Long Island Shooters Forum banner

Court Cases Against New York’s CCIA

123K views 1K replies 58 participants last post by  stalker42 
Scott:
I use a PACER account, corporately, which is not a free service. If you want to obtain a PACER account, go to Public Access to Court Electronic Records | PACER: Federal Court Records, to set up the account. The charge is 10 cents, per page used.
Gary
Many miss the fact that for a personal Pacer account, you are not billed until you hit $30 quarterly. So that .10 a page means the first 300 pages are free.
It is important to note the following. These are direct quotes off the activation letter I received for my personal account in August. 2022:
  • "The per-page charge applies to the number of pages that result from any search, regardless of the number of pages viewed, printed, or downloaded."
  • "Usage is billed on a quarterly basis. Pursuant to Judicial Conference policy, fees are waived for usage of $30 or less in a quarter."

I can confirm the statements to be accurate, as I used the Pacer account during August and September. I received my October statement, and this is a direct quote off that statement.:

Balance Due:$0.00
Usage for this account was $30 or less for this quarterly billing cycle. In accordance with the Electronic Public Access fee schedule, the fees for this quarter have been waived.

I encourage all interested to open a Pacer account.
I don't use mine for anything other than these 2A cases, but I do like being able to read the ALL the documents first hand , as opposed to depending on others to post them
Of course, you should review ALL the details when you sign up for an account.
 
One question just leads to the next question, and each answer just puts another fork in the path. There are a myriad of possible paths through this murk right now.
I believe we are NEVER aware of all the motives (ulterior or otherwise) when it comes to government and/or politicians. Knowing we don't know is probably the best we can do.
That said, my gut tells me to agree that Election Day could be having an influence on when Judge Suddaby releases his decision. I just don't know which way it could be influencing him. Could be either way as I see it, or even some "neutral" idea.
What concerns me more is where, exactly, any influence or pressure would be coming from? Is it strictly Judge Suddaby's own decision/reasoning to wait till after Election Day? Or, could it be that others have influenced the Judge one way or the other?
 
What is the significance of Hochul being dismissed as a defendant? I'm still digesting the 184 pages, but I feel a bit disappointed. I worry she was let off the hook for no good reason.
 
If I missed this question being addressed somewhere else, I apologize for the post, but I haven't seen it presented yet.

Am I reading the stay correctly?

The stay is written as (I added the 1 and the 2, and adjusted font to stress):

"Defendants-Appellants seek (1) a stay pending appeal, and (2) an emergency interim stay, of the preliminary injunction issued by the district court on November7, 2022."
"IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a temporary stay is granted pending the panel's consideration of the motion."

I take that to mean that the three circuit judges listed on this stay, Stack, Wesley, and Bianco, are "the panel", and that their consideration of the motion (to stay the injunction pending appeal) is what's pending. Doesn't this stay order just stay the injunction until they get to consider the motion to stay the injunction (pending appeal?) (a.k.a. (2) an emergency interim stay)

In other words, doesn't "a temporary stay" = (2) "an emergency interim stay"?? And, that (1) "a stay pending appeal" is now "pending the panel's consideration of the motion"??
If this order were a stay pending the appeal, wouldn't it say "pending the panel's consideration of the appeal", and not "pending the panel's consideration of the motion" ??
Motion does not equal appeal. Aren't they two different things? The motion here is to temporarily stay the injunction. The appeal is to reverse Judge Suddaby's decision.
Am I reading that wrong?
 
You call it gamesmanship, but I call it BS. Why wouldn't they just order the stay pending appeal then, if that is the end result they wanted? What purpose does it serve anyone to be intentionally vague? I don't wish to sound un-American, but our court system, and legal practices are so convoluted and illogical. I suspect it will never happen, but I think a serious re-work is needed. From the ground up.
 
So I'm guessing the next expectation would be a motion from NY for a stay?

I mean the injunction is great news, and it adds to other cases where injunctions are being granted, so that is positive. We just need them to stick until trials, and then for the trials to strike down the laws. Oh, and sometime before we're all dead and buried would be great.
 
yes agreed sportsmen is unfortunately now only a premises
That may be what SCPD is claiming for now, but THIS is what we all should be fighting instead of playing into their game by paying for training courses and so-called amendments for carry licenses that don't let you carry anywhere.
The PPB-3 is a hard document that classifies a Sportsman as a "Carry Concealed" license. There is no ambiguity. It could not be clearer. The "Carry Concealed" box is checked, the "Possess on Premises" box is NOT checked. And, SCPD PLB is who fills out that official PPB-3, NOT the actual applicant. You are told to verify the information, and sign it. And have your references sign it. And a PLB officer signs it. This is part of why your license number is in the format C-#####. You are accepting the most flagrant violation, and then conforming to additional unconstitutional hoops, so that you can say you have a carry license, yet can't carry most places. You assume the police and prosecuting attorneys will not arrest and prosecute you based on nothing but your thin air guesses and feelings.
Who gave SCPD PLB the authority to change every Sportsman license from a carry license to a premise license? And why are you just accepting that?
 
Just to make a point about certain misconceptions…. The most recent SCPD PLB questionaire form does not have a license type “Premises“. It does have a ”Dwelling” class, but it is far from what some seem to believe it is. Though it has been pointed out , that the State has no changes in the penal codes for this class description, SCPD has printed and published, that the “Dwelling” type is identical to the old “sportsman”. It’s a permit to keep a handgun , at your home for personal defense, to use at a range, and to carry afield , for hunting, with a valid hunting license.
The discussion goes into a lot more detail, in a thread “ Current SCPD PLB Questionaire”. Current SCPD Questionaire App and directions
This is a screenshot, of the current questionaire, and the current license types. No “Premises” and the “Dwelling” is defined as the old “sportsman”.
You are confirming my argument, thank you.

You attached instructions for the current Suffolk questionnaire (VERY recently updated, btw), which is NOT the application for a NY pistol license. The NY Sate PPB-3 is the application for a pistol license in NY.

The issue is not whether "premise" or "dwelling" is the correct word. That is really irrelevant, but check out below for clarification. The issue is Suffolk County changing the classification of existing pistol licenses to suit their folly (and the folly of politicians above them I would dare to guess). What you are posting is for brand new applicants.

I'll adjust my question in case you have a misconception: Who gave SCPD PLB the authority to change every existing Sportsman license from a carry license to a premise dwelling license? And why are you just accepting that?

SCPD PLB takes your questionnaire and, (after about 2 years these days) fills out the official NY State PPB-3 application for you, and tells you to check it for accuracy and sign it. And have your references sign it. And a PLB officer signs it. I do not know what they do today, but I can prove to anyone that as of earlier this year, they checked the "Carry Concealed" box, NOT the "Possess on Premises" box. On Monday evening, I saw and heard, first hand, Lt. Komorowski, the Commanding Officer of SCPD PLB, try to blow it off which box they checked by claiming a computer software inadequacy on their part. I suppose some of you might believe that too? This is a snip from my PPB-3. Notice which box is checked, and notice the word "Premises" in the box that is NOT checked. I'm not going to post my PPB-3 in its entirety for privacy reasons, as I'm sure you can understand, but I challenge those of you who had the foresight to make a copy of yours, to check it out for yourself.

Rectangle Font Art Circle Pattern



The NY State PPB-3 application (not the bogus questionnaire that SCPD PLB uses as their excuse to take ~2 years to act on a license that according to NY law should be acted on inside of 6 months) does not have the word "Dwelling" on it, but it does continue to have the word "Premises" on it. Download it here if you'd like, Apply for a Firearms License , but I've attached a current copy for you (I downloaded it while typing this post).

I'm uptight about keeping copies and records for stuff like this. I have copies of the last version of the handbook (before they pulled it) that contradicts what SCPD PLB is saying nowadays, I have the instructions for the Questionnaire for when I filled it out, that very clearly show how it was impossible for an everyday person to apply for, never mind get, a "Self Protection (Full Carry)" License (those are Suffolk County's exact words, btw). At the end of the day, the documents prove that a Sportsman is a concealed carry license with a restriction. The restriction was based on "proper cause". That "proper cause" is now unconstitutional. People are allowing themselves to be manipulated, and some of you are proud of it, and encouraging others to allow themselves to be manipulated.

I am not trying to pick a fight with any individuals here. I am just angry, frustrated, and disgusted.
 

Attachments

I am asking you all to look at the brief, and if your state senator, and state assemblyman are not listed on the last 3 pages, write to them to ask them why they are not supporting the brief.
I contacted mine, and the one office that has responded so far is claiming the elected official did support the brief, and was supposed to be included, but are not listed do to a "clerical error".
Now, I'm a cynic, so of course I want to call BS on that claim, and I suspect political charades, but what if it is true?
The more names at the bottom of that brief the better, right?
 
Their decision will be surgical and strategic. I think they will hold off as long as they can so SCOTUS is out or almost out of session and blow it out another 2 years until they get a “better” court.
Nothing whatsoever to do with constitution or civil rights.
I hope I’m wrong.
Sadly, I think you are right.
 
Someone should tell the judges they can start their trials now. Clearly the 2nd Circuit doesn't understand what any real degree of speed is.
I'm guessing there was a certain amount of sarcasm in your comment, but I'm going to say it anyway:

Oh, I'm certain they completely understand what any real degree of speed is.
They are simply, intentionally, utterly, and defiantly, disregarding the specific direction of the Supreme Court of the Unites States.
Period.

I continue to be bewildered and disgusted how our legal system outright fails citizens in this regard.
The system is a literal one way street of citizen rights infringements.

An example of "real degree of speed" would be how fast Hochul was able to put her unconstitutional CCIA in place.
Or, how fast the Suffolk County Police Department Pistol Licensing Bureau was able to decide they could change my restricted carry license into a premise license.
Or, how fast Nassau County Pistol License Section decided residents need to pass a urine drug screen.
Or, a too long list of other infringements that I won't rehash here.

Rant paused till next time...
 
I'll believe it when the money is in the bank. FUKH and NY do (or don't do) exactly as they please with no respect for any law, court, or constitutions (US or NY State).

The principle is entertaining at least.
 
How do we light a fire under the second circuit. They will not do anything unless Scotus steps in.
Standing by.
If I ever see an answer to that question, and I mean an answer that is effective in reality, not in theory, I am all in.
Oh, and save some typing; please don't suggest writing or calling any politicians. I also suspect most here already know who to vote for. They (politicians) are ALL part of the problem, not a channel for solutions or reason.
The only thing I think might help would be prolonged, constant, unavoidable, loud, vibrant, relentless, high visibility, big money, celebrity status, media campaigns, that touch everyone convincingly and overwhelmingly. Something to threaten the livelihood of those corrupt people of power. Oh, and an unlimited amount of financial resources would absolutely be required.
We don't have any of that, and I'm not holding out much hope that we ever will.
Waiting for the courts is folly too, as NY politicians will simply keep throwing the next round of unconstitutional muck into "law" any time a court dare hold their feet to the fire.
Despite a few here that have delusions of false optimistic hope, I think most of us are realists, and get it that our rights are doomed to be infringed.
Sad, but true.
 
Top