[2edgesword]

I know that we are not fortune tellers here otherwise one or all of us would be counting our billion from the mega millions but for an educated guess what do we think will happen? Not what do we want to happen or what is the right thing to happen but what do we think will happen given we are in NYS and liberals abound here?

I think judges in spite of their political leaning and bias try to give logical and rational reasons for their rulings based on the letter of the law. The letter of the law has dramatically changed given the Bruen decision. That said I'm expecting a temporary injunction to be granted that halts the implementation of CCIA and that PL400 as currently written, minus proper cause which has been ruled unconstitutional, will remain in place. Counties where proper cause was used to apply restrictions can no longer enforce those restrictions and the proper cause elements of license applications will have to be removed.

This will leave in place other things that may be unconstitutional but not directly challenged in Bruen (an example would be reference requirements) to be challenged based on Bruen and the new standard of scrutiny down the road. The states can't just make up a list of requirements in order for a citizen to exercise a fundamental Constitutional right. It is now presumptive that a citizen has that right absent the government having some empirical evidence that the right should be denied based on some compelling governmental interest.

 

[Gary_Hungerford]

I know that we are not fortune tellers here otherwise one or all of us would be counting our billion from the mega millions but for an educated guess what do we think will happen? Not what do we want to happen or what is the right thing to happen but what do we think will happen given we are in NYS and liberals abound here?

What's going to happen? I think that is, at this point, obvious, except to those who are on the far Left. The federal court will issue the injunction, preventing the implementation of the CCIA, which will leave us with the Bruen decision, as the law of the land. Once the courts have heard the suit, against the CCIA, it will be declared unconstitutional. NY might try some other tactic but each will be stopped, in its tracks, by injunctions and law suits, leaving them with nothing but egg on their faces.

It's possible that some political hack DA or PC will try to convict someone, for being in compliance with Bruen and that political hack will be sued, personally, as well as an employee of a governmental agency (governmental immunity/employee immunity is lost, for intentional violations of civil rights). Additionally, that political hack's governmental entity will be sued. The suit will generate huge punitive damages, in addition to compensatory damages, against that individual, personally and the governmental entity, probably bankrupting the individual and putting a severe hurt on the governmental entity. That will send the kind of message needed, if the Left is so stupid as to allow that to happen.
Gary

 

[mvphilly]

What's going to happen? I think that is, at this point, obvious, except to those who are on the far Left. The federal court will issue the injunction, preventing the implementation of the CCIA, which will leave us with the Bruen decision, as the law of the land. Once the courts have heard the suit, against the CCIA, it will be declared unconstitutional. NY might try some other tactic but each will be stopped, in its tracks, by injunctions and law suits, leaving them with nothing but egg on their faces.

It's possible that some political hack DA or PC will try to convict someone, for being in compliance with Bruen and that political hack will be sued, personally, as well as an employee of a governmental agency (governmental immunity/employee immunity is lost, for intentional violations of civil rights). Additionally, that political hack's governmental entity will be sued. The suit will generate huge punitive damages, in addition to compensatory damages, against that individual, personally and the governmental entity, probably bankrupting the individual and putting a severe hurt on the governmental entity. That will send the kind of message needed, if the Left is so stupid as to allow that to happen.
Gary

Your last few words is what I am afraid of in that yes THEY ARE THAT STUPID.!!! They just dont care what they have to do to get their endgame.

 

[Gary_Hungerford]

If they are so stupid, as to arrest anyone, for being in compliance with Bruen, it will only happen once. No one, after the first time, is going to want to subject themselves to personal liability and personal responsibility for law suit damage awards for intentional violation of anyone's civil rights.
Gary

 

[RSL]

Please be careful.

I think the issue right now is that you have a license with administrative restrictions. According to Bruen the proper cause requirement is unconstitutional, however, your permit still has restrictions imposed. The State has provided a path to get a CCW with a law that will go into effect on 9/1 (I am not saying that this is reasonable since legislators in NY stated that they will not comply with Bruen). The fact that the ruling is being ignored by local jurisdictions is puzzling to me. The State had an opportunity to be reasonable and make the ruling a non issue while still requiring reasonable training like the NRA Pistol Course and carve outs for military.

The more interesting fact is that NY is being so unreasonable that in the long term will create rulings that will undermine the Governor’s stated agenda.

Personally, I would not want to be in a position where I am relying on having a constitutional conversation with a police officer about why my restricted permit is not really restricted. Police Officers are given specific guidance and SOPs that they must follow and I am sure will have no discretion as to whether an arrest should take place or not. It will be up to the local Police Commissioners, Sheriffs and County Executives. Although an arrested individual (depending on specific circumstances) will likely ultimately “win” it will be a long road for any individual. Just the arrest could result in a liquor license or license to practice law or any other licenses being suspended or revoked

I also wonder if licensing authorities have made any plans in the event the injunction is granted. I say this because I found it surprising that most licensing authorities had no plans drafted prior to the Bruen decision which based on the Court’s make up should not have been a surprise.

I agree that since proper cause was deemed unconstitutional simply asking for restrictions to be removed should be the only requirement, however, a fictitious delay has been imposed by enacting a law that takes effect on 9/1. However, there is nothing preventing existing restrictions from being removed between now and 9/1.

Lastly, if the injunction is not granted how will any individual comply with the law; at the most basic level:

-now that licenses will be required for handguns and semi automatic rifles I imagine the delays in issuing licenses will increase substantially

-the 16 hour course plus 2 hour live fire has not even been designed. Even if the course existed think about the expense and availability of being able to take the course.

-stoping at a diner without a guns welcomed sign on the way back from the range will be a class E felony. If the diner has a liquor license it will be a felony regardless. These activities are currently legal with a Sportsman permit and I am sure there will be arrests of lawful gun owners who might want to grab a sandwich and go to the bathroom on the way home.

-The ability to be able to lock your handgun in a car in order to get around having made the whole state a sensitive place- will result in several dangerous scenarios:
- clearing a weapon in the car will result in accidental discharges
-stolen vehicles with lawful guns inside will result in stolen guns on the street
-ammunition background checks will increase the cost of ammunition making prohibitive for individuals to practice and afford training courses
-imagine the 911 calls when someone sees a lawful gun owner locking a gun in a safe in the trunk and a Police Officer having to respond thereby creating a dangerous situation

Being a gun owner is a great responsibility, however, all the CCIA is doing is making it difficult and expensive for individuals to lawfully own a handgun. Additionally, the potential to becoming a felon is so significant that it simply discourages lawful gun ownership while doing nothing to reduce violent crimes.

 

[2edgesword]

Please be careful.

I think the issue right now is that you have a license with administrative restrictions. According to Bruen the proper cause requirement is unconstitutional, however, your permit still has restrictions imposed. The State has provided a path to get a CCW with a law that will go into effect on 9/1 (I am not saying that this is reasonable since legislators in NY stated that they will not comply with Bruen). The fact that the ruling is being ignored by local jurisdictions is puzzling to me. The State had an opportunity to be reasonable and make the ruling a non issue while still requiring reasonable training like the NRA Pistol Course and carve outs for military...

I understand your reasoning but I disagree. The administrative restrictions are unconstitutional, period. It is now the state's responsibility to bring their laws, regulations and enforcement into compliance with federal law.

 

[RSL]

Paul

I knew you would and I don’t disagree with you either (as confusing as that might sound) but I would hate for one of our members to become the test case post arrest.

 

[spb1122]

That's the rub, isn't it?
I think most of us agree on the principles and what is/should be.
Paul, you are adamant and passionate about our 2A rights, and that is most admirable.
However, I don't think "Take 'em to court and sue" is as simple and/or painless as has been presented.
The test cases are going to be arduous and expensive. History proves that right or not, very few have had the means to pursue those types of legal challenges to fruition.
I believe NY State is counting on history repeating itself in that regard. NY takes the attitude of defying SCOTUS, laying down their tyrannical new laws, with the attitude of "What are you going to do about it peasants?" Historically, the fight back has been weak.

 

[ARP228]

Please be careful.

I think the issue right now is that you have a license with administrative restrictions. According to Bruen the proper cause requirement is unconstitutional, however, your permit still has restrictions imposed. The State has provided a path to get a CCW with a law that will go into effect on 9/1 (I am not saying that this is reasonable since legislators in NY stated that they will not comply with Bruen). The fact that the ruling is being ignored by local jurisdictions is puzzling to me. The State had an opportunity to be reasonable and make the ruling a non issue while still requiring reasonable training like the NRA Pistol Course and carve outs for military.

The more interesting fact is that NY is being so unreasonable that in the long term will create rulings that will undermine the Governor’s stated agenda.

Personally, I would not want to be in a position where I am relying on having a constitutional conversation with a police officer about why my restricted permit is not really restricted. Police Officers are given specific guidance and SOPs that they must follow and I am sure will have no discretion as to whether an arrest should take place or not. It will be up to the local Police Commissioners, Sheriffs and County Executives. Although an arrested individual (depending on specific circumstances) will likely ultimately “win” it will be a long road for any individual. Just the arrest could result in a liquor license or license to practice law or any other licenses being suspended or revoked

I also wonder if licensing authorities have made any plans in the event the injunction is granted. I say this because I found it surprising that most licensing authorities had no plans drafted prior to the Bruen decision which based on the Court’s make up should not have been a surprise.

I agree that since proper cause was deemed unconstitutional simply asking for restrictions to be removed should be the only requirement, however, a fictitious delay has been imposed by enacting a law that takes effect on 9/1. However, there is nothing preventing existing restrictions from being removed between now and 9/1.

Lastly, if the injunction is not granted how will any individual comply with the law; at the most basic level:

-now that licenses will be required for handguns and semi automatic rifles I imagine the delays in issuing licenses will increase substantially

-the 16 hour course plus 2 hour live fire has not even been designed. Even if the course existed think about the expense and availability of being able to take the course.

-stoping at a diner without a guns welcomed sign on the way back from the range will be a class E felony. If the diner has a liquor license it will be a felony regardless. These activities are currently legal with a Sportsman permit and I am sure there will be arrests of lawful gun owners who might want to grab a sandwich and go to the bathroom on the way home.

-The ability to be able to lock your handgun in a car in order to get around having made the whole state a sensitive place- will result in several dangerous scenarios:
- clearing a weapon in the car will result in accidental discharges
-stolen vehicles with lawful guns inside will result in stolen guns on the street
-ammunition background checks will increase the cost of ammunition making prohibitive for individuals to practice and afford training courses
-imagine the 911 calls when someone sees a lawful gun owner locking a gun in a safe in the trunk and a Police Officer having to respond thereby creating a dangerous situation

Being a gun owner is a great responsibility, however, all the CCIA is doing is making it difficult and expensive for individuals to lawfully own a handgun. Additionally, the potential to becoming a felon is so significant that it simply discourages lawful gun ownership while doing nothing to reduce violent crimes.

How can you be arrested for carrying outside of the (Unconstitutional) restriction? What would the charge be? It can't be criminal possession of a weapon because you have a carry license. There is nothing in the penal code anywhere regarding restrictions. They will not be able to find the law to charge you with breaking because this law doesn't exist.

 

[2edgesword]

That's the rub, isn't it?
I think most of us agree on the principles and what is/should be.
Paul, you are adamant and passionate about our 2A rights, and that is most admirable.
However, I don't think "Take 'em to court and sue" is as simple and/or painless as has been presented.
The test cases are going to be arduous and expensive. History proves that right or not, very few have had the means to pursue those types of legal challenges to fruition.
I believe NY State is counting on history repeating itself in that regard. NY takes the attitude of defying SCOTUS, laying down their tyrannical new laws, with the attitude of "What are you going to do about it peasants?" Historically, the fight back has been weak.

I take the idea of being arrested and going through the arduous process of going to court VERY seriously. Even if you win you lose time, peace of mind, health, money, inconvenience to yourself and your family, etc. My comments are to make it clear that the Bruen decision is the law. It should not be the responsibility of the license holder to bring NYS into compliance with the law.

Applying the restrictions was an unconstitutional infringement on the rights of the license holders. The parties that were involved in that unconstitutional application of restrictions should be the party responsible with correcting the error not the party whose rights were infringed. That could be very easily accomplished. Instruct law enforcement not to enforce the restrictions regardless of what is stated on the license. When the license is up for renewal issue a new license with the proper classification on it. It should not require any effort or cost on the part of the license holder. To use an extreme example, it's like telling slaves that were set free via the Emancipation Proclamation they had to fill out a form and pay a fee to exercise their newly recognized right of freedom.

 

[spb1122]

I take the idea of being arrested and going through the arduous process of going to court VERY seriously. Even if you win you lose time, peace of mind, health, money, inconvenience to yourself and your family, etc. My comments are to make it clear that the Bruen decision is the law. It should not be the responsibility of the license holder to bring NYS into compliance with the law.

Applying the restrictions was an unconstitutional infringement on the rights of the license holders. The parties that were involved in that unconstitutional application of restrictions should be the party responsible with correcting the error not the party whose rights were infringed. That could be very easily accomplished. Instruct law enforcement not to enforce the restrictions regardless of what is stated on the license. When the license is up for renewal issue a new license with the proper classification on it. It should not require any effort or cost on the part of the license holder. To use an extreme example, it's like telling slaves that were set free via the Emancipation Proclamation they had to fill out a form and pay a fee to exercise their newly recognized right of freedom.

Wholeheartedly agree. In example, this is why I will not go pay SCPD PLB $5 for an "amendment" to my license that MAY happen sometime in the future, details TBD. Suffolk needs to correct their unconstitutional restriction on their dime. License holders should not have to pay or file anything.

 

[Itsthelaw]

I hope to memorialize the words of Hochul when these challenges are settled. "I don’t need to have numbers. I don’t need to have a data point to point to,” she replied. “All I know is that I have a responsibility to the people of this state to have sensible gun safety laws, and this one was not devised by the Hochul administration. It comes out of an administration from 1908. I don’t need a data point to make the case that I have a responsibility to protect the people of this state.”

She's a tyrant that spits in the face of the SCOTUS decision. She will forever be known as the Governor that gave NY residents their right to bear arms back.

 

[NRATC53]

Correct, the wait times have nothing to do with Bruen. That said I think Bruen is going to be a catalyst for lawsuits challenging the wait times and the reasons for them (references, interviews, intrusive application process, etc.). There is no rational reason Florida can process an application in 45 days and it takes New York 24 months.

My FL wait time was < 3 weeks: Applied 01/02, in my mailbox 01/20

 

[NRATC53]

It will become a freak show if the injunction takes place. SCPD,SCSO along with NCPD will delay issuing a unrestricted pistol license because the State is appealing. The other states still have requirements for obtaining a pistol license and have restrictions also, not as severe as NY.

and yet, STATE LAW requires a license be issued or denied within 6 months, and if denied, a stated reason for such denial. Now, we KNOW the agencies are playing games by saying the 6 month clock only starts AFTER all their unconstitutional BS has taken place, but that is not how the law reads, it reads "From presentation"

 

[boosti]

I hope to memorialize the words of Hochul when these challenges are settled. "I don’t need to have numbers. I don’t need to have a data point to point to,” she replied. “All I know is that I have a responsibility to the people of this state to have sensible gun safety laws, and this one was not devised by the Hochul administration. It comes out of an administration from 1908. I don’t need a data point to make the case that I have a responsibility to protect the people of this state.”

She's a tyrant that spits in the face of the SCOTUS decision. She will forever be known as the Governor that gave NY residents their right to bear arms back.

Another law challenge with an outdoor range denied to operate a business in a municipality has just got cleared because of the recent SCOTUS ruling.
Support the right gun organizations that are fighting these law suits and not the one who sells insurance and merchandise.

 

[boosti]

and yet, STATE LAW requires a license be issued or denied within 6 months, and if denied, a stated reason for such denial. Now, we KNOW the agencies are playing games by saying the 6 month clock only starts AFTER all their unconstitutional BS has taken place, but that is not how the law reads, it reads "From presentation"

The questionnaire is not a state form. For decades, counties have always played this game. Requirements of a Gun Safety Course and dealing with a judge who can snap their fingers that you don’t meet the Good Moral Character for a pistol license because of a problem you had with someone in the county.

 

[2edgesword]

The questionnaire is not a state form. For decades, counties have always played this game. Requirements of a Gun Safety Course and dealing with a judge who can snap their fingers that you don’t meet the Good Moral Character for a pistol license because of a problem you had with someone in the county.

That’s true and I’m wondering why the requirement to fill out a questionnaire hasn’t been challenged in the past. PL400 states “No license shall be issued or renewed pursuant to this section except by the licensing officer, and then only after investigation and finding that all statements in a PROPER APPLICATION for a license are true.” Completing a “questionnaire” is not part of the penal law requirement for getting a license.

That said I’m wondering what the legal basis would be for challenging the county requirement to complete the questionnaire. It is inconsistent with PL400 which was created to insure there would be a uniformed process throughout the state. It places an additional burden and a source of delay for Suffolk County residents. Beyond that I’m pretty sure some of the requirements for information (references, health and criminal history of those in the household, etc.) are unconstitutional requirements for exercising your 2nd Amendment rights.

A lot is going to be hashed out over the next weeks, months and years regarding this unconstitutional process that has been in place for decades.