Search results

This is totally misleading and flat out wrong. The TRO never took effect. It was theatre. Shameful of them to put this out there. Doing a victory lap based on a lie.

A few more things that popped into my head from the call, our lawyer seemed very unprepared. I specifically remember: He was asked how many instances in history would he consider enough to create a historical tradition when talking about laws. He said he didn't know. Just said more than a few...

But why give up on places where you already won a TRO and the judge already cited no historical tradition for? Seemed like a slam dunk.

Yea I don't really know what to make of it. I was listening in the background and didn't think too much when they gave up shelters and camps and places with children, then my ears perked up when they also gave up on places that sell alcohol and healthcare centers and public transportation. I...

I remember the lawyer for the state even being surprised that we were no longer challenging some of the places. He said "oh I wasn't aware you were not challenging these places any longer, well then I'll move on" I'm not a lawyer but that seems pretty clear cut to me.

Something not being a good idea and something having historical analogue to be constitutionally legal are two vey different things. There is no tradition in this country of banning guns in bars. This was already addressed in the TRO.

I heard the state start talking about other states that prohibit carrying in bars generally then he mentioned carrying while intoxicated as a separate item. The judge then said they weren't arguing that and the state atty moved on to something else. So not sure if that means the entire thing...

Also for those who couldn't listen live, the judge said he'll issue his decision "as soon as possible" for whatever that's worth. I listened to the entire thing. I'm not trying to be negative but I don't think it went very well for us. The judge let them get away with a lot of stuff. Citing...

Did anyone else who called in to listen hear the states attorney say that 2A covers weapons in common use? I couldn't believe they actually said that in court. How are we not fighting for mags and real AR's? Seems like a big missed opportunity.

“Our” attorney was unprepared and stumbling over his words the whole time. Kept losing his place too. The other side was polished and has sources for everything they mentioned. I can’t see the judge ruling in our favor after hearing this.

Sounds like for standing they are looking for people to have been arrested and charged first. Or denied a permit.

Also lots of problems with standing. No injured party. Etc. not looking good. At all.

Not challenging Times Square Bars and restaurants Camps Shelters Health facilities Library Areas where Children gather Public transport except for checking a gun to fly on a plane probably more. they backed way off.

I’m listening to it now. Call in (audio only) +1 315-691-0477 Phone Conference ID: 595 261 93# I think the opening was weak. The atty said they won’t challenge Times Square and a handful of other places. Seems like they are backing off and just gonna try for a few places right now. They also...

Restricted places and magazines are my biggest concerns. Anything active on the magazine front that would help us or is that not a focus in this state? I know out west it's a hot issue. Wonder why nobody talks about it here?

Wait till the IRS uses the POS footage as grounds to audit you etc..

More here:

BREAKING: A Federal Judge in Buffalo, NY has ruled churches are legal to carry in .. for now ‘[n]othing in the Second Amendment's text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms,’...

I'm not the person to give it to ya. I'm just trying to keep up with what's going on the best I can.

Just filed: More: https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...Motion_for_Stay_Pending_Appeal.pdf?1665674407

Yes. The entire CCIA is law and it is in full force.

I'm sure they'll drag as long as they can. I'm sure they've been told to do so by the state.

Figured this was significant enough for its own headline, at least for now. Whoever's in charge around here can merge or delete if they see fit.

I had a feeling those would come today. I've been watching for it since I got to work.

BREAKING: THE TRO IS STAYED, CCIA LAW IS IN EFFECT.

According to this CNN article the state says the TRO is in effect today (Wednesday). https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/10/politics/new-york-gun-law-appeal/index.html

Not exactly. The TRO is only temporary so it'd just have to go right back to the 2nd and they would overrule the entire thing. The more I think about it the less I think the 2nd will mess with the TRO because in 2 weeks or so it'll be irrelevant when the final case determination is made.

Quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever seen.

Could be. I'm just saying that if it were going to happen today would be the day. It'll give me something to keep an eye on at work anyway.

Oh you're probably right. I'll be watching for the block to come today then.

Ok it's Wednesday. The 3 days are up for the stay (Friday, Monday, Tuesday). So is this official now or what? Anyone know?

The case is still with him. He ruled on the emergency TRO which protects the plaintiffs from damage until he can make the final ruling on the case as a whole.

How will they rule? Well they can rule in our favor and the restraint stands or they can rule against which I almost hopes happens, and it;; go back to SCOTUS and be even better for us in the long run. How long will they stall? Well the stay expires in 2 business days after today so not for long.

Some information regarding the appeal; Appealing a TRO is generally super narrow. You can't just say "I don't like it, I want a second opinion" You have to have a factual issue with the TRO. It does not get re-heard, or re-argued. You cannot present new arguments. You can only claim the lower...

Another Red Coat down.

I would think the 2nd can scrap the TRO without any consequence, but when the actual case ruling comes down (in a few weeks I think) it will have to stand or they know it is going back to SCOTUS, the same court that just smacked them down, and the court they have called "radical" and...

OK well the governor has been restrained so....

The law was deemed unconstitutional, no? The AG was restrained, no? The AG = top law enforcement officer. If she cant enforce then why would anyone under her be able to? I think you are worrying about nothing here. If you want to follow unconstitutional laws go ahead. I won't.

If you were charged by a DA in "X" county the charges are still the state of NY v. You. The state has been restrained. Each local jurisdiction is acting on behalf of the state. The ruing applies to everyone.

Maybe when its all over you won't need a permit.

The charges wouldn't stick past Wednesday. No DA's office would even bother with this. Charge someone Tuesday and drop charges Wednesday? Nah. I dont think so.

The TRO only addressed a few of the imminent things that were putting people in immediate danger of arrest. It is not the final decision of the case. Training requirements and others are still being reviewed and a decision will come soon on those. Also the bar is much higher for a TRO than it is...

Because NYC isn't sensitive. You just dont have a license to carry there. Thats the difference.

The charges would be the state of NY V you. The state is restrained.

The order would effect the jurisdiction of the Court that issued it as far as I know.

The 2nd Circuit knows though that if they get cute this is going right back to SCOTUS and this time they are likely to be even more strict and limit the state even further.

I would be careful with the "church security" thing. I could see the state charging people for working as armed guards without the proper license for it.

I don't see how the charges could stand. We may need another lawsuit to settle out first though for a definitive answer.

I wonder if private business "no guns allowed" signs will now be considered legally binding therefore making those areas sensitive places or is that not a possibility unless they write a new law?