You're the first other person I've heard acknowledge we have too many laws on the books and too many ways to get arrested. To be arrested for a felony should be reserved for serious matters, not the current lists that exist.
Court Cases Against New York’s CCIA
1 - 20 of 1136 Posts
Can you provide the case number or the participants?Gary, we might have a case heading to the Supreme Court this session stemming from a Massachusetts resident arrested back in 2004 in Washington D.C. who had a valid MA pistol license.
We might have National Reciprocity!
I wonder if he's taking his time in researching the semi-auto aspect, in case there's any way he could include it in his response.While I agree that Judge Suddaby has an idea of what he is going to say, in this decision, per the dicta in his original decision, he has no reason to flip, then rule against himself. I expect him to be not only consistent, in his thought pattern and ruling verbiage but to be very precise, in the way it's presented, so that NYS does not have room to say it says anything other than what I believe he intends: FULL STOP of CCIA. The only part I see him not destroying is the semi-auto rifle license, since it was not challenged, in this suit. He can't rule on an item not incorporated in the suit.
Gary
I agree that he's doing the legwork to avoid looking foolish. He's making sure it's as ironclad as possible.No, with more plaintiffs there is more to construct in response than the last time. He is not going to go against himself with his prior written statements. He understands his response will be appealed, therefore, I think he is making it bulletproof ( No pun intended). The last thing he wants is for the next judge to find flaws in his response successfully countering his work. He also understands this must be flawless with a high level of scrutiny it will receive. To have your research and hard work overturned is an embarrassment that he wants to avoid. He is not going to sell out his career and legal reputation to a governor who is here today and gone tomorrow. I would not be surprised if this takes over a week, so relax and pray.
A temporary restraining order would immediately prevent whatever limited aspects the judge targets for a short term. The temporary injunction is designed to be of longer duration, albeit still temporary. Our endgame is the permanent injunction which says the state has to stop whatever aspects are written in that order.What does a TRO do at this point If it was to be issued. Does it negate the CCIA and it’s ludicrously sensitive place restrictions? Does the whole process and new “laws” go into legal limbo?
And I know it was further up the thread, but the correct term is "en banc".
Woof. That's a mouthful. It looks like he's granting the TRO for aspects of the good moral character, in person interview, household member list, social media lists, and some of the sensitive places. He's holding this for three business days, which I wonder if that means next Tuesday since Monday is a holiday.DECISION AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER that Plaintiffs' motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. No. 6 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part in accordance with this Decision. Defendants, as well as their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys (and any other persons who are in active concert or participation with them) are TEMPORARILY RESTRAINED from enforcing the following provisions of the Concealed Carry Improvement Act, 2022 N.Y. Sess. Laws ch. 371 ("CCIA"): (1) the provisions contained in Section 1 of the CCIA requiring "good moral character" EXCEPT to the extent it is construed to mean that a license shall be issued or renewed except for an applicant who has been found, by a preponderance of the evidence based on his or her conduct, to not have "good moral character," which is defined as "having the essential character, temperament and judgment necessary... to use [the weapon entrusted to the applicant] only in a manner that does not endanger oneself or others, other than in self-defense"; (2) the provision contained in Section 1 of the CCIA requiring that the applicant "meet in person with the licensing officer for an interview"; (3) the provision contained in Section 1 of the CCIA requiring the "names and contact information for the applicant's current spouse, or domestic partner, any other adults residing in the applicant's home, including any adult children of the applicant, and whether or not there are minors residing, full time or part time, in the applicants home"; (4) the provision contained in Section 1 of the CCIA requiring "a list of former and current social media accounts of the applicant from the past three years"; and (5) the "sensitive locations" provision contained in Section 4 of the CCIA EXCEPT with regard to the following sensitive locations (where the restrictions remain): (a) "any place owned or under the control of federal, state or local government, for the purpose of government administration, including courts" (as contained in paragraph "2(a)" of Section 4); (b) "any location being used as a polling place" (as contained in paragraph "2(q)" of Section 4); (c) "any public sidewalk or other public area restricted from general public access for a limited time or special event that has been issued a permit for such time or event by a governmental entity, or subject to specific, heightened law enforcement protection, or has otherwise had such access restricted by a governmental entity, provided such location is identified as such by clear and conspicuous signage" (as contained in paragraph "2(r)" of Section 4); (d) "any place of worship or religious observation" (as contained in paragraph "2(c)" of Section 4), EXCEPT for those persons who have been tasked with the duty to keep the peace at the place of worship or religious observation; (e) "nursery schools" and "preschools" (as contained in paragraph "2(f)" of Section 4); (f) "any building or grounds, owned or leased, of any educational institutions, colleges and universities, licensed private career schools, school districts, public schools, private schools licensed under article one hundred one of the education law, charter schools, non-public schools, board of cooperative educational services, special act schools, preschool special education programs, private residential or non-residential schools for the education of students with disabilities, and any state-operated or state-supported schools" (as contained in paragraph "2(m)" of Section 4); (g) "any gathering of individuals to collectively express their constitutional rights to protest or assemble" (as contained in paragraph "2(s)" of Section 4); and (6) the "restricted locations" provision contained in Section 5 of the CCIA EXCEPT for fenced-in farmland owned by another or fenced-in hunting ground owned by another (where the restriction stands). Plaintiffs are EXCUSED from giving security. This Temporary Restraining Order shall REMAIN IN EFFECT pending a hearing and ruling on Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction (Dkt. No. 6 ). This Temporary Restraining Order is STAYED for THREE (3) BUSINESS DAYS, from the date of this Decision, to allow Defendants to seek emergency relief in the Second Circuit. Counsel for Plaintiffs shall promptly and personally serve this Decision and Temporary Restraining Order on Defendant Soares (who has not yet appeared through counsel in this action). Signed by U.S. District Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 10/6/2022. (sal) (Entered: 10/06/2022)
My brief and limited review is a few posts up. Otherwise, here's a Syracuse.com Article.So In short what did they grant?
I don't mean to deflate the importance of this win, but remember this is a temporary restraining order. He has a court date scheduled for later this month for something more permanent. We didn't win the war, just this skirmish.
Just wondering something, I saw this as I was getting ready for work. Who are these two and why wouldn't they oppose the motion for a TRO?
"NOTICE by Eugene Conway, William Fitzpatrick that Conway and Fitzpatrick do not intend to oppose the motion (Dkt. No. 6) filed by plaintiffs (Heisler, John) "
"NOTICE by Eugene Conway, William Fitzpatrick that Conway and Fitzpatrick do not intend to oppose the motion (Dkt. No. 6) filed by plaintiffs (Heisler, John) "
The document doesn't have a date for the hearing. Any ideas when that would be?
So does that imply the hearing would be before 10/25/2022?
My question would be is how long would it take the appellate court and SCOTUS to see this.Yes. But this is very unlikely. No way with the original case going 6-3 are they not going to hear it being how NYS blatantly ignored their original decision in NYSRPA v Bruen and essentially doubled down with this CCIA.
Gary, I saw the state filed a motion to dismiss based on subject matter jurisdiction. If a district court isn't an applicable venue, where would they be arguing is?
I don't have credentials to PacerMonitor, but saw this nugget on the Antonyuk et al case this morning: USCA Case Number 22-2379 for28 Notice of Appeal filed by Kevin P. Bruen, Judge Matthew J. Doran, Kathleen Hochul. (nas, ) . I haven't heard that we won, so is this a preemptory notice of appeal on the state's part?
I'm afraid I don't understand your reference.It's good to see that the corporate world is getting in on this and touching the points which many of the personal suits have not.
Gary
Just for S&G's why hasn't anyone gone directly to SCOTUS at this point? I know they're likely to say no, but given how many times the appellate court seems to have thumbed their nose at them, you've gotta figure someone would give the justices a chance to just take it over.
I know someone had posted a scorecard up here not too long ago, but I find myself confused again. Last I heard, we had Subbaday with a list of stuff that was held temporarily pending trial, and Sinatra's house of worship limitations that was not? Is there another case that is currently active?
I'm talking out of my butt, but I'd be surprised if we heard before Christmas. I'm hoping before New Years.
It's a long shot, but you miss 100% of the shots you don't take.
I'm at work and can only skin documents, but page 18 of the application for writ of injunction from 12/29/2022 is fantastic. "NYSRPA v. Bruen is the standard for the reasonable woman, as well as the proverbial "reasonable man". But it's Hochul and it's New York, and so, it's not reasonable."
Someone oughta call the burn ward
Someone oughta call the burn ward
1 - 20 of 1136 Posts
Long Island Shooters Forum
A forum community dedicated to Long Island firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Recommended Communities
