Long Island Shooters Forum banner
1 - 20 of 55 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,250 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I had a chance to read through some of the judge's decision (78 pages) and while the injunction wasn't granted for technical reasons he strongly contended provisions of the new law are unconstitutional, especially the list of sensitive places. I will try to read the whole thing later today but I'm hoping someone better equipped can read through it and provide some clarity on the situation. There certainly will be another challenge to this law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LIGunGuy

·
Registered
Joined
·
389 Posts
I had a chance to read through some of the judge's decision (78 pages) and while the injunction wasn't granted for technical reasons he strongly contended provisions of the new law are unconstitutional, especially the list of sensitive places. I will try to read the whole thing later today but I'm hoping someone better equipped can read through it and provide some clarity on the situation. There certainly will be another challenge to this law.
Paul I read through the entire document. The Judge made it clear that if the Plaintiffs had "standing" they would have won most of the injunction...most meaning that he didn't object to the training aspect of the CCIA.

Apparently, Antonyuk in order to have "standing" and having not yet been harmed by the CCIA, had to testify that he had "intent" to carry in contravention to the CCIA...which he wasn't going to do as a law-abiding guy...therefore, not "standing" as a Plaintiff. GOA did not meet the criteria for "Organizational Standing" because they could not show how they were adversely harmed by the CCIA in a two-week time period in July prescribed by the Court. GOA could only claim that it had a slight increase in emails and phone calls because of the law, but not a loss of membership. Legal fees and expenses doesn't solely meet the criteria for "Organizational Standing". The Constitutional mandate of Federal Courts has been determined that the Plaintiffs must have "standing" to bring an action before the Court. Using various case law and SCOTUS decisions to qualify someone or an organization for "standing", the Plaintiffs in this case didn't meet that criteria and thus, again case law as a yardstick, the Judge was required to dismiss the case without prejudice and that his court did not have jurisdiction since the Plaintiffs had no "standing".

It seems that for "round two" to be successful, there is going to have to be a better choice of Plaintiffs that meet the criteria for "standing" to go in front of a Federal Court with this. That may mean that someone who is arrested or "harmed" by this laws provisions, may have to be one of the Plaintiffs.

I'm not a lawyer but am just making an opinion of what I have read.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,065 Posts
I don't understand how THIS case was allowed to proceed so far with all the rebuttals and depositions when Antonyuk had no "standing" to even bring the case before the judge. Why wasn't that MAJOR technicality caught early one?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
263 Posts
I don't understand how THIS case was allowed to proceed so far with all the rebuttals and depositions when Antonyuk had no "standing" to even bring the case before the judge. Why wasn't that MAJOR technicality caught early one?
This was all a set for failure for law abiding citizens!! The big C does as she please with zero consequences the entire administration does as well!!!! People keep voting these sh!tbags in!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,262 Posts
From hearing this a while ago, from an attorney. The plaintiff was a poor choice for this case. The only positive is the judge acknowledged what everyone knows.
It will be another victory for the Liberal anti gun politicians. This law is a serious issue for violating the second amendment for law abiding gun owners who have a concealed carry license that are risking an E Felony because of the CCIA.
 

·
SASI Firearms Chairman, LISAPA Training Committee
Joined
·
7,035 Posts
Paul I read through the entire document. The Judge made it clear that if the Plaintiffs had "standing" they would have won most of the injunction...most meaning that he didn't object to the training aspect of the CCIA.

Apparently, Antonyuk in order to have "standing" and having not yet been harmed by the CCIA, had to testify that he had "intent" to carry in contravention to the CCIA...which he wasn't going to do as a law-abiding guy...therefore, not "standing" as a Plaintiff. GOA did not meet the criteria for "Organizational Standing" because they could not show how they were adversely harmed by the CCIA in a two-week time period in July prescribed by the Court. GOA could only claim that it had a slight increase in emails and phone calls because of the law, but not a loss of membership. Legal fees and expenses doesn't solely meet the criteria for "Organizational Standing". The Constitutional mandate of Federal Courts has been determined that the Plaintiffs must have "standing" to bring an action before the Court. Using various case law and SCOTUS decisions to qualify someone or an organization for "standing", the Plaintiffs in this case didn't meet that criteria and thus, again case law as a yardstick, the Judge was required to dismiss the case without prejudice and that his court did not have jurisdiction since the Plaintiffs had no "standing".

It seems that for "round two" to be successful, there is going to have to be a better choice of Plaintiffs that meet the criteria for "standing" to go in front of a Federal Court with this. That may mean that someone who is arrested or "harmed" by this laws provisions, may have to be one of the Plaintiffs.

I'm not a lawyer but am just making an opinion of what I have read.
Peter:
I have to agree with you, on this. We were snookered, on the issue of "standing" and I can't see how GOA would not have realized that, from the start. I've attached a copy of the judgement and the injunction denial.
Gary
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,773 Posts
Peter:
I have to agree with you, on this. We were snookered, on the issue of "standing" and I can't see how GOA would not have realized that, from the start. I've attached a copy of the judgement and the injunction denial.
Gary

Standing can be fought and its not always clear. The judge went out of his way to find a lack of standing but he went even more out of his way to destroy the CCIA which is completely unnecessary when a case is dismissed due to lack of standing.

I'm not an expert by any means on the issue of standing in Federal Court, but its a biggie, and dealing with it now early on prevents it from being a ticking time bomb years into the case, especially if we had racked up significant victories along the way.

The solution here is literally cut and paste. New plaintiff, eliminate the issues in papers the judge found with standing, and refile.

Its a delay that results in an even tight request for an injunction.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
182 Posts
So does the case go on even though we didn't get an injunction? Just because the plaintiff doesn't have standing, that doesn't rectify that 95% of this law violates what the Supreme Court ruled in NYSRPA v Bruen. Or will the new lawsuit by the NYSRPA take this place of this one?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
389 Posts
So does the case go on even though we didn't get an injunction? Just because the plaintiff doesn't have standing, that doesn't rectify that 95% of this law violates what the Supreme Court ruled in NYSRPA v Bruen. Or will the new lawsuit by the NYSRPA take this place of this one?
The Judge ordered the case moot and instructed the Clerk to close the case. A new case presumably using this decision as a guide needs to be filed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,558 Posts
What’s the quickest SCUTUS has ever had to readdress a ruling to a state not following such decision.
 

·
SASI Firearms Chairman, LISAPA Training Committee
Joined
·
7,035 Posts
Standing can be fought and its not always clear. The judge went out of his way to find a lack of standing but he went even more out of his way to destroy the CCIA which is completely unnecessary when a case is dismissed due to lack of standing.

I'm not an expert by any means on the issue of standing in Federal Court, but its a biggie, and dealing with it now early on prevents it from being a ticking time bomb years into the case, especially if we had racked up significant victories along the way.

The solution here is literally cut and paste. New plaintiff, eliminate the issues in papers the judge found with standing, and refile.

Its a delay that results in an even tight request for an injunction.
Agreed, 100%.
Gary
 

·
SASI Firearms Chairman, LISAPA Training Committee
Joined
·
7,035 Posts
So does the case go on even though we didn't get an injunction? Just because the plaintiff doesn't have standing, that doesn't rectify that 95% of this law violates what the Supreme Court ruled in NYSRPA v Bruen. Or will the new lawsuit by the NYSRPA take this place of this one?
No. This SPECIFIC suit doesn't go on but we change the plaintiff, to one with "standing." Judge Suddaby laid out all of the reasons why the CCIA was unConstitutional, in detail, within the text of his decision, just telling us to get a new plaintiff, then re-submit the case.
Gary
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
182 Posts
No. This SPECIFIC suit doesn't go on but we change the plaintiff, to one with "standing." Judge Suddaby laid out all of the reasons why the CCIA was unConstitutional, in detail, within the text of his decision, just telling us to get a new plaintiff, then re-submit the case.
Gary
Gary,
Do you know if the new case with a different plaintiff would go to him?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
182 Posts
If it was a re-file of the same case, with a new plaintif, who had standing, it would be considered a "related" case and, therefore, should be assigned to Judge Suddaby.
Gary
Unfortunately he said it wasn't related and punted. The judge that has this one is an Obama appointed judge. Edit. I saw you addressed this in another thread. Thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,250 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Unfortunately he said it wasn't related and punted. The judge that has this one is an Obama appointed judge
I understand the concern that the judge is an Obama appointee but even Obama appointees don’t like to be made to look like fools. This judge still has to take the Supreme Court ruling into account and there is very little wiggle room regarding sensitivity places and the objective standards required in creating 2A legislation to justify ruling in favor of the State. In creating the CCIA there wasn’t an ounce of effort expended to even try to conform the law to the Supreme Court decision other than removing the words “proper cause”. It’s amazing to me that the Governor could get a majority of so-called “lawmakers” to pass it. The lack of intellectual honesty in passing this is downright frightening. It was a bold, in your face rebuke of the Supreme Court.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,065 Posts
Unfortunately he said it wasn't related and punted. The judge that has this one is an Obama appointed judge. Edit. I saw you addressed this in another thread. Thanks
Essentially the exact same case and conditions but with a plaintiff who HAS standing is unrelated? And he was so adamant about it being unconstitutional. Pfttttt.
 

·
SASI Firearms Chairman, LISAPA Training Committee
Joined
·
7,035 Posts
Essentially the exact same case and conditions but with a plaintiff who HAS standing is unrelated? And he was so adamant about it being unconstitutional. Pfttttt.
It's not the same case or related, other than being pro-2A and anti-CCIA. The plaintiffs are not the same. If GOA came back, with a plaintiff, who had standing, it would be "related." NYSRPA v Bruen #2 is different, in many ways, including its arguments and the issues it raises. I'm attaching a PDF copy
Gary..
 

Attachments

1 - 20 of 55 Posts
Top