Thses judges all seem quick to grant a stay without regard to the damage to the plaintiffs!
Lets see if it sticks. Lots of liberal judges that do not follw the constitution.Woot !
I believe this is not for the Buffalo area only, statewide . So those Green signs for firearms I have seen upstate are not required to enter a private property now.
When I asked about going to three years with renewals from five if it would be a problem for the SCPD, they said No!. It would only impact us, as it will take longerThey don't want quicker or efficient. They want slow as can be and as many roadblocks and delays as possible. The whole system is built on citizens giving up with frustration. It's the same with all these court cases.
This now goes to the three judges on the panel. If we win the state will request an appeal to the En Banc panel( all nine judges). If we lose we go there. Depending upon how that turns out it may be onto the Supreme Court, if the EN Banc rules against us. I am not sure the state would take this to the Supreme Court if they lose. If we lose at the EN Banc and the Supreme Court does not take the case, I think the case ends for us. This coule take years, just like the state planned. The legal eagles can chime in.Good? Bad?
It looks like Sinatra's Church injunction is still on for now. It was interesting that they did not mention his injunction on restricted places, which I think is still in place. For some reason Letitia is not hunting down Sinatra.Soooooo….. in plain , ordinary English….. does this affect the current, stay? , from Sinatra? , on private property, and the houses of worship?
Or is it my turn, to have been completely confused, and overwhelmed, from the multi-prong attacks?
I Just checked and Sinatra's preliminary injunction is still in place regarding restricted locations. The state was not granted a stay on this PI. Negrelli needs to submit papars by 1/23/23. here is the meat of the injunction.private property is a loosing battle and im cool with that lol
Sinatra's injunction is still in force. To make things clear, this is direct from the injunction. Its private property open to the public. stores, restaurants, etc. check out the firearms policy coalition site,as it has all the info for Sinatra. Christian v. Nigrelli - FPC Law 2A Challenge to New York "Sensitive Location" Carry Bans (firearmspolicy.org)With all the stays , Tros , appeals etc. can anyone say where is good to go right now? Is Judge Sinatras injunction on private business and residences still In effect or did the state get a stay pending their appeal ?
The second circuit just issued a stay today on 12/12/2022 on Sinatra's restricted places preliminary injunction. See the link below. It seesm the court is ready to placated the state over protecting our constitutional rights. Hopefull we get a speedy hearing.Nothing new of consequence filed, re Judge Sinatra's injunction, as of 11:30am.
The law is completly back in place, except for religious facilities. No access to private property for now. I hope Thomas is whispering in the second ciruits ears. I am sure he is watching this to see how it plays out, and they know it.What exactly does this development , affect?
Carrying on private property? The whole thing ? Private residence, private business?
As of yesterday, your " full carry" only allows you to carry it at a religious facility, and no other place but the range or hunting. Back to square one for now.Basically we back to a near full-blown Concealed Carry
Improvement Act. Those who have taken the training course or otherwise
have a "Full Cary" license, are only able to carry:
--in their homes and businesses.
--private property where they have permission through express verbal
consent or a sign that says firearms are permitted on site.
--while hunting if you have a hunting license.
--public streets and sidewalks.
--places of worship, airports, and private buses where you have been
tasked with providing security or otherwise been told to go armed.
Gary is correct. The expeditious trial date is good news, indicating that they are not kicking the can down the road. I assume they are reviewing the Bruen case very carefully, as they do not want to piss off Thomas. I am still concerned about the section of the law (400.30) that allows local licensing agencies to add more restrictions beyond the law. That could start a whole new round of litigation. look at the drug test requirement in Nassau County, its not in the law.Folks:
I'm not upset by this. I'm jus surprised it took so long. It's consistent with the stay, which was issued for Judge Suddaby's injunction and not indicative of anything else. They could not let one remain active, while the other was stayed, since they covered almost the same material. Remember, the 2nd Circuit has also ordered a expeditious trial start, for the Antonyuk #2 suit. That's much more important than the stay orders.
Great reading. They skewered Hochul in the application!Washington, D.C. – Today, Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) filed an emergency application with the U.S. Supreme Court to halt the Second Circuit Court’s stay of a preliminary injunction in Antonyuk v. Nigrelli.
The case challenges New York’s misleadingly named “Concealed Carry Improvement Act,” which was enjoined by U.S. District Court Judge Glenn Suddaby in early November. However, the Second Circuit quickly halted this order, as they have with other successful challenges to the law, with a short, undetailed opinion.
Erich Pratt, GOA’s Senior Vice President, issued the following statement:
“Governor Hochul and state lawmakers wasted no time in passing legislation that completely contradicted the Bruen precedent, and we urge the High Court to once again hold the state accountable for violating the Second Amendment rights of their own citizens.”
Sam Paredes, on behalf of the Board of Directors for the Gun Owners Foundation, added:
“We have said it before and we’ll say it again: states must come into compliance with Bruen, or we will make you.”
GOA Files Emergency Request with SCOTUS in NY Concealed Carry Case | GOAFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE December 21, 2022 Washington, D.C. – Today, Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) filed an emergency application with the U.S. Supreme Court to halt the Second Circuit Court’s stay of a preliminary injunction in Antonyuk v. Nigrelli. The case...www.gunowners.org
I did a quick read and it is the same bullshit they espoused before. Soto is going to push this to the full bench. I hope Thomas slams them hard.I have not read it yet.
Regarding the CCIA, I think Soto will stall until the second Circuit hears the case on January 9th. That gets her a get out of jail pass.Thats what the state wants to happen if you read their brief. If that happens the second circuit will dream up some BS to keep the stay in place. Its stall, stall, stall tactic. I assume they will not follow Bruen, and the GOA will have to go back to the supreme court.God I hope so. I can’t stand the fixed mag on my AR. Would love to just be able to pop in a new mag when empty instead of grabbing the speed loader every 1min to reload the fixed mag.
The law only prevents group type of citizens from entering private property. Why then would retired law enforcement, police and security, armored car drivers get a pass. Currently, the law only prevents one group, while retired police are also a subgroup of private citizens, but get a pass. The law discriminates against one group of citizens. I am stating a fact and not recommending that retired law enforcement be added to the banned group.They are making decsions on who can enter private property without consulting the owner. The law needs to get thrown out!The State’s brief to 2nd circuit for the Christian vs. Nigrelli/Hochul sensitive locations case is in. Still blowing smoke about standing. Still insisting that consent is needed for carrying on private property. This brief probably is a preview of how their Antonyuk case will look like as well, as it makes many references to the “mistakes“ in the Antonyuk case.