Long Island Shooters Forum banner
21 - 40 of 55 Posts

·
SASI Firearms Chairman, LISAPA Training Committee
Joined
·
7,051 Posts
Folks:
SCPD has scheduled a meeting, with all Suffolk County-based FFLs, for Thursday, September 15, at 4pm. The purpose of the meeting is for SCPD to explain, as they understand it, what's needed to be changed and what's needed to be added, to dealer's procedures, under the still-valid CCIA. Right now, they don't have everything worked out and are working on getting it to make as much sense as possible.
More will follow, as I get the details.
Gary
 

·
SASI Firearms Chairman, LISAPA Training Committee
Joined
·
7,051 Posts
I’ve been doing some “detective” work, behind the scenes and with “unofficial” sources. From what I’m hearing, the SCPD, the NCPD and the SC Sheriff’s Department are getting contradictory instructions, about what to say and do, almost daily, about the way the CCIA is going to operate, provided it isn’t stopped, dead, in its tracks, by an injunction.

Right now, much of the working staff (who, for the most part, are pro-2A) are saying that they’re feeling like punching bags, with everyone screaming, from different directions. Many people are correctly seeking answers, to legitimate questions, for which the licensing agencies don’t have consistent answers and others are issuing orders, to the licensing agencies, then changing, a few hours later or the next day.

For the moment, I have only one suggestion: sit back and relax.

There’s nothing any of us can do, unless and until one of two things happen: 1) the court issues an injunction (via NYSRPA v Bruen #2), freezing the enforcement of the CCIA (which is very, very likely) or 2) the CCIA is allowed to continue, as the “law” of the state (very, very unlikely).

If 1), above, happens, then we’re back to an unfettered Bruen decision, as our operating standard, unless the governor/state legislature engage in another hissy fit session. If 2), above, happens, then the arrests will start and the law suits, for intentional violation of Constitutional rights, will start to fly.

I expect we’ll know at least a little more, after the 9/15 dealers’ meeting, at SCPD.
Gary
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,217 Posts
I’ve been doing some “detective” work, behind the scenes and with “unofficial” sources. From what I’m hearing, the SCPD, the NCPD and the SC Sheriff’s Department are getting contradictory instructions, about what to say and do, almost daily, about the way the CCIA is going to operate, provided it isn’t stopped, dead, in its tracks, by an injunction.

Right now, much of the working staff (who, for the most part, are pro-2A) are saying that they’re feeling like punching bags, with everyone screaming, from different directions. Many people are correctly seeking answers, to legitimate questions, for which the licensing agencies don’t have consistent answers and others are issuing orders, to the licensing agencies, then changing, a few hours later or the next day.

For the moment, I have only one suggestion: sit back and relax.

There’s nothing any of us can do, unless and until one of two things happen: 1) the court issues an injunction (via NYSRPA v Bruen #2), freezing the enforcement of the CCIA (which is very, very likely) or 2) the CCIA is allowed to continue, as the “law” of the state (very, very unlikely).

If 1), above, happens, then we’re back to an unfettered Bruen decision, as our operating standard, unless the governor/state legislature engage in another hissy fit session. If 2), above, happens, then the arrests will start and the law suits, for intentional violation of Constitutional rights, will start to fly.

I expect we’ll know at least a little more, after the 9/15 dealers’ meeting, at SCPD.
Gary
Gary first off let me preface by thank you for all you efforts and streaming info on this abomination of a law. I dont want to be a Debbie Downer but we thought this would be DOA already if the last gutless judge would have done the right thing.I have emailed and phoned this Bellatoni law group 3x each this last week and no reply about her impending class action suit that there was talk on here about.I had a full unrestricted carry(except NYC of course) that is now rendered just about useless cause of this spoiled rotten woman.I dont know why the SCOTUS lets them get away with usurping their authority like this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,262 Posts
Discussion Starter · #27 ·
Guilty until proven innocent.
It's like SCOTUS is useless if they can simply be ignored.
The politicians can ignore but the courts can't. While we got sucker punched on the GOA lawsuit I think NYSRPA learned something from it and were better prepared for dealing with the standing issue.

I'm with Gary, sit tight and let the process unfold. The law really is on our side. The Wicked Witch in Albany is going to have some water poured on her. She really is a tyrant.
 

·
SASI Firearms Chairman, LISAPA Training Committee
Joined
·
7,051 Posts
Gary first off let me preface by thank you for all you efforts and streaming info on this abomination of a law. I dont want to be a Debbie Downer but we thought this would be DOA already if the last gutless judge would have done the right thing.I have emailed and phoned this Bellatoni law group 3x each this last week and no reply about her impending class action suit that there was talk on here about.I had a full unrestricted carry(except NYC of course) that is now rendered just about useless cause of this spoiled rotten woman.I dont know why the SCOTUS lets them get away with usurping their authority like this.
I understand your frustration but Judge Suddaby was not gutless. He had no choice but to deny the injunction, once Mr. Antonyuk reversed his testimony. The problem is Mr. Antonyuk. I can't say why he did what he did, since I have no first-hand knowledge about him but speculation, about him and his changed testimony, is rempant. Once Mr. Antonyuk lost his standing (legalese, for vested interest), by claiming he no longer has any problems with the CCIA, all Judge Suddaby could do was explain, in excellent detail, in the dicta portion of his decision, why the CCIA was, without question, unconstitutional. Then, essentially, he said: GOA come back, with a better plaintiff and the injunction is a done deal. When Mr, Antonyuk lost standing, so did GOA, since GOA represented him as typical of their membership, within the suit.

When a plaintiff withdraws his complaint, which is what Mr. Antonyuk really did, by reversing his testimony, the case becomes moot and no court has jurisdiction, since there is no longer any grounds for the suit. Without jurisdiction or a valid plaintiff, there cannot be any injunction.

The latest suit, brought by NYSRPA, as NYSRPA v Bruen #2, has two plaintiffs, with confirmed standing and, although the request for injunctive relief is the same, the grounds and arguments are different, from those raised in the GOA/Antonyuk suit. If the GOA can obtain a confirmed plaintiff, they can re-enter their suit, also.
Gary
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
335 Posts
I understand your frustration but Judge Suddaby was not gutless. He had no choice but to deny the injunction, once Mr. Antonyuk reversed his testimony. The problem is Mr. Antonyuk. I can't say why he did what he did, since I have no first-hand knowledge about him but speculation, about him and his changed testimony, is rempant. Once Mr. Antonyuk lost his standing (legalese, for vested interest), by claiming he no longer has any problems with the CCIA, all Judge Suddaby could do was explain, in excellent detail, in the dicta portion of his decision, why the CCIA was, without question, unconstitutional. Then, essentially, he said: GOA come back, with a better plaintiff and the injunction is a done deal. When Mr, Antonyuk lost standing, so did GOA, since GOA represented him as typical of their membership, within the suit.

When a plaintiff withdraws his complaint, which is what Mr. Antonyuk really did, by reversing his testimony, the case becomes moot and no court has jurisdiction, since there is no longer any grounds for the suit. Without jurisdiction or a valid plaintiff, there cannot be any injunction.

The latest suit, brought by NYSRPA, as NYSRPA v Bruen #2, has two plaintiffs, with confirmed standing and, although the request for injunctive relief is the same, the grounds and arguments are different, from those raised in the GOA/Antonyuk suit. If the GOA can obtain a confirmed plaintiff, they can re-enter their suit, also.
Gary

Gary, do you think Antonyuk was paid off or threatened by some underhanded move? Why on God's green earth would he pull such a stunt (withdrawn complaint) with so much riding on this case? That is just crazy frustrating. I am very interested in joining forces with members here as plaintiffs.
 

·
Aim High
Joined
·
823 Posts
I believe truly deep down that the fix was in. I never was a conspiracy theorist but in my gut I know this was a squeeze play. The State always knew what the result was going to be. You can tell by how quickly they were prepared and how things were put in force immediately upon the judge's wimped out non decision.. We need to find out what the hell happened in order to prepare for the next con job. Years of work and planning and Mr.. Antonyuk suddenly has a brain fart? Who believes that? Something smells rotten and now we are worse off than before.
 

·
SASI Firearms Chairman, LISAPA Training Committee
Joined
·
7,051 Posts
Gary, do you think Antonyuk was paid off or threatened by some underhanded move? Why on God's green earth would he pull such a stunt (withdrawn complaint) with so much riding on this case? That is just crazy frustrating. I am very interested in joining forces with members here as plaintiffs.
Joe:
Your guess, on this topic, is as good as mine. I don't know Mr. Antonyuk and don't know anyone who does. Could he have been bought off or threatened? Anything is possible.
Gary
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,217 Posts
Joe:
Your guess, on this topic, is as good as mine. I don't know Mr. Antonyuk and don't know anyone who does. Could he have been bought off or threatened? Anything is possible.
Gary
GAry
Would you know a round estimate on how much a lawsuit would cost someone?Are there any lawyers who would do it pro Buono I think is the term for free?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,287 Posts
Joe:
Your guess, on this topic, is as good as mine. I don't know Mr. Antonyuk and don't know anyone who does. Could he have been bought off or threatened? Anything is possible.
Gary
Gary, prior to the case being tossed out. An experienced attorney was already saying the lawsuit will be tossed. He felt the petitioner was not the right person for this case, he also mentioned the assistant attorney general oral arguments will moot the case.
 

·
SASI Firearms Chairman, LISAPA Training Committee
Joined
·
7,051 Posts
GAry
Would you know a round estimate on how much a lawsuit would cost someone?Are there any lawyers who would do it pro Buono I think is the term for free?
Yes, pro bono literally translates, from Latin, as "for the good," which translates as no attorney's fee to the plaintiff.

My best guess and that's all it is, would be a minimum of $100K, if you wanted to start one, in your name. What you need to do, if you want to become part of the suit, is try to join one of the existing ones, as someone with standing.
Gary
 

·
SASI Firearms Chairman, LISAPA Training Committee
Joined
·
7,051 Posts
Gary, prior to the case being tossed out. An experienced attorney was already saying the lawsuit will be tossed. He felt the petitioner was not the right person for this case, he also mentioned the assistant attorney general oral arguments will moot the case.
I don't know who that attorney is or why s/he was saying that but it was solely Mr. Antonyuk's change of testimony, which invalidated his standing in the suit. Judge Suddaby was pretty clear about that and about the fact that the CCIA was unconstitutional. he pointed it out, issue by issue, in detail. He wanted to issue the injunction but, without a valid plaintiff, there was no case to be heard.
Gary
 
21 - 40 of 55 Posts
Top