Long Island Shooters Forum banner
621 - 640 of 720 Posts

·
SASI Firearms Chairman, LISAPA Training Committee
Joined
·
7,236 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?
I agree, with Peconic Paladin, on this one. There is no set date.
Gary
 

·
SASI Firearms Chairman, LISAPA Training Committee
Joined
·
7,236 Posts
That's for criminal defendants. "We" are the plaintiffs in a civil constitutional suit.
Agreed, unfortunately. Those accused of a crime are guaranteed a speedy trial, not plaintiffs, in a civil action. The courts do move, slowly and deliberately, in all civil matters.
Gary
 

·
SASI Firearms Chairman, LISAPA Training Committee
Joined
·
7,236 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?

It's nice to see multiple suits on this subject but, unless I've missed something subtle, I don't see any new territory here, nothing already being covered by Antonyuk #2 or which will be discussed/decided in that trial.
Gary
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
85 Posts
It's nice to see multiple suits on this subject but, unless I've missed something subtle, I don't see any new territory here, nothing already being covered by Antonyuk #2 or which will be discussed/decided in that trial.
Gary
I agree pretty much the same (really a subset as far as parts of the CCIA challenged) although for me as a NYC res, the expanded potential 'standing' about all sorts of transportation besides buses/airports are of interest to me.
But the bigger question in my mind, which perhaps you have some perspective on, is that given the overall similarity, why are multiple such suits brought? in other words, although we may feel there is 'new territory here', what is the angle of the lawyers? For example, is there significance or benefit to it happening to be in a different court district? Is it advantageous when contemplating a liberal 2nd circuit appeal, to have a narrower claim (locations only) that is more likely to be acceptable to them, and so on. Or as I posited, maybe more cases make it more likely to receive cert. from SCOTUS?
 

·
SASI Firearms Chairman, LISAPA Training Committee
Joined
·
7,236 Posts
I suspect that it's just a matter of more bites, from differing directions, in case one suit's decision misses something. I really can't think of any of other reasons(s) for what appears to be overlapping territory. The number of suits, in this instance should not be relevant to SCOTUS, as the Bruen decision has, already laid out the parameters (strict scrutiny) for any decision to be valid and any decision contray to that which was already laid out, in Bruen, will have SCOTUS involvement.
Gary
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
222 Posts
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
287 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
380 Posts
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.
The stay was flat-out denied as mentioned here
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,451 Posts
So I'm guessing the next expectation would be a motion from NY for a stay?
Mostly likely. As JAM... pointed out, it was denied by the district court, as it also was in Antonyuk. So, the State could move to appeal this prelim inj like they did in that case, while at the same time asking the 2nd circuit to stay it while they decide.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
85 Posts
BTW the new 11/22 Sinatra injunction is only with regards to "265.01-d with respect to private property open to the public", not any of the other portions of the law or other 'sensitive places'. He noted "The portions of Plaintiffs' motion addressing public parks and public transportation will be addressed in a subsequent decision."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
380 Posts
Mostly likely. As JAM... pointed out, it was denied by the district court, as it also was in Antonyuk. So, the State could move to appeal this prelim inj like they did in that case, while at the same time asking the 2nd circuit to stay it while they decide.
Right, but there is a difference between Suddaby and Sinatra, Suddaby granted a 3-day pause which gave the state time to appeal to the 2nd circuit of appeals thus stripping rights in the interim of trial. In this case, no window of time was given to the state to respond with unconstitutional delays.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
380 Posts
BTW the new 11/22 Sinatra injunction is only with regards to "265.01-d with respect to private property open to the public", not any of the other portions of the law or other 'sensitive places'. He noted "The portions of Plaintiffs' motion addressing public parks and public transportation will be addressed in a subsequent decision."
Correct me if I am wrong, but all private businesses and restaurants are quantified as private property and we are not limited to private real estate. Thus making this a huge step forward. I could be wrong, this needs clarity, so do not move forward until legally clarified.
 
621 - 640 of 720 Posts
Top