I always enjoy Mr. Miranda's legal insight thought I frequently have to take a break from him. This might be the vid to bring me back for a bit.
Court Cases Against New York’s CCIA
1 - 20 of 1136 Posts
I get what you are saying in principle, but in practice that's just it. Fighting on every front, and continuing to get them back into Court in light of the Bruen decision, IS what needs to be done.I am not so confident. even if you get the order and even if you win the case and the law is deemed fully unconstitutional; this Marxists loon will just put up some other legal obstacle. Unfortunately what need s to be done will not be done.
There should be NO permits, everyone (adult) has the right to carry even if you are a convicted felon. If you are safe enough for public you must be considered safe enough to have a firearm. Otherwise it's a cell or the loony bin. That's another issue the street has taken the place of the mental wards...
Of course we have even bigger issues than this to fix too.
As to whether there should be permits, I totally agree with you that there should not be. I don't even believe there should be driver licenses. The firearm is the most effective means of protecting one's natural right to life. Similarly, the automobile is the most effective means of protecting one's natural right to travel and freely move about.
On the felon front, how dangerous a person is and how "safe" they are for the public is actually beside the point. Denying them the right to bear arms is correct in principle, even if not always so in practice. By definition, criminals are those who break the most important laws and rules of a society governed by free citizens. If you disrespect your fellow man in that way, or God forbid, actually harm him in some way, then you lose your own rights as a free citizen. No guns, no voting, no running for public office (that's whey they are target Trump btw), no serving on a jury etc. The solution is have fewer felony crimes in the first place and better, more efficient process for one to repay their debt to, and someday resume, their place in society.
Exactly. Bruen didn’t give us reciprocity because that wasn’t all the issue in that case. But it did give us the basis for it for to be ruled on in a future decision.Gary, this case needs extra attention. If a New York resident is in a red state like Florida and caught carrying concealed without a valid Non resident FL CCW. It is a collar post Bruen. We need SCOTUS to take this case because National Reciprocity won’t ever get passed in the Senate.
A few things:
DO WE ALL HAVE UNRESTRICTED LICENSES NOW? YES.
The Bruen decision did, in fact, grant "unrestricted licenses." This is crystal clear. SCOTUS directly held that there is a constitutional right to carry a gun outside the home and NY cannot require someone to have a "proper cause" in order to exercise that right. Moreover, the CCIA removed that language from the Penal Law and the only carry licenses that exist in New York now are to "have and carry concealed, without regard to employment or place of possession subject to the restrictions of state and federal law, by any person." There is no longer any such thing as "Sportsman" "Business" "Employment" or "Full Carry," all of which were "proper causes" in the varous licensing jurisdictions to issue licenses where you could carry the gun on your person loaded. The so-called "restrictions," according to the liberal Second Circuit decision that upheld them, exist because “the licensing officer may restrict a carry license 'to the purposes that justified the issuance.' ” Kachalsky v. Cnty. of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81, 86 (2d Cir. 2012).
Given the SCOTUS, and now even the Legislature itself have both removed the need to "justify the issueance," there are therefore no purposes the carry license can be restricted to. Again this is not something that logically follows from the decision. It IS what the decision and subsequent law changes did.
DO WE EVEN NEED LICENSES ANYMORE? YES / WHY WE DON'T HAVE NATIONAL RECIPROCITY...YET
The Bruen decision did NOT "give us national reciprocity," or so-called "constiutional carry," and it could not have done so because neither of those things were raised in the case. In fact, SCOTUS did not even strike down New York's licensing law. It just struck down the part that says you need to justify exercising your constituional right to carry a gun outside your home, NOT the part that says you need to ask permission.
Did the court law the groundwork for that? Yes. Will someone challenging New York's or any state's licensing law be successful in getting it stuck down? Yes. Will they do so using the exact parts of the Bruen decision Gary is referencing? Yes. But that will be part of the upcoming Hungerford v. Bruen decision, not the NYSRPA v. Bruen case from June.
I would not be suprised that "NY and CA are choosing to ignore" something that is pro-2A, but such logic doesn't explain why the other 48 states are ignoring it too.
ON DRIVER LICENSE RECIPROCITY
Someone asked: "can you explain why the Article IV section 1 of the Constitution, Full faith and credit, does not automatically create a defacto 50 state reciprocity the way it does with driver’s licenses and marriage licenses? Are those “reciprocities” created under some other rule?"
Neither. States recognize each others' driver licenses voluntarily.
Marraiges on the other hand are "public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings" of another state covered by the full faith and credit clause you mentioned.
ON THE CURRENT PETITION FOR TRO AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AGAINST CCIA
It was asked, "Does any one here think that the State does not have the ruling yet?"
100% sure Judge Suddaby does not have his ruling yet. This stuff takes time--especially those cases where we know at least one party for certain will appeal.
DO WE ALL HAVE UNRESTRICTED LICENSES NOW? YES.
The Bruen decision did, in fact, grant "unrestricted licenses." This is crystal clear. SCOTUS directly held that there is a constitutional right to carry a gun outside the home and NY cannot require someone to have a "proper cause" in order to exercise that right. Moreover, the CCIA removed that language from the Penal Law and the only carry licenses that exist in New York now are to "have and carry concealed, without regard to employment or place of possession subject to the restrictions of state and federal law, by any person." There is no longer any such thing as "Sportsman" "Business" "Employment" or "Full Carry," all of which were "proper causes" in the varous licensing jurisdictions to issue licenses where you could carry the gun on your person loaded. The so-called "restrictions," according to the liberal Second Circuit decision that upheld them, exist because “the licensing officer may restrict a carry license 'to the purposes that justified the issuance.' ” Kachalsky v. Cnty. of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81, 86 (2d Cir. 2012).
Given the SCOTUS, and now even the Legislature itself have both removed the need to "justify the issueance," there are therefore no purposes the carry license can be restricted to. Again this is not something that logically follows from the decision. It IS what the decision and subsequent law changes did.
DO WE EVEN NEED LICENSES ANYMORE? YES / WHY WE DON'T HAVE NATIONAL RECIPROCITY...YET
The Bruen decision did NOT "give us national reciprocity," or so-called "constiutional carry," and it could not have done so because neither of those things were raised in the case. In fact, SCOTUS did not even strike down New York's licensing law. It just struck down the part that says you need to justify exercising your constituional right to carry a gun outside your home, NOT the part that says you need to ask permission.
Did the court law the groundwork for that? Yes. Will someone challenging New York's or any state's licensing law be successful in getting it stuck down? Yes. Will they do so using the exact parts of the Bruen decision Gary is referencing? Yes. But that will be part of the upcoming Hungerford v. Bruen decision, not the NYSRPA v. Bruen case from June.
I would not be suprised that "NY and CA are choosing to ignore" something that is pro-2A, but such logic doesn't explain why the other 48 states are ignoring it too.
ON DRIVER LICENSE RECIPROCITY
Someone asked: "can you explain why the Article IV section 1 of the Constitution, Full faith and credit, does not automatically create a defacto 50 state reciprocity the way it does with driver’s licenses and marriage licenses? Are those “reciprocities” created under some other rule?"
Neither. States recognize each others' driver licenses voluntarily.
Marraiges on the other hand are "public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings" of another state covered by the full faith and credit clause you mentioned.
ON THE CURRENT PETITION FOR TRO AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AGAINST CCIA
It was asked, "Does any one here think that the State does not have the ruling yet?"
100% sure Judge Suddaby does not have his ruling yet. This stuff takes time--especially those cases where we know at least one party for certain will appeal.
Agreed.I'm not as pessimistic on the course of events.
The Bruen decision didn't leave a lot of wiggle room. In fact I think Suddaby went out of his way to leave any questionable provisions of CCIA intact until the trial during which I'm expecting other provisions to fall.
One issue is the training requirement. Some have argued it will stand because other states have training requirements that haven't been successfully challenged. In my opinion that is the wrong way to evaluate the situation post Bruen and it disregards the level of scrutiny established by Bruen which one commentator described as strict scrutiny on steroids.
There is nothing in the text, history and tradition that required training in order to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights. Some have argued the "well regulated militia" in the prefatory clause of the amendment as justication for a training requirement but the "well regulated" was addressing the "militia" not "The People" in general.
I also don't think support for the reference requirement can be found in the text, history and tradition. In fact the reference requirement is an extension of the subjective "good moral character" requirements being enjoined.
The judges that will be deciding these issues are greatly constrained by the language of the Bruen decision making it much harder for political ideology to factor into a decision.
Para. (g) is a bit disconcerting. It's so broadly written that I wish he could have narrowed down just what it means by 'gathering of individuals to express their Constitutional rights....'.
As strange as it may sound, if all of us were 'gathered' in a room or lounge at a gun range complaining about the CCIA and our Govt, we couldn't carry a firearm. Heck, maybe we'll be forbidden to carry firearms in Manhattan in the vicinity of what the City calls 'First Amendment Vendors'. I wish he was clearer in that paragraph because it can be used in ways beyond its intention.
I know you didn't ask me, but that generally doesn't stop me from rendering an opinion on something.Pete:
as I understand Judge Suddaby's intent, it means only to apply to organized events, for which a permit has been issued. Despite that, I don't expect that restriction G to pass Constitutional muster, as it contradicts historical activity.
Gary
Judge Suddaby is taking a textualist approach to his decision, which is very admirable. The CCIA restricts carrying guns at "any gathering of individuals to collectively express their constitutional rights to protest or assemble." That is not more specifically defined in the CCIA. In trying to analyze the CCIA through the lens of text as informed by history, the Judge states that there does appear to be a host of laws in the late 1800s around the country which restrict guns at "public assemblies" so that restriction is still constitutionally okay for now. Nevertheless, even those laws back then did not define "public assembly" and the Judge is trying to determine what that specific term meant back then in order to see if the restriction is analagous. He can't right now, but the best option he says he has is for it to be a like the term "popular assembly" and is construing it to mean an assembly that focuses on constutional rights. So that's why the definition isn't so great in this decision (or anywhere else).
I share Gary's expectation "that restriction G [not] pass Constitutional muster, as it contradicts historical activity." Personally I don't think laws passed 100 years after the second amendment was ratified is good enough. Secondly, the second amendent was not understood to apply to the state and local governments back then; and third, it's going to be a harder sell to argue that you can't exercise your second amenmdent rights at the same time as your first amendment rights. However, and maybe it is because I missed something he picked up on, I don't see how Gary could be correct on his reading of the Judge's intent as "it means only to apply to organized events, for which a permit has been issued."
All that being said, I don't think you need to worry about your two scenarios: In the first example, if we got to together to shoot and then started bitching about the CCIA, we're okay. But if we showed up to bitch (ahem "protest") about the CCIA and had guns, that's no good. In the second example, we're probably okay as well because the vendors and their customers are getting together for a commercial activity to show up, buy, and then leave. They are not gathering to express their constiutional rights to protest or assembly.
Exactly. Woke virtual signaling almost never makes any financial sense, yet corporations do it anyway. It is only the political and cultural pressure they respond to in this arena.Whatever speculative economic benefits there may be are totally undone by the potential for abuse by the powers that be creating the mandate. Beyond that I don’t know of any hard evidence that demonstrates that X hours of training produce Y results in better outcomes. Even if there were the Bruen decision says any balance test to exercise this right is unconstitutional. Again, the training argument (how much is enough) is a never ending sinkhole.
And anyone who would be spending $400-700 in training could just as easily spend that amount on something else gun-related.
Glad you reminded me of this by commenting on this part of Mr. Thompson's post. I went right over because I focused on his commentary regarding Judge Suddaby's pending decision on the TRO. Incidentially, that part of the post, which I disagreed with at the time (in both principle and prediction) did not age well.Says you. Most of my colleagues are pro2A. Many are shooters. You just don’t recognize us.
As to the point you commented on, your experience (and mind) is far more accurate than his speculation. By and large people working in "real jobs" (including professionals like those mentioned) and any one "left" on Long Island are not the driving forces of gun control. And the reputations/images of the 20 guys in the 10 gun shops on the Island aren't the basis for that desire to enact gun control, either.
Attention all would-be Class E Felons:
The Circuit Court issued an "interim stay" on the TRO as of 3:08pm. The CCIA will remain in effect until a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals can hear the motion on whether to keep the TRO in place while the District Court hears the Antonyuk v. Hochul case.
Order is attached.
The Circuit Court issued an "interim stay" on the TRO as of 3:08pm. The CCIA will remain in effect until a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals can hear the motion on whether to keep the TRO in place while the District Court hears the Antonyuk v. Hochul case.
Order is attached.
Attachments
-
768 KB Views: 7
Yes, I think that is correct, even thought I think it's still likely the State will lose the underlying motions.No surprise there. I guess it's like Gary said, that they would issue it so that the law doesn't go in and out of enforcement.
No, but it can seem that way.Is there any time frame on all of this or can the state just drag their judicial feet as long as they want?
What happens now is a three judge panel of the appeals court will decide whether the TRO issued by the district court (which suspended) much of the CCIA should go into effect while the district decides (starting 10/20) whether the CCIA should be permanently blocked.
I think this got moved a few days to October 25th. See below:
TEXT NOTICE OF HEARING: An in-person hearing (with witness testimony) regarding Plaintiffs' 6 Motion for Preliminary Injunction is scheduled for Tuesday, October 25, 2022 at 10:00 AM in Syracuse before District Judge Glenn T. Suddaby. The parties are directed to file any witness and/or exhibit lists on or before Tuesday, October 18, 2022. The Court has been advised that Defendant Stanzione does not plan on attending this hearing. (sal )
Good to know. Probably got postponed due to appeals hearings.
No, that's when they would startSo does that imply the hearing would be before 10/25/2022?
Yes, of at least the start of the real "case" if not a "trial" per se at the moment.This is the District Court trial that has been discussed, correct?
The best way to see this is in reverse, starting with the end in mind.PP, let me pick your brain. Just to put the process in order here...
STEP 3+
Our side is seeking a judgement from Suddaby's District Court to declare CCIA unconstituional and permanently enjoin/prevent NYS from enforcing it. The Court will hear arguments for and against that permanent injunction who knows when. Sometime in November I think they'll start, but again who knows. If we win this in district court (which I think we will), the state can appeal to the second circuit. If they win that appeal (and we therefore lose it), we can appeal to SCOTUS and win. If the state loses that appeal to the second circuit, they could appeal to SOCTUS,but they'd probably lose even more, so they probably wouldn't appeal. If we LOSE in district court somehow (which I doubt) or dont win enough (which is possible), we can appeal to the second circuit, probably lose that appeal, and then got to SCOTUS, where they will likely side with us however they handle it.
STEP 2
Since we have and will continue to suffer "irreparable harm" by losing our constititional rights as of 9/1, and it will take months for the district court to rule in our favor (which is very likely), and we are likely to succeed anyway, and it won't be the end of the world if the state doesn't enforce the law later rather than sooner, we should have a preliminary injunction prevent CCIA from being enforced until the Court makes its decision. The hearings for that begin on October 25.
STEP 1 [WHERE WE ARE NOW]
Since we have and will continue to suffer "irreparable harm" by losing our constitutional rights as of 9/1, and it will take WEEKS or more for the district court to rule in our favor (which is very likely), and we are likely to succeed anyway, and it won't be the end of the world if the state doesn't enforce the law later rather than sooner, we should have a temporary restraining order to prevent CCIA from being enforced until the Court decides whether to grant a preliminary injunction. (Again for which the hearings begin on October 25). Judge Suddaby gave us that 10/6, to go into effect today. The state appealed on 10/10, "our side" opposed on 10/11, the state replied to that opposition this afternoon 10/13.
The Circuit Court's granted an "interim stay" to delay the TRO from 10/13 until their three judge motions panel, which will probably be selected tomorrow or Monday the latest, can decide whether to continue Judge Suddaby's TRO for ten days/until October 25ish.
I didn't read their 95 page motion and I didn't want to pay .10 a page in my account for that which I wouldn't do, but it might be the goofiest thing in the world to read. Federal district courts have jurisdiction of constitutional questions. End of story.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?
Thanks. I had not read them until I saw your posting of them in the other thread, which I just replied to regarding the part you were misreading.PP, check out the new NYPD proposed pistol/rifle license regulations to be published.
nypd-proposed-firearm-rule-2022-10-14.pdf (nyc.gov)
I myself and others have wondered if they were going to issue "Special Carry" to non-residents and the answer is "no". ONLY if you have "proper cause". They didn't even hide the term. They expect an applicant to have a compelling need to carry a gun in NYC. Read §5.03. Other than a non-resident "Special Carry" issued to those with "proper cause", or business owner that could be the target for crime, it appears that NYC residents and non-residents will not be approved for Full Carry licenses in NYC. There isn't even a consideration for NYC residents that don't have a business in the City or some threat to them that would satisfy their "proper cause" requirements.
I would seem that NYPD and NYS plan on simply ignoring Bruen.
I recently had an exchange with boosti in this or another thread about this very issue. I had been planning to submit my application to NYC right after Bruen, but I didn't because I wasn't sure that, even with Bruen, it would not offer any assistance to us who are not NYC residents or otherwise employed there. My concerns were codified in the emergency powers and remain in the permanent changes, to wit:
"§ 5-03 Carry and Special Handgun Licenses. In addition to the requirements in §5-02 and §5-05, an applicant seeking a carry or special handgun license or a renewal shall..."
§5-05 is new and about the application form under CCIA. The part referencing §5-02 is pre-existing and about premises licenses, which requires that an applicant for a premises license " (g) Reside or maintain a principal place of business within the confines of New York City;"
So, whether intentional or not (due to lazy non-updating of the rules like their typos in the changes), a person who has a Suffolk County carry license (Sportsman, Business, Full Carry, new CCIA one, whatever) will NOT in my reading be able to get a Special Carry License endorsement from NYPD unless they "Reside or maintain a principal place of business within the confines of New York City;"
My email to the NYPD licensing division email listed on their website was blocked (possibly due to my security measures on my laptop which could look like spammer or hacker) AND my phone message to the phone number listed on that website has not be returned yet. However, based on the answering machine message, it is not the right number in the first place.
I will follow-up, but not too aggressively until we have a permanent injunction with regard to the sensitive and restricted places from the federal case. I am willing to gamble $340 plus fingerprint fees to see whether I am issued a license or not, but am not going to blow that money on a license I (or someone else) definitely will get but cannot use anywhere in NYC without risking a Class E felony. Because if you are willing to do the latter, you might not want to bother applying in the first place.
Yes, you are correct on both fronts, and I suspect, like you do, it was mostly a houskeeping issue.Crazy as this sounds, if they deny issuing Full Carry licenses to non-NYC residents, it would seem that they would be declaring an entire geographical area (all of NYC) off limits to anyone but NYC residents or business owners.
Honestly, I think it's a housekeeping issue in their writing of these regulations by adding any requirements per the Premise Lic sections of the Law. The "Special Carry" or whatever it is called, was specifically designed for someone licensed outside the City. They won't even issue a Special Carry unless you have a license issued from a County. We'll see and thank you for the information.
For the first part, yes, it does sound crazy, and it is. It was also how things worked prior to Bruen. I looked into this in 2007 and a Special License applicant still needed some kind of tie and reason to carry in NYC. A possible exception I speculated about, but never confirmed, was for Private Investigators or Armed Guards. In other words, if I am protecting or investigating someone in "The Hamptons" and track or escort the in NYC, is that grounds for applying or must I still have a security or PI business in the five boroughs. It always seemed like it was still required, but my impression was for those licenses it was easy to present a "passable" application with additional legwork or cost.
That being said, yes, the idea was to keep the City off limits to those without given some kind of okay from 1 PP. Generally the Section 400 of the Penal Law requires you to apply in your county of residence or where you are principally employed (and I think that's where the (g) language comes with the Premises License and therefore even more likely to be houskeeping, at least in origin, but is probably nevertheless still required because they have alwasy done it tthat way.
In this respect, there is nothing in the Penal Law that says it HAS to be done only this way for special carry licenses and nothing in the Bruen ruling that says it CAN'T be.
Agreed. Fingers still crossed.I skimmed them and, from my perspective, they're grasping at straws, citing overturned and/or irrelevant cases/laws. Their hope is that, if they throw enough fecal matter against the wall, something will stick. They're desperate, they know that they're on the loosing side and want to drag this out, as long as they think they can. NJ is trying the similar tactics and has proposed legislation almost identical to the CCIA.
I'm looking forward to reading Kathy Hochul's testimony, while she's on the witness stand.
Gary
I just check the court a few mins ago. Still nothing from 2nd circuit.
This is exactly what it is. I'm not worried. It is too specific to be anything other than that.It can also be looked at that Suddaby is throwing the plaintiffs a line advising them to button things up. I think he is dotting the i's and crossing the t's because he knows that NYS will appeal to the 2nd Circuit and doesn't want to leave any wiggle room.
As to your other point, yes, you do "have to specifically name each place on the laundry list where you intend to carry." Each of those prohibited sensitive and restricted locations are spelled out in the law. There is something called "severability" that is spelled out in most legislation. If one part is struck down, other parts can stand. The whole law is not voided. Additionally, restrictions on where you can carry a gun CAN be constitutional, such as in legislative chambers and courts so they need to challenge everything.
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
Top Contributors this Month
View All
Phoenix69
74 Replies
boosti
41 Replies
Peconic Paladin
35 Replies
Recommended Communities
