Gun owners of America files lawsuit against NYS carry laws
GOA files lawsuits against NYS
- Thread starter Edwardteach72
- Start date
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
Looks like they got a good plaintiff with a good story
I was happy to see the earlier lawsuits just as a cool let's get the ball rolling but I was not impressed with who the representation was or the Plantiffs.
But now the big boys are coming out and you know they took a little extra time to really make sure they bring the big guns
But now the big boys are coming out and you know they took a little extra time to really make sure they bring the big guns
Phazer
.450/400 Nitro Ex
That legal filing, my friends, is a goddamn tour de force! They challenged everything in the new law.
Bravo!
They're getting my financial support.
EDIT: Fiscal support sent to GOA.
Last edited:
S&W Fan
.475 A&M Magnum
I’ve been a member and financial supporter for several years now. Glad to finally see others jumping on the bandwagon.
Lot of us here have been members and given d0nations to GOA and FPC for years
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
"21. In other words, according to the Second Amendment’s text, and as elucidated by the Court in Bruen, if a member of “the people” wishes to “keep” or “bear” a protected “arm,” then the ability to do so “shall not be infringed.” Period. There are no “ifs, ands or buts,” and it does not matter (even a little bit) how important, significant, compelling, or overriding the government’s justification for or interest in infringing the right. It does not matter whether a government restriction “minimally” versus “severely” burdens (infringes) the Second Amendment. There are no relevant statistical studies to be consulted. There are no sociological arguments to be considered. The ubiquitous problems of crime or the density of population do not affect the equation. The only appropriate inquiry then, according to Bruen, is what the “public understanding of the right to keep and bear arms” was during the ratification of the Second Amendment in 1791, and perhaps during ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. Bruen, Slip Op. at 29"
Permission Permits begone .. and more to come ..
Permission Permits begone .. and more to come ..
Phazer
.450/400 Nitro Ex
25. Third, with respect to the term “arms,” the Court explained that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” Heller at 582. Indeed, the “arms” protected by the Second Amendment include “weapons of offence, or armour of defence… Arms are any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” Heller, at 581 (punctuation omitted).
Or "armor of defence." Damn straight! These defenders of the people even challenge the body armor ban.
JackNeat
.45 acp
I got about 1/3 through that filing last night and yeah… that is really designed to smack NYS upside the head.
Those of you that are members of GOA… there is a local chapter for NYS which appears to be out of Rochester. The donations go to the main chapter of GOA for the lawsuit or that small local NYS chapter?
Those of you that are members of GOA… there is a local chapter for NYS which appears to be out of Rochester. The donations go to the main chapter of GOA for the lawsuit or that small local NYS chapter?
Cavalry
.338 Win Mag
They should have. Since its not listed as a complaint, It appears they are not going after it in this suit.
Saltwater60
20×102mm Vulcan
I have them some money just last month and because of this I’ll do the same.
Thanks for posting.
Thanks for posting.
Phazer
.450/400 Nitro Ex
You are apparently correct.
I just got excited that they cited existing precedent about "armor." What the anti-2A forces seem to forget is that "arms" can be offensive or defensive. Both types are protected by the 2A.
GOF has been filing at the federal level. So, I sent them some money, too.
Last edited:
Phazer
.450/400 Nitro Ex
They even insult New York legislators' use of grammar. (Damn! I love these attorneys!):
123. Moreover, for those without a wide social network or who are recent transplants to
the state, and who are unable to provide “no less17 [sic] than four character references,” such
persons will not be able to meet the new requirements of the CCIA, and will be unable to exercise
their Second Amendment right to bear arms.
persons will not be able to meet the new requirements of the CCIA, and will be unable to exercise
their Second Amendment right to bear arms.
(footnote on page 32)
17 Apparently the legislature doesn’t know the distinction between less and fewer.
Cavalry
.338 Win Mag
I did the same thing. I saw the setup and then was disappointed with no follow.
Cavalry
.338 Win Mag
There was at least another one in there as well. Apostrophe use they pointed out I believe.
Phazer
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Here you go....(just searched for "[sic]").
Although this may seem like pure pettiness, citing grammatical problems shows that the legislation is poorly crafted and thus poorly conceived. As you recall, they initially banned "muzzle breaks" with the unSAFE Act.
Page 16:
iv. a list of former and current social media accounts of the applicant from the
past three years to confirm the information regarding the applicants [sic]
character and conduct as required in subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph;
ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
I wonder if there will be lawsuit against the semi auto permit scheme...
Oh im sure there will be shorty
Steal2B
.700 Nitro Express
Looks like NYS and the liberal Second Circuit has no issue telling SCOTUS (even in a 9-0 4A 2A opinion) to go fu<% themselves
Last edited:
Phazer
.450/400 Nitro Ex
At what point can a superior court issue a writ of mandamus with penalties for violations by specific, individual, officials?
GOA >>>>>>>>>>>>> nra
GOA is crushing it. They are doing outstanding work
GOA is crushing it. They are doing outstanding work
ManualF150
.308 Win
I'm very delighted to see folks actually standing up to this tyranny.
It's interesting reading general comments on news sources and even main stream media comments (when they allow for commenting) on these unconstitutional laws. I've noticed an uptick versus a few years ago, people are starting to pipe up about the good and beneficial reasons regarding law abiding citizens carrying guns. This also includes folks around me that always were on a fence about guns up until the past year or two in terms of beneficial reasoning. Going by the slogan "An armed society, is a polite society." strategy.
At the end of the day, it will be interesting to see what will happen.
It's interesting reading general comments on news sources and even main stream media comments (when they allow for commenting) on these unconstitutional laws. I've noticed an uptick versus a few years ago, people are starting to pipe up about the good and beneficial reasons regarding law abiding citizens carrying guns. This also includes folks around me that always were on a fence about guns up until the past year or two in terms of beneficial reasoning. Going by the slogan "An armed society, is a polite society." strategy.
At the end of the day, it will be interesting to see what will happen.
Loworange88
.40 S&W
good to hear. I’ll have to throw them some money.
Phazer
.450/400 Nitro Ex
I particularly liked this footnote on page 22. Makes a lot of sense, actually. They want to force people to unload their firearms before locking them in a car and then reload them when they return to their vehicle. This will absolutely cause an increase in negligent discharges.
Not content with banning licensed carriers from carrying in most of New York, the CCIA
now mandates that individuals who are otherwise licensed to carry, but who are entering a “no
carry” zone, must remove the ammunition from their firearm and secure the firearm in an
“appropriate safe storage depository out of sight from outside of the vehicle.” Exhibit “1” at 25.
Mandating the removal of magazines and unloading firearms will unnecessarily introduce the
possibility for accidental discharges. Mandating that individuals unload their lawfully carried
firearms each time they leave their vehicle to enter a no carry zone will do nothing to ensure the
safety of the firearm, will provide opportunities for the vehicle to be vandalized and the firearm
stolen (by definition, by someone who is not law-abiding and, most likely by someone who is not
a carry license holder), and can potentially cause injuries or, at a minimum, “man with a gun” calls
to police when passers by witness a gun owner unloading, storing, or reloading his firearm. Indeed,
New York affirmatively stated that a glove box or glove compartment “shall not be considered an
appropriate safe storage depository,” meaning something less discrete will be required.
GTN
.308 Win
How much are you donating GOA?
Phazer
.450/400 Nitro Ex
The same amount that I just sent to GOF.
Celt
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Just sent 25 myself, its not much but its something.
Every bit helps in the fight