Temporary Restaining Order Issued For Concealed Carry Improvement Act (merged thread)

[MothMan]

I just came from lunch with Butterfly at an alcohol serving restaurant, Bull and Bear Roadhouse Rte 298 in E Syr.

I would be seriously remiss if I couldn’t adequately protect my wife of 42 years.

G 27 baby Glock was up under my arm in a shoulder holster. FUKH & LJ

 

[Dr. Evil]

It's amazing how at every turn there seems to be a fork in the road and the ability for the state to rape us anally. Hard to keep up hope the longer this goes on.

 

[US RIFLE M1A]

My gut feeling is that Suddaby is ready to issue the injunction on prohibitions on carry in the following locations:

-Stores/gas stations/parking lots (business private property)
-Worship
-Restaurants w/ alcohol
-Theaters
-Parks
-Buses

He is signaling to the plaintiffs that in order to go past the above list, they still have work to do. Not impossible for them to do, but he cannot rule on anything past this list based on standing. He has to work with the plaintiffs to get them to present an airtight case in order to survive appeal to the 2nd.

None of this demonstrates that Suddaby's support for pro-2A plaintiffs has softened, quite the opposite.

 

[arp228]

This is just for the injunction, correct? If prohibiting carry in the other places is unconstitutional, then shouldn't these other places be struck down in the overall case?

 

[US RIFLE M1A]

This is just for the injunction, correct? If prohibiting carry in the other places is unconstitutional, then shouldn't these other places be struck down in the overall case?

Only if the plaintiffs have standing. It does not matter how egregious the constitutional issue is, if the plaintiffs do not have standing, the issue is moot until plaintiffs with standing step forward in a separate case entirely.

 

[Dr. Evil]

Such a fucking game. It is amazing how much harder they make things compared to how black and white the unconstitutionality of the laws are.

 

[arp228]

Only if the plaintiffs have standing. It does not matter how egregious the constitutional issue is, if the plaintiffs do not have standing, the issue is moot until plaintiffs with standing step forward in a separate case entirely.

Many of these sensitive places are downstate specific. Looks they they may need to make a trip downstate and get on a NYC subway, LIRR, taxi, etc

 

[US RIFLE M1A]

Such a fucking game. It is amazing how much harder they make things compared to how black and white the unconstitutionality of the laws are.

It is a game.

Suddaby's decision has to make it past the circuit court and possibly to SCOTUS. The wiggle room for standing and how broad the decision is gets wider as you go up the chain. SCOTUS can widen the ruling to include more locations that you are constitutionally entitled to carry in, but even SCOTUS rulings can be played, as we saw after the Bruen decision.

If the rulings are too narrow and specific, lawmakers will double down on whatever is left out of the decision. Narrow and specific judicial rulings encourage lawmakers to play semantic games and re-define terms to enact the same laws with different words.

If rulings are too broad, lawmakers will simply find an entire new topic to crack down on as they did with the CCIA, where they went from 'proper cause' to 'sensitive locations.'

 

[maverick52]

Such a fucking game. It is amazing how much harder they make things compared to how black and white the unconstitutionality of the laws are.

It’s a joke. Easy to pass laws that are unconstitutional and difficult to undo them. It should be the other way around.

 

[GreggWNY]

If the court ultimately decides that CCIA is unconstitutional, then that creep in Albany and her minion of cronies will just write and pass another bill infringing on our rights. Then it will start over again and have to go through the entire legal process. That I feel is their end game.

 

[Saltwater60]

This most recent text order narrows the scope of the Antonyuk challenge.

It looks like he is doubting standing on a number of locations.

What he is doubting is in red below.

Bottom line, the locations in play in Antonyuk v. Bruen/Hochul are now:
-Stores/gas stations/parking lots (business private property)
-Worship
-Restaurants w/ alcohol
-Theaters
-Parks
-Buses

He has placed the standing of the plaintiffs in doubt on all other locations.

I have a problem with the following apparently being tossed: entertainment venues, banquet halls, airports, libraries, museums.

I carry in the top half of the list (E thru L) at work and will legally continue to do so as I provide armed security. I would never need to go there other times.

I don't use public transportation, don't use cannabis, and never go to Times Square.




40 2. For the purposes of this section, a sensitive location shall mean:
41 (a) any place owned or under the control of federal, state or local
42 government, for the purpose of government administration, including
43 courts;
44 (b) any location providing health, behavioral health, or chemical
45 dependance care or services;
46 (c) any place of worship or religious observation;
47 (d) libraries, public playgrounds, public parks, and zoos;
48 (e) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, fund-
49 ed, or approved by the office of children and family services that
50 provides services to children, youth, or young adults, any legally
51 exempt childcare provider; a childcare program for which a permit to
52 operate such program has been issued by the department of health and
53 mental hygiene pursuant to the health code of the city of New York;
54 (f) nursery schools, preschools, and summer camps;


S. 1 9

1 (g) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, oper-
2 ated, or funded by the office for people with developmental disabili-
3 ties;
4 (h) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, oper-
5 ated, or funded by office of addiction services and supports;
6 (i) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, oper-
7 ated, or funded by the office of mental health;
8 (j) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, oper-
9 ated, or funded by the office of temporary and disability assistance;
10 (k) homeless shelters, runaway homeless youth shelters, family shel-
11 ters, shelters for adults, domestic violence shelters, and emergency
12 shelters, and residential programs for victims of domestic violence;
13 (l) residential settings licensed, certified, regulated, funded, or
14 operated by the department of health;
15 (m) in or upon any building or grounds, owned or leased, of any educa-
16 tional institutions, colleges and universities, licensed private career
17 schools, school districts, public schools, private schools licensed
18 under article one hundred one of the education law, charter schools,
19 non-public schools, board of cooperative educational services, special
20 act schools, preschool special education programs, private residential
21 or non-residential schools for the education of students with disabili-
22 ties, and any state-operated or state-supported schools;
23 (n) any place, conveyance, or vehicle used for public transportation
24 or public transit, subway cars, train cars, buses, ferries, railroad,
25 omnibus, marine or aviation transportation; or any facility used for or
26 in connection with service in the transportation of passengers,
27 airports, train stations, subway and rail stations, and bus terminals;
28 (o) any establishment issued a license for on-premise consumption
29 pursuant to article four, four-A, five, or six of the alcoholic beverage
30 control law where alcohol is consumed and any establishment licensed
31 under article four of the cannabis law for on-premise consumption;
32 (p) any place used for the performance, art entertainment, gaming, or
33 sporting events such as theaters, stadiums, racetracks, museums, amuse-
34 ment parks, performance venues, concerts, exhibits, conference centers,
35 banquet halls, and gaming facilities and video lottery terminal facili-
36 ties as licensed by the gaming commission;
37 (q) any location being used as a polling place;
38 (r) any public sidewalk or other public area restricted from general
39 public access for a limited time or special event that has been issued a
40 permit for such time or event by a governmental entity, or subject to
41 specific, heightened law enforcement protection, or has otherwise had
42 such access restricted by a governmental entity, provided such location
43 is identified as such by clear and conspicuous signage;
44 (s) any gathering of individuals to collectively express their consti-
45 tutional rights to protest or assemble;
46 (t) the area commonly known as Times Square, as such area is deter-
47 mined and identified by the city of New York; provided such area shall
48 be clearly and conspicuously identified with signage.
49 3. This section shall not apply to:
50 (a) consistent with federal law, law enforcement who qualify to carry
51 under the federal law enforcement officers safety act, 18 U.S.C. 926C;
52 (b) persons who are police officers as defined in subdivision thirty-
53 four of section 1.20 of the criminal procedure law;
54 (c) persons who are designated peace officers by section 2.10 of the
55 criminal procedure law;

I knew we’d get fucked.

 

[C3D]

 

[kev74]

View attachment 176891

Only in english? What a bunch of racists!

 

[C3D]

Only in english? What a bunch of racists!

There's a Spanish loop too but I couldn't add it (makes the gif much too large). Full version here if you need translation:

 

[Saltwater60]

It is a game.

Suddaby's decision has to make it past the circuit court and possibly to SCOTUS. The wiggle room for standing and how broad the decision is gets wider as you go up the chain. SCOTUS can widen the ruling to include more locations that you are constitutionally entitled to carry in, but even SCOTUS rulings can be played, as we saw after the Bruen decision.

If the rulings are too narrow and specific, lawmakers will double down on whatever is left out of the decision. Narrow and specific judicial rulings encourage lawmakers to play semantic games and re-define terms to enact the same laws with different words.

If rulings are too broad, lawmakers will simply find an entire new topic to crack down on as they did with the CCIA, where they went from 'proper cause' to 'sensitive locations.'

Standing? Every person over 18 years old in NYS has standing.

 

[maverick52]

View attachment 176891

All the criminals and thugs when they see this sign….

 

[Acer-m14]

The mechanism would be a pro 2A president who would have the AG hold NYS in contempt.

and pull all fed govt $$$$ from NYS ..

 

[Acer-m14]

Only if the plaintiffs have standing. It does not matter how egregious the constitutional issue is, if the plaintiffs do not have standing, the issue is moot until plaintiffs with standing step forward in a separate case entirely.

the plaintiffs ( upstaters ) can't even take a gun of any kind into NYC to even test it ... sorry i can't make it to your wedding in NYC ..

i can't protect myself with a firearm there ..

 

[Truebeliever]

No, they won't. If we're lucky, the law will get neutered.

But "they" will suffer no consequences, and will simply call another emergency legislative session to pass new laws that are also unconstitutional.

We need a mechanism to stop this bullshit.

Did you notice they didn’t try that seven round nonsense again? That’s why this full retard thing is going to backfire on them again. Once it’s case law ( post all appeals) that they can’t do that, don’t worry about it again.

 

[Darth]

View attachment 176891

That Gif cuts off short.

The rest reads "...may we suggest just murdering someone? You'll get at worst an appearance ticket."

 

[Acer-m14]

sign didn't have Ebonics on it either .. WTH ..

 

[livingston]

Ground Breaking Supreme Court Carry Decision Openly Defied By New York!!!​

In this video I discuss an important update in the lawsuit to stop New York's concealed carry law which they passed in defiance of the Supreme Court's NYSRPA v. Bruen decision.

 

[Acer-m14]

9 minutes later ... the Witch and her followers are still not charged under

18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights

www.law.cornell.edu

18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[spat]

This most recent text order narrows the scope of the Antonyuk challenge.

It looks like he is doubting standing on a number of locations.

What he is doubting is in red below.

Bottom line, the locations in play in Antonyuk v. Bruen/Hochul are now:
-Stores/gas stations/parking lots (business private property)
-Worship
-Restaurants w/ alcohol
-Theaters
-Parks
-Buses

He has placed the standing of the plaintiffs in doubt on all other locations.

I have a problem with the following apparently being tossed: entertainment venues, banquet halls, airports, libraries, museums.

I carry in the top half of the list (E thru L) at work and will legally continue to do so as I provide armed security. I would never need to go there other times.

I don't use public transportation, don't use cannabis, and never go to Times Square.




40 2. For the purposes of this section, a sensitive location shall mean:
41 (a) any place owned or under the control of federal, state or local
42 government, for the purpose of government administration, including
43 courts;
44 (b) any location providing health, behavioral health, or chemical
45 dependance care or services;
46 (c) any place of worship or religious observation;
47 (d) libraries, public playgrounds, public parks, and zoos;
48 (e) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, fund-
49 ed, or approved by the office of children and family services that
50 provides services to children, youth, or young adults, any legally
51 exempt childcare provider; a childcare program for which a permit to
52 operate such program has been issued by the department of health and
53 mental hygiene pursuant to the health code of the city of New York;
54 (f) nursery schools, preschools, and summer camps;


S. 1 9

1 (g) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, oper-
2 ated, or funded by the office for people with developmental disabili-
3 ties;
4 (h) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, oper-
5 ated, or funded by office of addiction services and supports;
6 (i) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, oper-
7 ated, or funded by the office of mental health;
8 (j) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, oper-
9 ated, or funded by the office of temporary and disability assistance;
10 (k) homeless shelters, runaway homeless youth shelters, family shel-
11 ters, shelters for adults, domestic violence shelters, and emergency
12 shelters, and residential programs for victims of domestic violence;
13 (l) residential settings licensed, certified, regulated, funded, or
14 operated by the department of health;
15 (m) in or upon any building or grounds, owned or leased, of any educa-
16 tional institutions, colleges and universities, licensed private career
17 schools, school districts, public schools, private schools licensed
18 under article one hundred one of the education law, charter schools,
19 non-public schools, board of cooperative educational services, special
20 act schools, preschool special education programs, private residential
21 or non-residential schools for the education of students with disabili-
22 ties, and any state-operated or state-supported schools;
23 (n) any place, conveyance, or vehicle used for public transportation
24 or public transit, subway cars, train cars, buses, ferries, railroad,
25 omnibus, marine or aviation transportation; or any facility used for or
26 in connection with service in the transportation of passengers,
27 airports, train stations, subway and rail stations, and bus terminals;
28 (o) any establishment issued a license for on-premise consumption
29 pursuant to article four, four-A, five, or six of the alcoholic beverage
30 control law where alcohol is consumed and any establishment licensed
31 under article four of the cannabis law for on-premise consumption;
32 (p) any place used for the performance, art entertainment, gaming, or
33 sporting events such as theaters, stadiums, racetracks, museums, amuse-
34 ment parks, performance venues, concerts, exhibits, conference centers,
35 banquet halls, and gaming facilities and video lottery terminal facili-
36 ties as licensed by the gaming commission;
37 (q) any location being used as a polling place;
38 (r) any public sidewalk or other public area restricted from general
39 public access for a limited time or special event that has been issued a
40 permit for such time or event by a governmental entity, or subject to
41 specific, heightened law enforcement protection, or has otherwise had
42 such access restricted by a governmental entity, provided such location
43 is identified as such by clear and conspicuous signage;
44 (s) any gathering of individuals to collectively express their consti-
45 tutional rights to protest or assemble;
46 (t) the area commonly known as Times Square, as such area is deter-
47 mined and identified by the city of New York; provided such area shall
48 be clearly and conspicuously identified with signage.
49 3. This section shall not apply to:
50 (a) consistent with federal law, law enforcement who qualify to carry
51 under the federal law enforcement officers safety act, 18 U.S.C. 926C;
52 (b) persons who are police officers as defined in subdivision thirty-
53 four of section 1.20 of the criminal procedure law;
54 (c) persons who are designated peace officers by section 2.10 of the
55 criminal procedure law;

Isn't all that's required to establish standing is for the plaintiff to claim they want to carry there and don't want to be arrested for doing so ?

How can he say they don't have standing?

Did they just forget to say "I would like to carry during my planned visits to each of those locations" ?

 

[spat]

Many of these sensitive places are downstate specific. Looks they they may need to make a trip downstate and get on a NYC subway, LIRR, taxi, etc

Don't need to actually do it.

Just need to claim you want to, but can't because of this law.

 

[spat]

It is a game.

Suddaby's decision has to make it past the circuit court and possibly to SCOTUS. The wiggle room for standing and how broad the decision is gets wider as you go up the chain. SCOTUS can widen the ruling to include more locations that you are constitutionally entitled to carry in, but even SCOTUS rulings can be played, as we saw after the Bruen decision.

If the rulings are too narrow and specific, lawmakers will double down on whatever is left out of the decision. Narrow and specific judicial rulings encourage lawmakers to play semantic games and re-define terms to enact the same laws with different words.

If rulings are too broad, lawmakers will simply find an entire new topic to crack down on as they did with the CCIA, where they went from 'proper cause' to 'sensitive locations.'

Just rule that to be a sensitive location you need controlled access.

If you aren't taking positive steps to make sure criminals are disarmed there, then you can't demand everyone else is.

I.e., no metal detectors or searches to enter means not a sensitive location.

 

[Saltwater60]

Just rule that to be a sensitive location you need controlled access.

If you aren't taking positive steps to make sure criminals are disarmed there, then you can't demand everyone else is.

I.e., no metal detectors or searches to enter means not a sensitive location.

Great definition of a sensitive place. I also agree with your definition or how to establish standing.

 

[John Stark]

Oct 19, 2022
TEXT NOTICE acknowledging receipt of the parties' Stipulation Regarding Witnesses and Exhibits (Dkt. No. 58 ) and respectfully advising Plaintiffs that, based on Defendants' arguments in their opposition papers (Dkt. No. 48 ) and motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 46, Attach. 2), the Court is carefully considering whether Plaintiffs have sufficiently shown a concrete intention to carry concealed in the immediate future in the locations set forth in the following paragraphs of Section 4 of the CCIA: paragraphs "2(b)" ("health... care or services" locations only), "2(d)" ("libraries" only), "2(e)," "2(f)" ("summer camps" only), "2(g)" through "2(l)," "2(n)" (everywhere except "busses"), "2(o)" ("any establishment licensed... for on-premise consumption [of cannabis]" only), "2(p)" (everywhere except "theaters"), and "2(t)." Authorized by U.S. District Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 10/19/2022. (sal) (Entered: 10/19/2022)

Quoting this part for clarity:

"the Court is carefully considering whether Plaintiffs have sufficiently shown a concrete intention to carry concealed in the immediate future ..."

What a load of bullshit. This essentially boils down to NY's now defunct "Proper Clause" requirement to get a permission slip, in a manner of speaking.

Every place on the list is a place almost all people are going to want to visit at some time, or will be forced to visit due to various life circumstances and situations.

As Americans, we not only have the right to travel between the States and visit all places that are open to the public when we do so, but we obviously have the right to travel and visit anywhere WITHIN NY that is likewise open to the public in some manner.

Proving that we have to meet some standard to exercise our Second Amendment rights in the "immediate future" before we can go somewhere and be able to protect ourselves (which the Second Amendment is clearly predicated on and the strongest basis upon which Scalia decided Heller) is nothing but fuckery and court/legal politics and shenanigans.

"Well your honor I'm really looking forward to driving through the hood while exercising my Rights really, really soon. Look, I'm not even crossing my fingers behind my back!!!"

We have the Right to defend ourselves, our families, our property, and our other Rights practically anywhere except a few places, and those places would be defined just like other Rights have been defined: narrowly tailored restrictions that are highly dependent on time, place, and manner, and the government proving that in those few places, it would be ill advised for anyone to freely visit.

Military bases, prisons, courts of law; that is, places where this is an ACTUAL government interest to make sure things are run properly and criminals, terrorists, spies, foreign invaders, and so on cannot disrupt the duty to serve the People through those few venues where practicality weighs more heavily on the scales of Justice.

Suddaby has completely dropped the ball on this. That wiggle room he's giving the state of NY has a huge chance to be exploited to our great detriment, and perhaps with regards to other cases in other states depending on how this all falls out.

How many times have we seen this shitshow where wiggle room is found because a plaintiff was "to broad in his suit?" What fucking part of Shall Not Be Infringed does bullshit "standing" have any bearing on whether or not we are going to exercise a fundamental Right in the "immediate future"?

A real judge would know this and call NY out on their bullshit legal claims.

"I am booking a flight to Mount Rushmore as we speak your honor!" was never a predicate to having a Right to go there, armed or otherwise.

Fuck him.

 

[Saltwater60]

Quoting this part for clarity:

"the Court is carefully considering whether Plaintiffs have sufficiently shown a concrete intention to carry concealed in the immediate future ..."

What a load of bullshit. This essentially boils down to NY's no defunct "Proper Clause" requirement to get a permission slip, in a manner of speaking.

Every place on the list is a place almost all people are going to want to visit at some time, or will be forced to visit due to various life circumstances an d situations.

As Americans, we not only have the right to travel between the States and visit all places that are open to the public when we do so, but we obviously have the right to travel and visit anywhere in NY that is likewise open to the public in some manner.

Proving that we have to meet some standard to exercise our Second Amendment rights in the "immediate future" before we can go somewhere and be able to protect ourselves (which the Second Amendment is clearly predicated on and the strongest basis upon which Scalia decided Heller) is nothing but fuckery and court/legal politics and shenanigans.

"Well your honor I'm really looking forward to driving through the hood while exercising my Rights really, really soon. Look, I'm not even crossing my fingers behind my back."

We have the Right to defend ourselves, our families, our property, and our other Rights practically anywhere except a few places, and those places would be defined just like other Rights have been defined: narrowly tailored restrictions that are highly dependent on time, place, and manner, and the government proving that in those few places, it would be ill advised for anyone to freely visit.

Military bases, prisons, courts of law; that is, places where this is an ACTUAL government interest to make sure things are run properly and criminals, terrorists, spies, and so on cannot disrupt the duty to serve the People through those few venues where practicality weighs more heavily on the scales of Justice.

Suddaby has completely dropped the ball on this. That wiggle room he's giving the state of NY has a huge chance to be exploited to our great detriment, and perhaps with regards to other cases in other states depending on how this all falls out.

How many times have we seen this shitshow where wiggle room is found because a plaintiff was "to broad in his suit?" What fucking part of Shall Not Be Infringed does bullshit "standing" has any bearing on whether or not we are going to exercise a fundament Right "immediate future"?

A real judge would know this and call NY out on their bullshit legal claims.

"I am booking a flight to Mount Rushmore as we speak your honor!" was never a predicate to having a Right to go there, armed or otherwise.

Fuck him.

It’s a cop out to vote the way the state wants him to. He said it’s unconstitutional so why not rule this way? The standing thing is Suddaby’s cop out to appease the powers that be. Standing has been ruled on and you didn’t even have to have the intent to break the law. All you need to have standing is a concealed carry permit or even the desire to obtain one. This law could prevent people from wanting a permit.
This is bullshit!!

 

[John Stark]

Its the fucking equivalent of saying, "The plaintiff has not shown an immediate intent to exercise his Right:

To vote;

Or to speak (or not to);

Or to read or write something (or not to);

Or to go to church (or not to)..."

And so on.

"The plaintiff has not shown an immediate intent to exercise his right to breathe, so I hope he can hold his breath for awhile as we try to sort out whether he has fucking standing."

Putting that kind of made up, retarded "standard" forward by a federal "judge" ought to be grounds for an impeachment and a horse whipping!

After his trial of course, when maybe he will have an "immediate intent" to prove his innocence and have legal representation in order to defend his Rights in a court of law.

What a fucking cuck!