Court Cases Against New York’s CCIA
1061 - 1080 of 1087 Posts
Joined
·
8,455 Posts
There has (dealing with house of worship) and there have been a few others put on hold that have all been grouped together. That said a hundred year old law is being overturned. The folks that liked the old law are going to roll over and play dead. We're making progress.
There has been 2 issued idk where u getting your info one against sensitive places and one on private property. Also Monday we should see more happen
Joined
·
8,455 Posts
Niagara court declared including houses of worship in sensitive place restrictions was unconstitutional.
there all unconstitutional lol
Joined
·
2,714 Posts
Not sure why you think that, but several cases have resulted in TROs AND premliminary injunctions. In fact, that is why the Second Circuit is hearing appeals on 3/20: the decide whether those injunctions should continue.
Joined
·
671 Posts
The so called ruling on Houses of worship doesn’t really matter, when the major refusal to ISSUE hasn’t been resolved yet.
Joined
·
36 Posts
That’s my take on it too. The decision comes out mid summer SCOTUS is on break goes back to them some time next year in 2024 maybe. They may throw a couple of small bones out there to show SCOTUS they reacted and tried to follow the Bruen decision. It’s just crazy! You try to stay positive but nothing good ever comes. Our 2a rights are worse after Bruen anyway. Time to get out of this state
Joined
·
2,714 Posts
It seems you haven't really been following the court rulings. There have two cases that affect houses of worship.
Judge Suddaby, which is the major case (Antonyuk), challenges the whole gamut of CCIA restrictions, including the legislature's attempt to bring in discretion over issuance in the back door of "good moral character" instead of "proper cause" which was struck down by Bruen and removed by CCIA.
As a practical matter, and especially at this very moment the more pressing/urgent battle, is getting Judge Suddaby's injunction against enforcing the sensitive and restricted location restrictions back into effect. Right now, the "the major refusal to ISSUE" is relatively minor because 1) there is nothing to suggest people are being turned away from getting their carry or other permits as a result of the "good character" provision; and 2) the sensitive/restricted locations makes getting the permit nearly useless and affects millions of people who already have permits.
Joined
·
45 Posts
Just listened to the second circuit hearing. Not impressed with either side. I think the 2nd circuit is a bit uncertain about everything said at the hearing, and will keep the stay in place, and punt it to the supreme court. Hopefully they can rely on the Judge Suddaby brief to make a ruling.
idk it seems like there going to get rid of a stay or 2 probably on private places and church. I was off td listen to the whole thing that what i gathered buttt im not a lawyer do whoo really knows
Joined
·
116 Posts
Good news is that arguments about standing seemed not to "stand up". That means this and future rulings will be based on the legal issues, some of which the judges seems to grapple with in terms of what was meant by SCOTUS (e.g. period from which precedential cases can be drawn, and meaning of 'sensitive locations'). That means that any negative ruling is primed for a subsequent appeal to SCOTUS.
Joined
·
116 Posts
Todays oral arguments can be heard at Oral Arguments
Choose 2023 and look for date argued 3-20
Choose 2023 and look for date argued 3-20
Joined
·
7,425 Posts
Now, we wait for the 2nd Circuit Court to issue a decision, on each of the 5 suits' TROs. Remember, these hearings are to determine if the TROs, which were issued by the lower federal courts, are to remain in effect, while the trials, which still have to take place, in the lower federal courts of Judges Suddaby and Sinatra. If you recall, the 2nd Circuit stayed the TROs, without explanation. These hearings are to have the 2nd Circuit decide if:
1) the TROs are to remain in effect, while the suits work their way through the lower courts OR
2) the TROs are to remain on hold, while the suits work their way through the lower courts.
Judges Suddaby and Sinatra did not hold full trials, just hearings, to determine if the plaintiffs had a valid case, which should go to trial and to decide whether the lower courts should issue permanent restraining orders, against enforcement of the CCIA, once the trials had been completed.
If the 2nd Circuit Court does not validate each of the lower court's TROs, the lower court suits still go forward, just without the benefit of the TROs. If the 2nd Circuit decides that the TROs were meritorious, the lower court trials still take place, with the benefit of the TROs stopping enforcement of the CCIA.
Once the lower courts have had full trial and decisions, those judgements can be appealed, by either side, depending on the content and direction of those decisions.
Remember, also, that the SCOTUS has already provided guidance, to the 2nd Circuit, that they have to honor the letter and intent of the Bruen decision, when rendering their verdict and that, if the 2nd Circuit does not honor the Bruen decision, SCOTUS might step in, in an interlocutory manner, without the benefit of having to go through the full trials, at the lower federal court levels.
Whatever the 2nd Circuit Court decides, don't expect that to be the end. We will still have to have full trials, on each of the subjects raised, in each of the 5 initial suits. Whether that will happen on the lower court federal level or at he level of SCOTUS or both is what we will have to see. I'll not offer any guarantees, about either way but a prediction that the 2nd Circuit will try to dance around the intent of the Bruen decision. Depending on how they do that, SCOTUS might step in or it might still go back to the lower courts, for trial.
Yes, I know, it's complicated, beyond common sense but that's how our court system operates. It's slow and stop, to make sure that all Ts are crossed and all Is are dotted.
Gary
1061 - 1080 of 1087 Posts
