i mean i saw that common to early for them
Court Cases Against New York’s CCIA
941 - 960 of 987 Posts
Joined
·
7,350 Posts
The 2nd Circuit Court has announced a date, to start the trials. It's March 2nd.
Gary
Gary
Joined
·
299 Posts
Did they move it up? I thought they already announced 3/20 as the date.
Joined
·
7,350 Posts
Yes, I can't type worth a damn. It's 3/20, not 3/2.
Gary
Joined
·
2,609 Posts
What's this video about?
Joined
·
299 Posts
Gazzola resubmitted their immediate emergency application with SCOTUS.
Joined
·
12,439 Posts
The SCOTUS, is kicking them all to lower courts as per the recent Bruen decision. It might take a few more years before the SCOTUS will hear another pro 2A case.
Joined
·
7,350 Posts
This is the case about how dealers are being negatively affected by CCIA. This is another interlocutory request, which SCOTUS properly declined, so that the lower courts can process it, in accordance with the Bruen decision. It's discussed in another thread.
Gary
Joined
·
2,609 Posts
Thanks to you both....replying to your comment because I noticed today that NYS finally put up some FAQs regarding dealers and the new laws that went into effect on 12/3/22.
Joined
·
101 Posts
The State’s brief to 2nd circuit for the Christian vs. Nigrelli/Hochul sensitive locations case is in. Still blowing smoke about standing. Still insisting that consent is needed for carrying on private property. This brief probably is a preview of how their Antonyuk case will look like as well, as it makes many references to the “mistakes“ in the Antonyuk case.
Joined
·
2,609 Posts
I didn't watch the video, but Antontyuk challenges the training requirement. However, the Second Circuit is considering resinstating the Preliminary Injunction of Suddaby in that case, which does NOT affect training at this time.
Joined
·
39 Posts
The law only prevents group type of citizens from entering private property. Why then would retired law enforcement, police and security, armored car drivers get a pass. Currently, the law only prevents one group, while retired police are also a subgroup of private citizens, but get a pass. The law discriminates against one group of citizens. I am stating a fact and not recommending that retired law enforcement be added to the banned group.They are making decsions on who can enter private property without consulting the owner. The law needs to get thrown out!
Joined
·
7,350 Posts
It's the date set to start the trials for ALL 5 of the anti-CCIA lawsuits. It's going to be an interesting day.
Gary
Joined
·
39 Posts
I actually stand corrected. I reread the law, and retired police are not even allowed in restricted areas, only sensitive areas. They are not protected under the Federal 218 law "LEOSA" for restricted areas. I would like to see if they arrest a retired cop getting gas, or going to the bathroom.
They exempted retired police officers from the restricted locations as well. But strangely, not HR218 as they did for sensitive locations. See below
§ 265.01-D CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON IN A RESTRICTED LOCATION.
1. A PERSON IS GUILTY OF CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON IN A
RESTRICTED LOCATION WHEN SUCH PERSON POSSESSES A FIREARM, RIFLE, OR
SHOTGUN AND ENTERS INTO OR REMAINS ON OR IN PRIVATE PROPERTY WHERE SUCH
PERSON KNOWS OR REASONABLY SHOULD KNOW THAT THE OWNER OR LESSEE OF SUCH
PROPERTY HAS NOT PERMITTED SUCH POSSESSION BY CLEAR AND CONSPICUOUS
SIGNAGE INDICATING THAT THE CARRYING OF FIREARMS, RIFLES, OR SHOTGUNS ON
THEIR PROPERTY IS PERMITTED OR HAS OTHERWISE GIVEN EXPRESS CONSENT.
2. THIS SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY TO:
(A) POLICE OFFICERS AS DEFINED IN SECTION 1.20 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCE-
DURE LAW;
(B) PERSONS WHO ARE DESIGNATED PEACE OFFICERS AS DEFINED IN SECTION
2.10 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW;
(C) PERSONS WHO WERE EMPLOYED AS POLICE OFFICERS AS DEFINED IN SECTION
1.20 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW, BUT ARE RETIRED;
(D) SECURITY GUARDS AS DEFINED BY AND REGISTERED UNDER ARTICLE SEVEN-A
OF THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW WHO HAS BEEN GRANTED A SPECIAL ARMED REGIS-
TRATION CARD, WHILE AT THE LOCATION OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT AND DURING THEIR
WORK HOURS AS SUCH A SECURITY GUARD;
(E) ACTIVE-DUTY MILITARY PERSONNEL;
(F) PERSONS LICENSED UNDER PARAGRAPH (C), (D) OR (E) OF SUBDIVISION
TWO OF SECTION 400.00 OF THIS CHAPTER WHILE IN THE COURSE OF HIS OR HER
OFFICIAL DUTIES; OR
(G) PERSONS LAWFULLY ENGAGED IN HUNTING ACTIVITY.
Gary, just to confirm Judge Sinatra and Suddaby are not moving forward to litigate what they placed under injunction? I am not understanding why the second circuit assumes these cases without a final decision from the lower courts. The Second Circuit is just going to pull the no-standing card and punt the ball for another 8 month delay. Can you clarify the path forward?
941 - 960 of 987 Posts
