[Phoenix69]

This thread has the potential to have the most posts in LI Firearms history!

 

[sig45]

Private property as of now has an injunction statewide. The state has appealed to the Second Circuit. I am sure we will hear the news soon.

i dont think there gonna get this one

 

[Krh1326]

Got my full “carry” today. SCPD PLB is pushing faulty info. They handed me a paper, which lists the sensitive areas and such.
Church was still on the list, and so was private properties without consent, and they went out of their way to actually say to me that Suddaby’s injunctions had been stayed, so original CCIA is in full effect.
Before my common sense kicked in, I blurted out ‘ what about Sinatra’s ruling?’ That hit a nerve, and I clammed up. She then glossed over it, and she said do your best to keep with current info.
They did seem to throw some advice, as things change rapidly… if in ANY doubt, revert to the Sportsmen’s rules, and remove oneself from the questionable situation.
Any interaction that goes that way, and back to PLB, is going to be viewed as “good faith”.
For what THATS worth, lol.

 

[Sureshot]

Got my full “carry” today. SCPD PLB is pushing faulty info. They handed me a paper, which lists the sensitive areas and such.
Church was still on the list, and so was private properties without consent, and they went out of their way to actually say to me that Suddaby’s injunctions had been stayed, so original CCIA is in full effect.
Before my common sense kicked in, I blurted out ‘ what about Sinatra’s ruling?’ That hit a nerve, and I clammed up. She then glossed over it, and she said do your best to keep with current info.
They did seem to throw some advice, as things change rapidly… if in ANY doubt, revert to the Sportsmen’s rules, and remove oneself from the questionable situation.
Any interaction that goes that way, and back to PLB, is going to be viewed as “good faith”.
For what THATS worth, lol.

Congratulations!

 

[2edgesword]

Got my full “carry” today. SCPD PLB is pushing faulty info. They handed me a paper, which lists the sensitive areas and such.
Church was still on the list, and so was private properties without consent, and they went out of their way to actually say to me that Suddaby’s injunctions had been stayed, so original CCIA is in full effect.
Before my common sense kicked in, I blurted out ‘ what about Sinatra’s ruling?’ That hit a nerve, and I clammed up. She then glossed over it, and she said do your best to keep with current info.
They did seem to throw some advice, as things change rapidly… if in ANY doubt, revert to the Sportsmen’s rules, and remove oneself from the questionable situation.
Any interaction that goes that way, and back to PLB, is going to be viewed as “good faith”.
For what THATS worth, lol.

Congrats on the full carry. We're not the ones confused. They are about the Bruen and the Sinatra rules.

 

[JAMerolle]

Got my full “carry” today. SCPD PLB is pushing faulty info. They handed me a paper, which lists the sensitive areas and such.
Church was still on the list, and so was private properties without consent, and they went out of their way to actually say to me that Suddaby’s injunctions had been stayed, so original CCIA is in full effect.
Before my common sense kicked in, I blurted out ‘ what about Sinatra’s ruling?’ That hit a nerve, and I clammed up. She then glossed over it, and she said do your best to keep with current info.
They did seem to throw some advice, as things change rapidly… if in ANY doubt, revert to the Sportsmen’s rules, and remove oneself from the questionable situation.
Any interaction that goes that way, and back to PLB, is going to be viewed as “good faith”.
For what THATS worth, lol.

That blurt out, just might have forced them to look deeper. Congratulations! Stay Safe.

 

[sig45]

Got my full “carry” today. SCPD PLB is pushing faulty info. They handed me a paper, which lists the sensitive areas and such.
Church was still on the list, and so was private properties without consent, and they went out of their way to actually say to me that Suddaby’s injunctions had been stayed, so original CCIA is in full effect.
Before my common sense kicked in, I blurted out ‘ what about Sinatra’s ruling?’ That hit a nerve, and I clammed up. She then glossed over it, and she said do your best to keep with current info.
They did seem to throw some advice, as things change rapidly… if in ANY doubt, revert to the Sportsmen’s rules, and remove oneself from the questionable situation.
Any interaction that goes that way, and back to PLB, is going to be viewed as “good faith”.
For what THATS worth, lol.

sweeet man enjoy it be safe dont over think it just carry were u need to you will be fine

 

[JAMerolle]

Delete the wrong thread.

 

[Peconic Paladin]

Congratulations and thanks for the intel.

 

[Gary_Hungerford]

No appeal granted, as of 8am, today. I'll check, at least once, every day.
Gary

 

[boosti]

No appeal granted, as of 8am, today. I'll check, at least once, every day.
Gary

Thanks Gary, I haven’t seen anything on YouTube or any internet stories of a second stay for carrying in private property/businesses.

 

[sparks25]

No appeal granted, as of 8am, today. I'll check, at least once, every day.
Gary

Gary
Thanks for keeping us informed by translating the legalese into English.

 

[Gary_Hungerford]

Just checked, again. Still no stay of Judge Sinatra's injunction, as of 11:25am.
Gary

 

[Gary_Hungerford]

Gary
Thanks for keeping us informed by translating the legalese into English.

Thanks but it's not just me. There are several of us, doing the same things and trying to keep everyone up to date.
Gary

 

[Sureshot]

Just checked, again. Still no stay of Judge Sinatra's injunction, as of 11:25am.
Gary

What grounds could a stay be granted? There are criteria for which the state doesn't meet. Sinatra pretty clearly laid that out too.. The 2nd would have to be incredibly creative and would still be too transparent to justify

 

[Michael Cohen]

What grounds could a stay be granted? There are criteria for which the state doesn't meet. Sinatra pretty clearly laid that out too.. The 2nd would have to be incredibly creative and would still be too transparent to justify

Same 'criteria' as they used for staying the Antonyuk/Suddaby injunction. There really are no difficult criteria for a 'temporary stay pending consideration'. They are basically just letting a law (however unconstitutional you and I may know it to be) to stand until properly challenged in the court system.

 

[Sureshot]

Same 'criteria' as they used for staying the Antonyuk/Suddaby injunction. There really are no difficult criteria for a 'temporary stay pending consideration'. They are basically just letting a law (however unconstitutional you and I may know it to be) to stand until properly challenged in the court system.

I thought and guess I'm wrong but it meant there was probability of being overturned. Judge Sinatra clearly highlighted the state has zero case

 

[Krh1326]

Something happened in another case Jon Corbett?
VS Hochul?
I’m still out on water, can’t get steady phone signal

 

[Michael Cohen]

I thought and guess I'm wrong but it meant there was probability of being overturned. Judge Sinatra clearly highlighted the state has zero case

I think for a temporary stay (which is just until they consider the case on its merits) they are allowed to take other considerations into account. Such as:
-- “[w]hen a statute is enjoined, the State necessarily suffers the irreparable harm of denying the public interest in the enforcement of its laws,” Veasey, 870 F.3d at 391. This means that since CCIA is the law (whether we like it or not), an injunction against is considered "bad" (even though we know the constitution is being trampled on).
or
-- “when the State is the appealing party, its interest and harm merge with that of the public,” Veasey, 870 F.3d at 391

So just as with Antonyuk, there is a chance that oher cas(s) with injunctions can be stayed temporarily. The big test will come when the appeals court hears the actual case on its merits. If they rule for the state then, well we know that's totally political/ideology, nothing to do with the constitution and SCOTUS rulings.

 

[Michael Cohen]

Something happened in another case Jon Corbett?
VS Hochul?
I’m still out on water, can’t get steady phone signal

Yes, today Judge Schofield denied a motion for injunction in Corbett v Hochul. I will try to post more details soon.