Long Island Shooters Forum banner
601 - 620 of 987 Posts

· SASI Firearms Chairman, LISAPA Training Committee
Joined
·
7,350 Posts
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.
Yes, legal gamesmanship is BS. We agree on that. They are not being vague, in what they say. They are saying exactly what they mean to say. They're using the legal system's quirks, as insiders, who know how to do that. When they stay something they don't like, pending "review," they have no intention of providing that review and there is no legal time limit, in which they have to do same. It's a legal "shell game."

Unfortunately, there will always be people, who will abuse the system, to further their personal or political agendas and others, who will abuse the system, because they are of the opinion that "I know better than the one who said ........." Courts, in all parts of the world, other than "show" type trials, move slowly and with deliberation, to reach the final point. The antis know they are holding a loosing hand and that, in the end, they will loose but are doing any and every thing they can, to stall that moment and hold onto the power, which the status quo provides.
Gary
 

· Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
Yes, legal gamesmanship is BS. We agree on that. They are not being vague, in what they say. They are saying exactly what they mean to say. They're using the legal system's quirks, as insiders, who know how to do that. When they stay something they don't like, pending "review," they have no intention of providing that review and there is no legal time limit, in which they have to do same. It's a legal "shell game."

Unfortunately, there will always be people, who will abuse the system, to further their personal or political agendas and others, who will abuse the system, because they are of the opinion that "I know better than the one who said ........." Courts, in all parts of the world, other than "show" type trials, move slowly and with deliberation, to reach the final point. The antis know they are holding a loosing hand and that, in the end, they will loose but are doing any and every thing they can, to stall that moment and hold onto the power, which the status quo provides.
Gary
Gary, always appreciate your knowledge and insight. Knowing the avenues they can exhaust to delay and knowing they will certainly use them, what is the worst case scenario, time wise? 6 months, 2 years? And what would that entail? Again, you knowing the game, how far can they drag this out?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,609 Posts
Gary, always appreciate your knowledge and insight. Knowing the avenues they can exhaust to delay and knowing they will certainly use them, what is the worst case scenario, time wise? 6 months, 2 years? And what would that entail? Again, you knowing the game, how far can they drag this out?
The appeal of the prelim injunction? A couple of months.

The trial at Suddaby's level? Maybe a year or so.

It's legal BS, but it's not specific gun legal BS. Courts are like this regardless of the subject.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
412 Posts
Yes, legal gamesmanship is BS. We agree on that. They are not being vague, in what they say. They are saying exactly what they mean to say. They're using the legal system's quirks, as insiders, who know how to do that. When they stay something they don't like, pending "review," they have no intention of providing that review and there is no legal time limit, in which they have to do same. It's a legal "shell game."

Unfortunately, there will always be people, who will abuse the system, to further their personal or political agendas and others, who will abuse the system, because they are of the opinion that "I know better than the one who said ........." Courts, in all parts of the world, other than "show" type trials, move slowly and with deliberation, to reach the final point. The antis know they are holding a loosing hand and that, in the end, they will loose but are doing any and every thing they can, to stall that moment and hold onto the power, which the status quo provides.
Gary
I cannot imagine, law enforcement will enforce/support these delay tactics in red long Island. In light of multiple courts recogizing its unconstitutionality. Who are they going to find to enforce this garbage? I cannot see any arrest being made if your not a jackass.
 

· Aim High
Joined
·
975 Posts
Any ideas as to what the outcome would be if a CC permit holder in Suffolk got arrested for getting gas and going to the bathroom? What would happen if an attorney took the case pro bono and sued for monetary damages?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
I cannot imagine, law enforcement will enforce/support these delay tactics in red long Island. In light of multiple courts recogizing its unconstitutionality. Who are they going to find to enforce this garbage? I cannot see any arrest being made if your not a jackass.
Honestly can't see any charges being brought upon anyone. Too much liability. More likely they will throw the book, very publicly, at anyone who should use their weapon.. That will be their deterrent to carry.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,165 Posts
I cannot imagine, law enforcement will enforce/support these delay tactics in red long Island. In light of multiple courts recogizing its unconstitutionality. Who are they going to find to enforce this garbage? I cannot see any arrest being made if your not a jackass.
I agree completely. I would have no hesitation going to the range and stopping somewhere along the way as previous allowed. I’ve done it for 30+ years without incident or any interaction.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
101 Posts
Another case, specifically attacking the sensitive places of CCIA is Christian v. Nigrelli (1:22-cv-00695), in Western District (Sinatra), filed on Sep 13 (backed by Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., and Second Amendment Foundation ) requesting injunction relief and eventual declaratory judgement against 265.01-e(2)(d) (public parks), 265.01-e(2) n. (public transportation), and 265.01-d (default anti-carry rule - Private Property Open to the Public).
While it only attacks these 3 portions of CCIA, the claim is broad within those categories, e.g. all parks, all transportation. For example, unlike in Antonyuk, this case does not distinguish between forms of transportation (e.g. buses versus trains). It notes “The State does not attempt to identify [in its motion to dismiss] firearm restrictions on analogous modes of public transportation available at the Founding, such as stagecoaches and ferries. This is telling because arms were carried on both forms of transportation. ”

The plaintiffs just filed their reply (attached here, along with original claim) to States motion to Dismiss.

Time to get the popcorn out again… although I assume the 2nd circuit Court of Appeals will do its usual. Maybe more cases make it more likely to receive cert. from SCOTUS?
 

Attachments

601 - 620 of 987 Posts
Top