Long Island Shooters Forum banner
961 - 980 of 987 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
266 Posts
Gary, just to confirm Judge Sininatra and Sudabie 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?
sorry to jump in but if they did do that it would be a huge mistake on there part and they would look incompetent. Scotus specifically said if the second circuit court dose not do its job send us back a relief order and we will take care of it. The second circuit has not choice but to do its job or with in a week it will be back at SCOTUS Dont forget what alio and thomas said about it 2 weeks ago the ccia presented serious and novel questions.
 

· Registered
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!
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.
I wonder why they wrote it differently for each section relating to retired law enforcement. Regardless, under the CCIA, the state says that retired police can enter private property and regular citizens cannot. They are private citizens once retired, then why the exemption. Even under LEOSA, the state can restrict were retired law officers are allowed to access. The old laws the state is trying to use to keep the restrictions on private property do not exempt retired law enforcement. The state cannot have it both ways. They cannot dictate who can and cannot go on private property. It is up to the land owners. Again, I have no issue with the law for retired police, but they are private citizens like the rest of use, so we should all be treated the same. Just throw out the law!
 

· Registered
Joined
·
284 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.


I wonder why they wrote it differently for each section relating to retired law enforcement. Regardless, under the CCIA, the state says that retired police can enter private property and regular citizens cannot. They are private citizens once retired, then why the exemption. Even under LEOSA, the state can restrict were retired law officers are allowed to access. The old laws the state is trying to use to keep the restrictions on private property do not exempt retired law enforcement. The state cannot have it both ways. They cannot dictate who can and cannot go on private property. It is up to the land owners. Again, I have no issue with the law for retired police, but they are private citizens like the rest of use, so we should all be treated the same. Just throw out the law!
I agree 100%
 

· Registered
Joined
·
412 Posts
sorry to jump in but if they did do that it would be a huge mistake on there part and they would look incompetent. Scotus specifically said if the second circuit court dose not do its job send us back a relief order and we will take care of it. The second circuit has not choice but to do its job or with in a week it will be back at SCOTUS Dont forget what alio and thomas said about it 2 weeks ago the ccia presented serious and novel questions.
The SCOTUS will accept the case on the incompetence of the Second Circuit, not the incompetence of the plaintives not securing standing. The only track of success and delay for NYS is to argue there is no standing. There is no other pathway forward for the NYS legal team. They tipped their hand:

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...v_Nigrelli_Brief_for_Appellant.pdf?1674517213
 

· Registered
Joined
·
266 Posts
The SCOTUS will accept the case on the incompetence of the Second Circuit, not the incompetence of the plaintives not securing standing. The only track of success and delay for NYS is to argue there is no standing. There is no other pathway forward for the NYS legal team. They tipped their hand:

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...v_Nigrelli_Brief_for_Appellant.pdf?1674517213
i agree and they do have standing the lower court wouldn't have written a decision if they didn't. Remember when this all started the lower court judge did denie the case because it was not in effect yet and was not effecting anyone. This is effecting the plaintiffs and thousands of new yorkers
 

· Registered
Joined
·
412 Posts
i agree and they do have standing the lower court wouldn't have written a decision if they didn't. Remember when this all started the lower court judge did denie the case because it was not in effect yet and was not effecting anyone. This is effecting the plaintiffs and thousands of new yorkers
Download the doc , click control F and search the word standing. On March 20th NYS will heavily contest none of these cases had legitimate standing and will seek to have the second court dismiss on those grounds. If you recall Suddaby gave GOA a heads-up concerning standing. The second court of appeals will do no such thing. This is all speculation therefore, some of the legal minds here I hope can clarify the validity of my thought process.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
Download the doc , click control F and search the word standing. On March 20th NYS will heavily contest none of these cases had legitimate standing and will seek to have the second court dismiss on those grounds. If you recall Suddaby gave GOA a heads-up concerning standing. The second court of appeals will do no such thing. This is all speculation therefore, some of the legal minds here I hope can clarify the validity of my thought process.
As a non attorney I would say very permit holder in the state has standing, since the law is doing irreparabale harm to our Second Amendmet rights. I am sure the ACLU would scream if the same logic for standing were applied to the First amendment!
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,412 Posts
Gary, just to confirm Judge Sininatra 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?
That was my thought. How can the appellate court hear something when district hasn't actually heard the case? We've been going through the injunctions.
 

· SASI Firearms Chairman, LISAPA Training Committee
Joined
·
7,350 Posts
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?


Joe:
An appeal was made, by NYS, to the 2nd Circuit Court, to stay the injunctions, which injunctions were issued by Judges Suddaby and Sinatra. The 2nd Circuit agreed to do that, without benefit of trial and without explanation. That's why an interlocutory request was made, directly to SCOTUS. requesting that SCOTUS intervene. SCOTUS correctly declined, ordering that the 2nd Circuit Court must first conduct a trial, to examine and explain its actions and, at the same time, be in compliance with the Bruen decision. SCOTUS said that the 2nd Circuit must, quickly, conduct trials, as respects all 5 of the anti-CCIA suits, then issue a decision, as respects each of them, also in compliance with the Bruen decision. SCOTUS further advised that, if the 2nd Circuit did not issue decisions, which were compliant with the Bruen decision, that SCOTUS would take up the cases, then correct the 2nd Circuit, which would embarrass the hell out of them.

So, on 3/20, all 5 cases will start to be heard. If the 2nd Circuit's decisions are in complete accord with the Bruen decision, there would be no grounds for an appeal, by NYS or us. If the 2nd Circuit tries some work-around, there will be appeals, directly to SCOTUS, which has, already made it very clear, what they will do. That's it, in a non-legalese nutshell.
Gary
 

· Registered
Joined
·
12,439 Posts
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?


Joe:
An appeal was made, by NYS, to the 2nd Circuit Court, to stay the injunctions, which injunctions were issued by Judges Suddaby and Sinatra. The 2nd Circuit agreed to do that, without benefit of trial and without explanation. That's why an interlocutory request was made, directly to SCOTUS. requesting that SCOTUS intervene. SCOTUS correctly declined, ordering that the 2nd Circuit Court must first conduct a trial, to examine and explain its actions and, at the same time, be in compliance with the Bruen decision. SCOTUS said that the 2nd Circuit must, quickly, conduct trials, as respects all 5 of the anti-CCIA suits, then issue a decision, as respects each of them, also in compliance with the Bruen decision. SCOTUS further advised that, if the 2nd Circuit did not issue decisions, which were compliant with the Bruen decision, that SCOTUS would take up the cases, then correct the 2nd Circuit, which would embarrass the hell out of them.

So, on 3/20, all 5 cases will start to be heard. If the 2nd Circuit's decisions are in complete accord with the Bruen decision, there would be no grounds for an appeal, by NYS or us. If the 2nd Circuit tries some work-around, there will be appeals, directly to SCOTUS, which has, already made it very clear, what they will do. That's it, in a non-legalese nutshell.
Gary
Gary, as with Heller. The lower courts used the two step approach to keep these unconstitutional laws in full force. This case will most likely be back at the Supreme Court. I don’t believe the Second Circuit will rule in our favor.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
284 Posts
Gary, as with Heller. The lower courts used the two step approach to keep these unconstitutional laws in full force. This case will most likely be back at the Supreme Court. I don’t believe the Second Circuit will rule in our favor.
But in Bruen, Thomas specifically shot down the two step approach. If they use that, then we will appeal directly to the Supreme Court and they will issue a smackdown. I am optimistic that either way, we win. Best case scenario it goes back to the Supreme Court and they issue a much broader ruling than they did in Bruen. It may take longer, but in the end we will come out better.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,165 Posts
IMO There is NO way New York State does not know what is probably coming so there is NO way they haven't prepared something in rebuttal they think will work. Call me pessimistic I guess. But we've been down this "slam dunk" "sure thing" and "can't miss" road so many times only to have some legalese technical issue throw a wrench in it. NYS intends to delay this as long as possible and with the help of the police department licensing bureau's here on Long Island they are. So you want a full carry license now? No problem....6-12 months and growing longer every day.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
942 Posts
IMO There is NO way New York State does not know what is probably coming so there is NO way they haven't prepared something in rebuttal they think will work. Call me pessimistic I guess. But we've been down this "slam dunk" "sure thing" and "can't miss" road so many times only to have some legalese technical issue throw a wrench in it. NYS intends to delay this as long as possible and with the help of the police department licensing bureau's here on Long Island they are. So you want a full carry license now? No problem....6-12 months and growing longer every day.
100% agree, I predicated that early on. It's an entire gaggle of lawyers up in Albany, and this is all they do. Why do you think back with the unSafe act, and this recent CCIA, both came out soo quickly. And they have a roadmap, time , and can outspend and out number any 2A groups in $$ / Hours of legal work, all on our tax dollarr
 

· Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
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?


Joe:
An appeal was made, by NYS, to the 2nd Circuit Court, to stay the injunctions, which injunctions were issued by Judges Suddaby and Sinatra. The 2nd Circuit agreed to do that, without benefit of trial and without explanation. That's why an interlocutory request was made, directly to SCOTUS. requesting that SCOTUS intervene. SCOTUS correctly declined, ordering that the 2nd Circuit Court must first conduct a trial, to examine and explain its actions and, at the same time, be in compliance with the Bruen decision. SCOTUS said that the 2nd Circuit must, quickly, conduct trials, as respects all 5 of the anti-CCIA suits, then issue a decision, as respects each of them, also in compliance with the Bruen decision. SCOTUS further advised that, if the 2nd Circuit did not issue decisions, which were compliant with the Bruen decision, that SCOTUS would take up the cases, then correct the 2nd Circuit, which would embarrass the hell out of them.

So, on 3/20, all 5 cases will start to be heard. If the 2nd Circuit's decisions are in complete accord with the Bruen decision, there would be no grounds for an appeal, by NYS or us. If the 2nd Circuit tries some work-around, there will be appeals, directly to SCOTUS, which has, already made it very clear, what they will do. That's it, in a non-legalese nutshell.
Gary
This is 100% correct, however if the SCOTUS has to get involved, bigger picture as a country we are in big trouble as that would mean courts no longer abide by SCOTUS decisions when they don't agree..... This is why it's of such great importance the 2nd gets it right. It's actually about more than ccia...
 

· Registered
Joined
·
266 Posts
IMO There is NO way New York State does not know what is probably coming so there is NO way they haven't prepared something in rebuttal they think will work. Call me pessimistic I guess. But we've been down this "slam dunk" "sure thing" and "can't miss" road so many times only to have some legalese technical issue throw a wrench in it. NYS intends to delay this as long as possible and with the help of the police department licensing bureau's here on Long Island they are. So you want a full carry license now? No problem....6-12 months and growing longer every day.
either way if they say theres no standing witch we already established there is and if they did push it aside its going directly back to scotus with in a week not 8 months also the 2nd circuit isnt going to embarrass itself nys already bought there time the 2 months were waiting now. If you remember they asked the second circuit to extend the time witch was denied. We definitely wont get a win in evey case but i am strongly certain that the sensitive areas will be shot down for the simple face that u can not make law abiding gun owners criminals because your mad
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,609 Posts
How can the appellate court hear something when district hasn't actually heard the case? We've been going through the injunctions.
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.
You are both correct in your suspicions. The four "cases" the 2nd Circuit will begin on 3/20 (see attached) are the ones involving whether or not the Suddaby, Sinatra, etc. injunctions remain in place while the lower district courts try and hear the actual merits of the cases. The 2nd Circuit had right away stayed the injunctions, sometimes without explanation, while they made up their minds about the injunctions and kept putting it off. Good guys appealed directly to SCOTUS and rather than re institute the preliminary injunctions, told the 2nd Circuit chop chop hurry up. So, the circuit court is now going to hear them all at once on 3/20. Also included in the mix is the Gazzola case where a TRO/injunction was denied by the district court and now they are asking the circuit court to give them one.

Focusing just on the "big one" (Suddaby/Antonuk), the state asked Suddby for to pause the district courts proceedings pending the Second Circuit's resolution of the appeal of Suddaby's Preliminary Injunction. Gun people/Antouk did not oppose it. After the 2nd Circuit rules on this case (one of the four), NYS and Anontuk have to tell Suddaby what they want to do. (See attached).


Call me pessimistic I guess. But we've been down this "slam dunk" "sure thing" and "can't miss" road so many times only to have some legalese technical issue throw a wrench in it. NYS intends to delay this as long as possible and with the help of the police department licensing bureau's here on Long Island they are. So you want a full carry license now? No problem....6-12 months and growing longer every day.
I 100% agree about the state (and their anti-gun subsidiaries) wanting to delay as long as possible, but I think it's important to point out that we have never been down this road before AT ALL, let alone "so many times." You might consider the appeals to the second circuit after Heller to be the cases some people thought were a "slam dunk" and "can't miss" as previous time, but I don't. These these are uncharted waters in enemy territory and for the first time we are getting favorable court cases.
 

Attachments

· Registered
Joined
·
1,412 Posts
So the case is stayed/paused while the preliminary injunction hearings take place. Does this mean we fight for all of this temporary stuff and then have to fight over the next several years to get it firmly struck down, or will these proceedings be influenced by the March 20 docket?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
12,439 Posts
So the case is stayed/paused while the preliminary injunction hearings take place. Does this mean we fight for all of this temporary stuff and then have to fight over the next several years to get it firmly struck down, or will these proceedings be influenced by the March 20 docket?
We will learn if the Second Circuit is following the Bruen decision. Many have said the CCIA will be argued at the Supreme Court.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,609 Posts
So the case is stayed/paused while the preliminary injunction hearings take place. Does this mean we fight for all of this temporary stuff and then have to fight over the next several years to get it firmly struck down, or will these proceedings be influenced by the March 20 docket?
Yes, and in the meantime, I believe boosti is correct about the insight it will give us along the way.
 
961 - 980 of 987 Posts
Top