Long Island Shooters Forum banner
Cancel

Court Cases Against New York’s CCIA

95901 Views 1135 Replies 56 Participants Last post by  Gary_Hungerford, 
NYC_Under_Dictatorship
Reply
Save
Like
  • Like
Reactions: 5
1 - 20 of 1136 Posts
M
Here are some recent filing related to the case:

Antonyuk v. Hochul (N.D. NY, Bruen response bill): RESPONSE in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Don Hilton, Gregory Oakes. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nynd.134829/gov.uscourts.nynd.134829.17.0.pdf

Antonyuk v. Hochul (N.D. NY, Bruen response bill): LETTER BRIEF In Opposition To Motion For A Temporary Restraining Order by Kevin P. Bruen, Judge Matthew J. Doran, Kathleen Hochul. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nynd.134829/gov.uscourts.nynd.134829.18.0.pdf

GOA Response:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nywd.142551/gov.uscourts.nywd.142551.19.1.pdf
Reply
Save
Like
  • Like
Reactions: 1
M
Saw this posted at about 5 PM on YouTube
Font Parallel Number Screenshot Rectangle
See less See more
Reply
Save
Like
  • Like
Reactions: 1
M
NYS relying on racial laws for "text/history/tradition" justifying restriction of arms! - Filed 10/21/22 - Corbett v. Hochul (S.D. NY, Bruen response ): State defendants' opposition to motion for preliminary injunction - "From the early days of English settlement in America, the colonies sought to prevent Native American tribes from acquiring firearms..."
"And even after the English Bill of Rights established a right of the people to arm themselves, the right was only given to Protestants, based on a continued belief that Catholics were likely to engage in conduct that would upset the peace. "

Loading…

storage.courtlistener.com
Reply
Save
Like
M
Peconic Paladin said:
100%

Like I replied on another post, I'm not convinced Bruen makes constituional carry smooth sailing, but it might do that for reciprocity. In other words, even if SCOTUS upholds licensing as legitimate for a narrow set of reasons, making a person get a license from every single state would be "exorbitant."
Click to expand...
…Which will result in our legislature passing the RRRR – the Restricted Reciprocity Reduction Regulation - one can only imagine what it could require!
Reply
Save
Like
  • Like
Reactions: 1
M
Attorney for GOA/ANTONYUK sent clarification letter to Judge Suddaby about carry in restaurants


Case 1:22-cv-00986-GTS-CFH Document 71 Filed 10/26/22 Page 1 of 2
Stamboulieh Law, PLLC
P.O. Box 428, Olive Branch, MS 38654 | (601) 852-3440 | [email protected]

October 26, 2022
Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby via ECF
United States District Court
Northern District of New York
Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse
P.O. Box 7367
Syracuse, NY 13261-7367

Re: Antonyuk, et al. v. Hochul, et al., No. 1:22-CV-986 (N.D.N.Y) (GTS/CFH)
Dear Judge Suddaby:
Please accept this letter as clarifying a restriction in the Concealed Carry
Improvement Act that I believe the Court may have misunderstood me as conceding
yesterday.1 During yesterday’s hearing, during Plaintiffs’ opening argument, I had
attempted to make a distinction for Plaintiffs’ challenge to subsection (o), restaurant
carry. While I do not have a transcript available, my intention was to make clear that,
although asking the Court to strike subsection (o), we were not asking the Court to
“approve” carrying while intoxicated. However, this was not meant as a statement
that Plaintiffs concede carrying a firearm in a restaurant that also serves alcohol is
constitutional, or that the Plaintiffs were abandoning that challenge.
Plaintiffs Terrille and Johnson announced their intent to carry in “restaurants
that serve alcohol” in their Complaint (ECF 1 at ¶154, 176) and in their Declarations,
Exhibit “2” at ¶¶11 and Exhibit “9” at ¶19. Plaintiffs likewise summarized the
“intent” to carry in “restaurants that serve alcohol (subsection o).” Memorandum in
Support of TRO/PI (ECF 6-1 at 3.) Finally, Plaintiffs addressed with specificity
“Places that Serve Alcohol” in their Reply Brief (ECF 69 at 35) (stating that “[n]o



1
I base my conclusion that there may have been a misunderstanding speaking with
other counsel after the hearing, who referenced the Court’s comments to the State’s
Attorney, Mr. Thompson, when he began to address subsection (o), to the effect of
“they are not challenging that, you can move on” or words similar to that effect.
1
Case 1:22-cv-00986-GTS-CFH Document 71 Filed 10/26/22 Page 2 of 2

Plaintiff asks this Court to authorize drunk carry, nor is that what the CCIA
targets...”).
Plaintiffs have not challenged places for cannabis consumption contained in
subsection (o), but are challenging the ban on carrying in a restaurant that also
happens to serve alcohol.
We thank the Court in advance for its consideration and I apologize for any
confusion I may have caused.
Yours very truly,



Stephen D. Stamboulieh

cc: By ECF to all counsel of record.
See less See more
Reply
Save
Like
  • Like
Reactions: 2
M
New motion filed by Anonyuk/etc in Opposition re 46 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Attachments

Reply
Save
Like
M
2edgesword said:
I'm not a lawyer so don't know all the nuisances that might be involved but if a law is passed saying XYZ is illegal, I admit I'm going to do XYZ, how is it a stretch to assume I'll be arrested for doing XYZ? Why would standing require officer X telling me directly that I face arrest for doing XYZ in order to have standing?
Click to expand...
Absolutely! Except in Hochul's weasel-world! So frustrating, just hope the Judge sees through the nonsense. Sadly, there are definitely (other) judges that would nod their heads and be glad that the lawyers gave him/her an opening to rule based on their ivy-league-school-engendered anti-gun agenda.
Reply
Save
Like
M
New lawsuit against CCIA and other recent laws naming /Hochul/Letitia etc. filed 11/1 by FFLs/smiths/gun store owners. Includes ammo background checks. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nynd.135514/gov.uscourts.nynd.135514.1.0.pdf

The filing is a great read as it incorporates many of the recent events such as the many counties who are passing anti-CCA legislation, the various double down statements by Hochul and various pro 2A court rulings.
Reply
Save
Like
  • Like
Reactions: 5
M
Michael Cohen said:
New motion filed by Anonyuk/etc in Opposition re 46 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Click to expand...
... and another more detailed response attached here to the motionToDismiss, with some pointed wording such as "An application delayed is an application denied", and focusing more on the potential vs. actual arrest of someone constituting grounds for standing; descriptions of Hochul's contemp for settled law.

Attachments

Reply
Save
Like
  • Like
Reactions: 3
M
JAMerolle said:
Does anyone know what this win in Buffalo means for us on Long Island?

Click to expand...
Very significant for all of us in that it is a clear application of the new NYSRPA v. Bruen Scotus ruling regarding the use of ONLY text/traditions/history in judging compliance with the second amendment and all our other rights. This principle applied to CCIA in general will eventually result in almost all of its provisions being stricken down!
Reply
Save
Like
  • Like
Reactions: 1
M
Michael Cohen said:
Very significant for all of us in that it is a clear application of the new NYSRPA v. Bruen Scotus ruling regarding the use of ONLY text/traditions/history in judging compliance with the second amendment and all our other rights. This principle applied to CCIA in general will eventually result in almost all of its provisions being stricken down!
Click to expand...
Which isn’t to say that it will not be appealed and stricken down by the second District Court of Appeal. But the current Scotus would surely take the case and rule in accordance with its already stated principles.
The judge noted “legislative enactments may not eviscerate the Bill of Rights“. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nywd.142913/gov.uscourts.nywd.142913.52.0.pdf
Reply
Save
Like
  • Like
Reactions: 2
M
JAMerolle said:
Do you think Suddaby has been made aware of this case? Second, does this strike down church restrictions in all of NY or just in that region? It seems like Smith in this video eludes that it only applies to those in that region.
Click to expand...
(I'm not a lawyer so ...). I don't know answer to 1st question, but I do know that lawyers often bring such rulings to the attention of judge in their case, and this has already happened with some of the various positive rulings elsewhere being memo'ed to Suddaby.
Re the question of the rulings scope, I don't know how this works formally, but I recall the 7-round limit was struck down by a district court but that ruling was effectively followed by the whole state. Also, the judge states - page 39: "A preliminary injunction would serve the public interest of fostering self-defense at places of worship across the state"
Reply
Save
Like
  • Like
Reactions: 2
M
Michael Cohen said:
(I'm not a lawyer so ...). I don't know answer to 1st question, but I do know that lawyers often bring such rulings to the attention of judge in their case, and this has already happened with some of the various positive rulings elsewhere being memo'ed to Suddaby.
Re the question of the rulings scope, I don't know how this works formally, but I recall the 7-round limit was struck down by a district court but that ruling was effectively followed by the whole state. Also, the judge states - page 39: "A preliminary injunction would serve the public interest of fostering self-defense at places of worship across the state"
Click to expand...
Hi @JAMerolle More research indicates it has "Persuasive Authority" to other district courts (and I guess that worked for the 7-round limit, such that NYS didnt appeal that, and has followed it), but not "Binding Authority". Which sounds to this layman like a cop could still arrest us and we would have a legal fight on our hands.
But its still still a great step in getting us to where we want to be.
Reply
Save
Like
  • Like
Reactions: 2
M
2
Michael Cohen said:
(I'm not a lawyer so ...). I don't know answer to 1st question, but I do know that lawyers often bring such rulings to the attention of judge in their case, and this has already happened with some of the various positive rulings elsewhere being memo'ed to Suddaby.
Re the question of the rulings scope, I don't know how this works formally, but I recall the 7-round limit was struck down by a district court but that ruling was effectively followed by the whole state. Also, the judge states - page 39: "A preliminary injunction would serve the public interest of fostering self-defense at places of worship across the state"
Click to expand...
Hi @JAMerolle In further answer to your question as to whether judges like Judge Suddaby know about or are influenced by other rulings, here is a letter from the Antonyuk attorney informing judge Suddaby of Judge Sinatra’s recent ruling/injunction regarding places of worship.
Font Parallel Screenshot Document Number

Font Signature Parallel Handwriting Electric blue
See less See more
Reply
Save
Like
  • Like
Reactions: 4
M
Ruling is made, partially favorable.

Attachments

Reply
Save
Like
  • Like
Reactions: 3
M
sparks25 said:
Tried to read several sections of the file and all I got out of it was a headache.
I cannot understand how a law or group of laws can be in violation of the constitution but can only be negated if someone actually incriminates them selves by admitting, under oath, that they have or soon will violate said unconstitutional law, thus admitting to committing or intending to commit a felony.
Can the E felony part be removed as carrying a gun in 1791 and later was never a felony. No analog.
Is there a Reader’s Digest version or some Cliff Notes?
Click to expand...
For the Cliff Notes start reading on page 181 section F Scope and Stay. Bottom line is is social media is out, most restrictive places are out, intrusive things like family information and “additional information… are out!
Reply
Save
Like
M
Hi @JAMerolle regarding your question about the different districts, I’m not sure how this will really play out but Judge Suddeby was asked by the defendants to make the ruling be “either limited in scope to Plaintiffs or the Northern District of New York”. And he denied both. That’s sort of implies that it’s not limited to the ND. Assuming he has that power.
Reply
Save
Like
M
sparks25 said:
Got it. I think I gave up at about page 150. Much clearer.
I could not tell if there was anything about all the general “all” private businesses unless that was the “restricted locations” in section 5?
Thanks
Click to expand...
Yes that the section 5 thing. So we can carry in businesses unless marked no-carry; and can carry in many places like public buses, parks, places of worship, theaters, restaurants even if liquor is served at bar (but not at the bar?) places of gathering for 'expressing ourselves". The places still restricted are generally government and quasi government locations and places that are already partially restricted to the public (schools, mental health facilities ...)
Reply
Save
Like
  • Like
Reactions: 2
M
sparks25 said:
I thought the subway and railroad parts would have gone too as public spaces.
It could be argued that that only allows “rich” people to carry when they drive to work and the mere “peasants” on public transportation don’t deserve the civil right to protect their lives.
Maybe the ACLU should take that one up next.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately (or maybe its good to prevent challenges upon Appeal) Suddaby ruled narrowly because the plaintiffs specifically said they travel on buses and airports (pp. 56 - 58) (and also because of something I don't understand about how 4.n was worded). So until some subway and train riders make a case with standing, its a narrow ruling.
Reply
Save
Like
  • Like
Reactions: 1
M
An analysis. https://thereload.com/latest-new-york-gun-carry-law-ruled-unconstitutional-too/
Reply
Save
Like
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
Explore Our Forums
Off Topic Lounge Chit-Chat Open Firearm Discussions Semi-Auto Handguns AR Rifles Jokes and more Jokes!
Top