Long Island Shooters Forum banner
681 - 700 of 996 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
209 Posts
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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
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!
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,425 Posts
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Krh1326

· Registered
Joined
·
412 Posts
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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
280 Posts
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
 

· Registered
Joined
·
103 Posts
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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
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
 

· Registered
Joined
·
103 Posts
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.
 
681 - 700 of 996 Posts
Top