be incorrect. This is probably the worst part of the entire law. This is what makes the entire state a sensitive place. No way GOA would have agreed to this
Steal2B
.700 Nitro Express
If the GOA counsel allowed that, I may sue them to get all my money back.
Saltwater60
20×102mm Vulcan
Beyond that. You’re allowed to have a gun in a state park while hunting, but not when you’re not hunting. So say I’m hunting and I need to get gas to or from my hunting property, so what do I do with my gun? What if I shoot a deer and it’s warmer than normal and I need ice, again what do I do with my gun? It’s illegal to bring it to the gas station and you need to lock it in your car out of sight the way the law is written. Well how do you do that in a car? My truck I might be able to do that, but how will I get a lock box under my seat? Sure I could toss it in my bed, but how do you secure a safe in your truck bed?
Also keep in mind many times stores lease properties or one person owns the collective parking lot. So you call and get permission form the business owner, but not the parking lot owner or building owner and bam you’re a felon.
I agree this was the easiest to say how much it infringes on our rights and could make law abiding citizens criminals.
Saltwater60
20×102mm Vulcan
Man I hope you’re right, but go ahead and read it and let me know if you interpret it differently.
arp228
.38 Special
From what is written, I interpret it the same way you do. But hopefully it was written incorrectly.
Saltwater60
20×102mm Vulcan
I’m in your court there and I agree. If that’s not what the case is about then I’m lost.
Maybe NY"s lawyer got him to answer it on the basis of how hard would it be to ask some small business owner if it is OK for him to carry there, and in certain cases that might be easy. But the reality of it in most cases is entirely different. And the effect of it would be the same as declaring the entire island of Manhattan a no carry zone, - which Bruen expressly ruled out as being allowable. Hopefully Judge Suddaby sees that and rules accordingly.
Last edited:
The rebuttal from the State was fubar and full of errors, inaccuracies, and abject lies.
The Superintendent for the State Police did not show up for Court.
The Judge promised a ruling before the deadline... it looks very good for us.
US RIFLE M1A
.45 acp
I agree.
The summary shown above (post 44) dated today (23 August) - which originally appeared on Reddit NY Guns - is NOT the document to over-analyze and become emotionally invested in. While I have respect that the writer of that very brief and generalized summary was in the courtroom at the time, the person admits that he is not a lawyer, and more importantly, was entirely flummoxed by much of the verbiage at the beginning of testimony.
There is an expression in law (IANAL) which goes: "Facts on your side? Pound the facts. Law on your side? Pound the law. Neither? Pound the table."
The state is pounding the only fact they have - that no matter who the plaintiff was in this case - unless they were arrested under CC!A, their claim of standing is contestable. That is what they are going after here. Other than that, they are pounding the table, because the law is certainly not on their side.
So far, we have a historical Supreme Court decision and two excellent briefs on our side. Not to mention the 2A itself. Two consistent facts of life in an adversarial setting is that the enemy gets a vote and that no plans survive contact with said enemy.
I have no idea how we can be made aware of the actual Q&A that took place today, when the transcripts will become available and how to get them... but absent that, it is a waiting game for the next step in the process. Even if we had the transcripts, it is still a waiting game.
What we do know is that the game ultimately ends with us winning, because we already have won, under the real Bruen. The real mystery is why the state is dragging everyone through an argument they already lost.
However, during that very serious game, the adversary will score some hits. As far as today's hearing, some think the the adversary scored hits. But not only do we not know for sure if they did, more importantly, both the facts and the law of this case are still on our side.
None of that changed today.
Last edited:
US RIFLE M1A
.45 acp
Also... In-person hearings are often. on the surface, very disappointing no matter who comes out ahead. We are conditioned to think that 'our side' will score big hits and leave the other side punch-drunk with the facts, law and truth. Nothing could be further from reality.
