Gazzola v Hochul Lawsuit

byron

byron

.308 Win
Messages
3,719
Reaction score
14,394
Location
prattsburgh ny
Gazzola v Hochul Lawsuit​
Another lawsuit against Hochul’s unconstitutional laws - Gazzola v Hochul - has been filed in the U.S. District Court for The Northern District of NY.
This lawsuit challenges thirty-one (31) inter-connected statutes that contain a multitude of new mandates impacting Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL’s) as both individuals and businesses who are engaged in the lawful commerce in firearms and in gun shows. The thirty-one (31) statutory provisions being challenged originated in four (4) Bills, signed into law between May 30, 2022 and July 1, 2022:
  • Bill S.9407-B – signed May 30, 2022 (eff. June 30, 2022);
  • Bill S.9458 – signed May 30, 2022 (eff. August 30, 2022);
  • Bill S.4970-A – signed June 6, 2022 (eff., generally, June 30, 2022);
  • Bill 51001 – signed July 1, 2022 (eff., generally, September 1, 2022)
The lawsuit charges: “express animus against Plaintiffs…seeking to exercise their rights under the Second Amendment…the new laws collectively impair and impede the ability of the Plaintiffs to engage in the lawful commerce of firearms and to host a gun show, and to serve as a conduit for those seeking to exercise their fundamental Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The new laws also violate the Fifth Amendment rights of the Plaintiffs, including the right against self-incrimination.”
Some of the specific issues cited in the lawsuit:
  • The transfer of the federal NICS background check making the NYS Police the “Point of Contact,” and the creation of a new division within the NYS Police to perform background checks, as a forced intermediary between the licensed dealer and the current, federal NICS system
  • The “security plan,” including a “safe,” “vault,” or “secured and locked area on the dealer’s business premises” and the separate storage of ammunition.
  • A “security alarm system,” including installation and maintenance by a third-party vendor, as well as specified placement of cameras with video recording devices with feed storage.
  • The prohibition against entry of persons under eighteen years of age without a parent or legal guardian.
  • Mandatory, semi-annual submission of the Book of Acquisitions and Dispositions (A&D Book) to the Defendant NYS Police. (This violates federal law.)
  • Access to inventory records “at any time” by “law enforcement agencies.”
  • Authorization to the Superintendent of the NYS Police to “…promulgate such additional rules and regulations as the superintendent shall deem necessary to prevent firearms, rifles, and shotguns from being diverted from the legal stream of commerce.”
  • Restriction against the sale of body vests.
  • Establishing a new, standardized, classroom and live-fire course and test necessary for concealed carry handgun permits.
  • Restriction against the purchase of a semi-automatic rifle without a license.
  • Requirement of an ammunition background check.
The lawsuit points out that many of the new laws are vague and poorly defined. (Well, when you rush laws through without input, you tend to make mistakes.)
Obviously, the purpose of these new was is to bury the FFL’s in paperwork and then find an error in the paperwork, so the FFL’s license can be revoked.
Another purpose of the laws is to financially drive FFL’s out of business. The lawsuit estimates that the “best guess” new costs are estimated to range from $200,000/year to approaching $1 million/year. Plaintiffs are small business owners, ranging from self-employed sole proprietors to small to medium-sized retail shops with less than five employees. The costs directly burden a law-abiding citizen’s right to acquire a firearm and the necessary ammunition for self-defense. Many of the new laws will financially burden the Plaintiffs to a point that they will be forced out of business, potentially as early as December 5, 2022, if no immediate relief is had from the Court. (You can carry a gun in NY State but if you can’t find a store in which to buy it or to buy ammo…)
The lawsuit highlights the important role that FFL’s play in preventing disqualified / unlicensed people from obtaining a firearm. It says, “The FFL…play a greater role even than state and local law enforcement relative to commerce in firearms.” These FFL’s:
  • Are the entities that assure that firearms are sold only to persons who are not “disqualified.”
  • Personally make the preliminary assessment of the customer across the counter.
  • Collect the personal information for the background check on the ATF Form 4473 and check the valid identification document.
  • Says the words “denied” or “delayed,” and is face-to-face with the man or woman who will be leaving the store without the firearm.
  • Has a federally-protected right to decline to complete a sale to an individual, even if the background check comes back “Proceed.”
Eighteen (18) County Legislatures across the State of New York are passing “Resolutions” in opposition to the complete package of ten Bills pushed through by Defendant Gov. Hochul and targeting, in particular, NY Bill S.51001. These “Resolutions” call out the animus and actions of the Defendants.
The lawsuit also points out that there are eight (8) other lawsuits against these laws, in progress.
This lawsuit charges NY State with:
  • DEPRIVATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS
  • PRE-EMPTION BY FEDERAL LAW
  • VOID FOR VAGUENESS DOCTRINE
  • CONSTITUTIONAL-REGULATORY OVERBURDEN
The Plaintiffs ask for a declaratory judgment that all thirty-one (31) new laws, rules, and regulations shall be struck down and denied of having any legal force or effect; an injunctive relief order restraining Defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all others from enforcing the laws, rules, and regulations complained of herein.
Not trusting the Hochul administration, the lawsuit further requests that: “…the appointment of a special referee or magistrate to monitor any actions by the Defendants and other associated offices and agencies…to monitor any claims of future Defendant compliance with their responsibilities…”
The hearing is scheduled for tomorrow (Thursday the 1st of December) before Judge Brenda K. Sannes, the Chief U.S. District Judge. She was an Obama appointment in 2014.
The attorney for the plaintiffs is Paloma Capanna. NYS will have most likely have 3 lawyers challenging Paloma, since money is no object to them.
U.S. District Court for The Northern District of NY includes the counties of Albany, Broome, Cayuga, Chenango, Clinton, Columbia, Cortland, Delaware, Essex, Franklin, Fulton, Greene, Hamilton, Herkimer, Jefferson, Lewis, Madison, Montgomery, Oneida, Onondaga, Oswego, Otsego, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Schenectady, Schoharie, St. Lawrence, Tioga, Tompkins, Ulster, Warren, and Washington. It’s decisions only apply to those counties.
​
 
G

Glock_USA

.45 acp
Messages
397
Reaction score
667
Location
NY
Nothing will come of it. If there's a ruling it will be stayed by the 2nd and they will never meet to make a ruling on it just like they have done with all the other cases. I'm done with the nonsense. And I'm done watching videos with click bait misleading titles.
 
M

m1_ping

9mm
Messages
51
Reaction score
123
Location
Oneida County
TRO and Preliminary Injunction denied.

TEXT ORDER: After carefully considering all of the parties' submissions in connection with 13 Plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order and/or a preliminary injunction, as well as the oral argument presented at the hearing yesterday, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' 13 motion, and will not issue a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction. A written decision will follow shortly. SO ORDERED by Chief Judge Brenda K. Sannes on 12/2/2022. (nmk) (Entered: 12/02/2022)
Click to expand...
 
Saltwater60

Saltwater60

20×102mm Vulcan
Messages
36,730
Reaction score
41,112
Location
Western NY
m1_ping said:
Bad. How bad will depend on the reason for the denial which we will know when the court publishes the written decision.
Click to expand...
So will it take a month to find out why the denial? I’m being sarcastic because they have taken so long on everything else.
 
Saltwater60

Saltwater60

20×102mm Vulcan
Messages
36,730
Reaction score
41,112
Location
Western NY
Acer-m14 said:
another USA 2A case ... what about just using the NYS Civil Rights law ??

View attachment 182088
Click to expand...
Yawn. I’m sick of lawsuit after lawsuit and then asking me for money continuously, I’d like to see some good final results. I know it will take time, but in the meantime I could be arrested and lose a lot so I need to keep my money for my own lawsuit potentially.
 
J

JRtraderny

6.5 Creedmoor
Messages
2,482
Reaction score
1,511
Location
USA
Saltwater60 said:
Yawn. I’m sick of lawsuit after lawsuit and then asking me for money continuously, I’d like to see some good final results. I know it will take time, but in the meantime I could be arrested and lose a lot so I need to keep my money for my own lawsuit potentially.
Click to expand...
It would be nice to start a go fund me for just in case if you know what I mean .
 
J

JRtraderny

6.5 Creedmoor
Messages
2,482
Reaction score
1,511
Location
USA
byron said:
​
​
Gazzola v Hochul Lawsuit​

Another lawsuit against Hochul’s unconstitutional laws - Gazzola v Hochul - has been filed in the U.S. District Court for The Northern District of NY.
This lawsuit challenges thirty-one (31) inter-connected statutes that contain a multitude of new mandates impacting Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL’s) as both individuals and businesses who are engaged in the lawful commerce in firearms and in gun shows. The thirty-one (31) statutory provisions being challenged originated in four (4) Bills, signed into law between May 30, 2022 and July 1, 2022:​
  • Bill S.9407-B – signed May 30, 2022 (eff. June 30, 2022);
  • Bill S.9458 – signed May 30, 2022 (eff. August 30, 2022);
  • Bill S.4970-A – signed June 6, 2022 (eff., generally, June 30, 2022);
  • Bill 51001 – signed July 1, 2022 (eff., generally, September 1, 2022)

The lawsuit charges: “express animus against Plaintiffs…seeking to exercise their rights under the Second Amendment…the new laws collectively impair and impede the ability of the Plaintiffs to engage in the lawful commerce of firearms and to host a gun show, and to serve as a conduit for those seeking to exercise their fundamental Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The new laws also violate the Fifth Amendment rights of the Plaintiffs, including the right against self-incrimination.”
Some of the specific issues cited in the lawsuit:​
  • The transfer of the federal NICS background check making the NYS Police the “Point of Contact,” and the creation of a new division within the NYS Police to perform background checks, as a forced intermediary between the licensed dealer and the current, federal NICS system
  • The “security plan,” including a “safe,” “vault,” or “secured and locked area on the dealer’s business premises” and the separate storage of ammunition.
  • A “security alarm system,” including installation and maintenance by a third-party vendor, as well as specified placement of cameras with video recording devices with feed storage.
  • The prohibition against entry of persons under eighteen years of age without a parent or legal guardian.
  • Mandatory, semi-annual submission of the Book of Acquisitions and Dispositions (A&D Book) to the Defendant NYS Police. (This violates federal law.)
  • Access to inventory records “at any time” by “law enforcement agencies.”
  • Authorization to the Superintendent of the NYS Police to “…promulgate such additional rules and regulations as the superintendent shall deem necessary to prevent firearms, rifles, and shotguns from being diverted from the legal stream of commerce.”
  • Restriction against the sale of body vests.
  • Establishing a new, standardized, classroom and live-fire course and test necessary for concealed carry handgun permits.
  • Restriction against the purchase of a semi-automatic rifle without a license.
  • Requirement of an ammunition background check.

The lawsuit points out that many of the new laws are vague and poorly defined. (Well, when you rush laws through without input, you tend to make mistakes.)
Obviously, the purpose of these new was is to bury the FFL’s in paperwork and then find an error in the paperwork, so the FFL’s license can be revoked.
Another purpose of the laws is to financially drive FFL’s out of business. The lawsuit estimates that the “best guess” new costs are estimated to range from $200,000/year to approaching $1 million/year. Plaintiffs are small business owners, ranging from self-employed sole proprietors to small to medium-sized retail shops with less than five employees. The costs directly burden a law-abiding citizen’s right to acquire a firearm and the necessary ammunition for self-defense. Many of the new laws will financially burden the Plaintiffs to a point that they will be forced out of business, potentially as early as December 5, 2022, if no immediate relief is had from the Court. (You can carry a gun in NY State but if you can’t find a store in which to buy it or to buy ammo…)
The lawsuit highlights the important role that FFL’s play in preventing disqualified / unlicensed people from obtaining a firearm. It says, “The FFL…play a greater role even than state and local law enforcement relative to commerce in firearms.” These FFL’s:​
  • Are the entities that assure that firearms are sold only to persons who are not “disqualified.”
  • Personally make the preliminary assessment of the customer across the counter.
  • Collect the personal information for the background check on the ATF Form 4473 and check the valid identification document.
  • Says the words “denied” or “delayed,” and is face-to-face with the man or woman who will be leaving the store without the firearm.
  • Has a federally-protected right to decline to complete a sale to an individual, even if the background check comes back “Proceed.”

Eighteen (18) County Legislatures across the State of New York are passing “Resolutions” in opposition to the complete package of ten Bills pushed through by Defendant Gov. Hochul and targeting, in particular, NY Bill S.51001. These “Resolutions” call out the animus and actions of the Defendants.
The lawsuit also points out that there are eight (8) other lawsuits against these laws, in progress.
This lawsuit charges NY State with:​
  • DEPRIVATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS
  • PRE-EMPTION BY FEDERAL LAW
  • VOID FOR VAGUENESS DOCTRINE
  • CONSTITUTIONAL-REGULATORY OVERBURDEN

The Plaintiffs ask for a declaratory judgment that all thirty-one (31) new laws, rules, and regulations shall be struck down and denied of having any legal force or effect; an injunctive relief order restraining Defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all others from enforcing the laws, rules, and regulations complained of herein.
Not trusting the Hochul administration, the lawsuit further requests that: “…the appointment of a special referee or magistrate to monitor any actions by the Defendants and other associated offices and agencies…to monitor any claims of future Defendant compliance with their responsibilities…”
The hearing is scheduled for tomorrow (Thursday the 1st of December) before Judge Brenda K. Sannes, the Chief U.S. District Judge. She was an Obama appointment in 2014.
The attorney for the plaintiffs is Paloma Capanna. NYS will have most likely have 3 lawyers challenging Paloma, since money is no object to them.
U.S. District Court for The Northern District of NY includes the counties of Albany, Broome, Cayuga, Chenango, Clinton, Columbia, Cortland, Delaware, Essex, Franklin, Fulton, Greene, Hamilton, Herkimer, Jefferson, Lewis, Madison, Montgomery, Oneida, Onondaga, Oswego, Otsego, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Schenectady, Schoharie, St. Lawrence, Tioga, Tompkins, Ulster, Warren, and Washington. It’s decisions only apply to those counties.​
Click to expand...
They might have been better off in front of Judge Sinatra .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top