Egret-II
.40 S&W
Westchester license says. To posses and carry. It doesnt say concealed anywhere. So technically you can open carry if you wanted to.
2A Lawsuits and their progress we have here in NY
- Thread starter Edwardteach72
- Start date
My permit from Erie County includes the following statements only:
On the front:
"STATE OF NEW YORK ERIE COUNTY
License to carry pistol is hereby granted
UNRESTRICTED"
On the back:
"THIS LICENSE IS ISSUED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS
1. It is revocable at any time. 2. If issued outside New York City, not valid to carry a weapon in New York
City unless approved by the police commissioner of that city."
It is simply ridiculous that we have all of these different rules across the state, and that we are treated as second class citizens who cannot legally carry across the entire state. If I am not mistaken, I recall that the Frey lawsuit is also attacking that issue? I long for the day when we can all legally carry throughout the entire state, - and cram it up their asses big time.
Saltwater60
20×102mm Vulcan
And the same could be said when the politicians stop passing unconstitutional laws, but I’d say neither one will happen for the foreseeable future. I’d say there are more cops “doing their job” today than two years ago regarding the 2A. The good cops that could or would look the other way on stupid shit are ending and retiring. The BLM a riots and hostility towards cops on behalf the liberals is the cause and the plan.
Saltwater60
20×102mm Vulcan
Now expand that to the country and it’s even different county by count in many areas. This is dizzying. I do have to say that if the Supreme Court ruling is respected we will not need separate permits or possibly any permit to have, posses, or carry a firearm.
Egret-II
.40 S&W
The part of the law that says you need a license"To posses" needs to be challenged. That's preventing many of us from teaching friends how to shoot or from convincing those, who are afraid of guns, that guns aren't that bad. I think they put that part there for that same reason.
Saltwater60
20×102mm Vulcan
I’ll add the permit by a different state needs to be challenged as well. Many people traveled freely in the USA with all sorts of guns and never needed special permission.
Egret-II
.40 S&W
I don't remember not being able to drive in PA or any other state because my driver license is from NY. And driver licensed are a privilege. Not a right.
How do you sue the state, and how much would it cost? I'm seriously thinking about suing NY for permit to posses and my permit from NYS not being valid in NYC.
Saltwater60
20×102mm Vulcan
It would be a drop in the bucket but I’m sure many of us would pitch in some bucks here for support. I commend anyone who does anything like this because it just has to be a huge hassle.
Also I would wait for the dust to settle a bit because you don’t know what will come out of the current suits.
The Supreme Court just kicked the Massachusetts law back down to the lower courts and the permitting scheme was on that suit.
Is that this one: Churches File Suit Challenging State Gun Law
Post where this has been affirmed as I can't find anything. Facts matter.....and in this A LOT
m1_ping
9mm
Partial TRO, does not take effect for 3 business days to give time for the state to appeal.
Not to sound greedy, but WHT has been determined regarding the sensitive places portion of the law? Has that been included in the TRO?
Hmmmm for churches, (d) “any place of worship or religious observation” (as contained in paragraph “2(c)” of Section 4), EXCEPT for those persons who have been tasked with the duty to keep the peace at the place of worship or religious observation;
EXCEPTIONS, does that cover a non LEO who is on a safety team?
EXCEPTIONS, does that cover a non LEO who is on a safety team?
NVM. Found it, pg 43. This, if it holds, is awesome! Private businesses....here we go again
Egret-II
.40 S&W
Can somebody give me a resume of what just happened? And please dont answer with FUKH!! LOL
TJ12010
9mm
It's a step in the right direction BUT I still can't carry in church, dropping my kids off at school, or anywhere in NYC. I hope these other restrictions get struck down as well.
Dr. Evil
20×102mm Vulcan
Appeal what? Appeal that they shit on the constitution?
CaliberPlus
.45 acp
I am taking down my sign, (not yet) that it is OK to carry in the shop.
I think this is a step in the right direction, I have to say I was wrong. GLAD to say it!
I have to wonder if the state appeals, what that means.
I think this is a step in the right direction, I have to say I was wrong. GLAD to say it!
I have to wonder if the state appeals, what that means.
m1_ping
9mm
I believe it does. I plan to have my pastor or elders write me a letter so I have evidence if it ever comes down to it.
There's no doubt the state will appeal, if for nothing more than to kick the can down the road. The question is will they do it with 3 days.
Actually, what constitutes 3 business days? Would that be Monday of Tuesday? ( if today counts as 1 of those days)
camper4lyfe
.308 Win
I'm only on page 25, but I currently have a bit of a man crush on this judge. Dude is laying the smack down on the state.
The writing was on the wall, the one HE put there before.
It was a masterful instruction manual.
camper4lyfe
.308 Win
Agreed.
Though I spoke too soon. He is allowing the requirement of character references still. That annoys me.
camper4lyfe
.308 Win
Ugh, and he's allowing the training requirement to stand as well.
At least he slapped down the social media bullshit
At least he slapped down the social media bullshit
This is an emergency restraining order to prevent persons from irreparable harm. Nobody is under risk of harm from references or training requirements. Calm down. This is not over. Just a temporary, emergency action.
camper4lyfe
.308 Win
Understood, but it also prevents me from applying for a permit
camper4lyfe
.308 Win
RDCV for those that don't want to read the whole thing:
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. No. 6) is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part in accordance with this Decision; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendants, as well as their officers, agents, servants, employees, and
attorneys (and any other persons who are in active concert or participation with them) are
TEMPORARILY RESTRAINED from enforcing the following provisions of the Concealed
Carry Improvement Act, 2022 N.Y. Sess. Laws ch. 371 (“CCIA”):
(1) the provisions contained in Section 1 of the CCIA requiring “good
moral character” EXCEPT to the extent it is construed to mean that a license
shall be issued or renewed except for an applicant who has been found, by a
preponderance of the evidence based on his or her conduct, to not have “good
moral character,” which is defined as “having the essential character,
temperament and judgment necessary . . . to use [the weapon entrusted to the
applicant] only in a manner that does not endanger oneself or others, other than
in self-defense”;
(2) the provision contained in Section 1 of the CCIA requiring that the
applicant “meet in person with the licensing officer for an interview”;
Case 1:22-cv-00986-GTS-CFH Document 27 Filed 10/06/22 Page 50 of 53
51
(3) the provision contained in Section 1 of the CCIA requiring the “names
and contact information for the applicant’s current spouse, or domestic partner,
any other adults residing in the applicant's home, including any adult children of
the applicant, and whether or not there are minors residing, full time or part time,
in the applicant’s home”;
(4) the provision contained in Section 1 of the CCIA requiring “a list of
former and current social media accounts of the applicant from the past three
years”; and
(5) the “sensitive locations” provision contained in Section 4 of the CCIA
EXCEPT with regard to the following sensitive locations (where the restrictions
remain):
(a) “any place owned or under the control of federal, state or local
government, for the purpose of government administration, including
courts” (as contained in paragraph “2(a)” of Section 4);
(b) “any location being used as a polling place” (as contained in
paragraph “2(q)” of Section 4);
(c) “any public sidewalk or other public area restricted from
general public access for a limited time or special event that has been
issued a permit for such time or event by a governmental entity, or subject
to specific, heightened law enforcement protection, or has otherwise had
such access restricted by a governmental entity, provided such location is
Case 1:22-cv-00986-GTS-CFH Document 27 Filed 10/06/22 Page 51 of 53
52
identified as such by clear and conspicuous signage” (as contained in
paragraph “2(r)” of Section 4);
(d) “any place of worship or religious observation” (as contained in
paragraph “2(c)” of Section 4), EXCEPT for those persons who have
been tasked with the duty to keep the peace at the place of worship or
religious observation;
(e) “nursery schools” and “preschools” (as contained in paragraph
“2(f)” of Section 4);
(f) “any building or grounds, owned or leased, of any educational
institutions, colleges and universities, licensed private career schools,
school districts, public schools, private schools licensed under article one
hundred one of the education law, charter schools, non-public schools,
board of cooperative educational services, special act schools, preschool
special education programs, private residential or non-residential schools
for the education of students with disabilities, and any state-operated or
state-supported schools” (as contained in paragraph “2(m)” of Section 4);
(g) “any gathering of individuals to collectively express their
constitutional rights to protest or assemble” (as contained in paragraph
“2(s)” of Section 4); and
(6) the “restricted locations” provision contained in Section 5 of the CCIA
EXCEPT for fenced-in farmland owned by another or fenced-in hunting ground
owned by another (where the restriction stands); and it is further
Case 1:22-cv-00986-GTS-CFH Document 27 Filed 10/06/22 Page 52 of 53
53
ORDERED that Plaintiffs are EXCUSED from giving security; and it is further
ORDERED that this Temporary Restraining Order shall REMAIN IN EFFECT
pending a hearing and ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction (Dkt. No. 6); and
it is further
ORDERED that this Temporary Restraining Order is STAYED for THREE (3)
BUSINESS DAYS, from the date of this Decision, to allow Defendants to seek emergency relief
in the Second Circuit; and it is further
ORDERED that counsel for Plaintiffs shall promptly and personally serve this Decision
and Temporary Restraining Order on Defendant Soares (who has not yet appeared through
counsel in this action).
Dated: October 6, 2022
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. No. 6) is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part in accordance with this Decision; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendants, as well as their officers, agents, servants, employees, and
attorneys (and any other persons who are in active concert or participation with them) are
TEMPORARILY RESTRAINED from enforcing the following provisions of the Concealed
Carry Improvement Act, 2022 N.Y. Sess. Laws ch. 371 (“CCIA”):
(1) the provisions contained in Section 1 of the CCIA requiring “good
moral character” EXCEPT to the extent it is construed to mean that a license
shall be issued or renewed except for an applicant who has been found, by a
preponderance of the evidence based on his or her conduct, to not have “good
moral character,” which is defined as “having the essential character,
temperament and judgment necessary . . . to use [the weapon entrusted to the
applicant] only in a manner that does not endanger oneself or others, other than
in self-defense”;
(2) the provision contained in Section 1 of the CCIA requiring that the
applicant “meet in person with the licensing officer for an interview”;
Case 1:22-cv-00986-GTS-CFH Document 27 Filed 10/06/22 Page 50 of 53
51
(3) the provision contained in Section 1 of the CCIA requiring the “names
and contact information for the applicant’s current spouse, or domestic partner,
any other adults residing in the applicant's home, including any adult children of
the applicant, and whether or not there are minors residing, full time or part time,
in the applicant’s home”;
(4) the provision contained in Section 1 of the CCIA requiring “a list of
former and current social media accounts of the applicant from the past three
years”; and
(5) the “sensitive locations” provision contained in Section 4 of the CCIA
EXCEPT with regard to the following sensitive locations (where the restrictions
remain):
(a) “any place owned or under the control of federal, state or local
government, for the purpose of government administration, including
courts” (as contained in paragraph “2(a)” of Section 4);
(b) “any location being used as a polling place” (as contained in
paragraph “2(q)” of Section 4);
(c) “any public sidewalk or other public area restricted from
general public access for a limited time or special event that has been
issued a permit for such time or event by a governmental entity, or subject
to specific, heightened law enforcement protection, or has otherwise had
such access restricted by a governmental entity, provided such location is
Case 1:22-cv-00986-GTS-CFH Document 27 Filed 10/06/22 Page 51 of 53
52
identified as such by clear and conspicuous signage” (as contained in
paragraph “2(r)” of Section 4);
(d) “any place of worship or religious observation” (as contained in
paragraph “2(c)” of Section 4), EXCEPT for those persons who have
been tasked with the duty to keep the peace at the place of worship or
religious observation;
(e) “nursery schools” and “preschools” (as contained in paragraph
“2(f)” of Section 4);
(f) “any building or grounds, owned or leased, of any educational
institutions, colleges and universities, licensed private career schools,
school districts, public schools, private schools licensed under article one
hundred one of the education law, charter schools, non-public schools,
board of cooperative educational services, special act schools, preschool
special education programs, private residential or non-residential schools
for the education of students with disabilities, and any state-operated or
state-supported schools” (as contained in paragraph “2(m)” of Section 4);
(g) “any gathering of individuals to collectively express their
constitutional rights to protest or assemble” (as contained in paragraph
“2(s)” of Section 4); and
(6) the “restricted locations” provision contained in Section 5 of the CCIA
EXCEPT for fenced-in farmland owned by another or fenced-in hunting ground
owned by another (where the restriction stands); and it is further
Case 1:22-cv-00986-GTS-CFH Document 27 Filed 10/06/22 Page 52 of 53
53
ORDERED that Plaintiffs are EXCUSED from giving security; and it is further
ORDERED that this Temporary Restraining Order shall REMAIN IN EFFECT
pending a hearing and ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction (Dkt. No. 6); and
it is further
ORDERED that this Temporary Restraining Order is STAYED for THREE (3)
BUSINESS DAYS, from the date of this Decision, to allow Defendants to seek emergency relief
in the Second Circuit; and it is further
ORDERED that counsel for Plaintiffs shall promptly and personally serve this Decision
and Temporary Restraining Order on Defendant Soares (who has not yet appeared through
counsel in this action).
Dated: October 6, 2022
I don't need character references to Vote...
I don't need Civic training to Vote...
I don't need permission to Vote...
I don't see how this Fed Judge, although partially addressing the plaintiffs charge, he is obviously not understanding the SCOTUS ruling much either!
2 tier hurdles emplaced to create defacto denial of exercising 2A Rights is unconstitutional! NY fails to follow those other 43 States that have Shall Issue and that is the problem. Show me those which are shall Issue and have ANY of these ridiculous rules. They don't because they're inconsistent with Shall Issue standards whereas the State MUST demonstrate why the applicant must be denied their 2A RIGHT!!! Not quite STRICT Scrutiny, but it's close!
Edit to add:. The acknowledgement that a place of worship, the basis of freedom upon which this country was founded, cannot be a sensitive place of denial by automation... Ridiculous! This is a serious and grossly malfeasant encroachment into practicing religion! What next? That the State can tell you what scripture is acceptable? Hmmmmm....
Fuck NY, concealed is concealed and that's it!
I don't need Civic training to Vote...
I don't need permission to Vote...
I don't see how this Fed Judge, although partially addressing the plaintiffs charge, he is obviously not understanding the SCOTUS ruling much either!
2 tier hurdles emplaced to create defacto denial of exercising 2A Rights is unconstitutional! NY fails to follow those other 43 States that have Shall Issue and that is the problem. Show me those which are shall Issue and have ANY of these ridiculous rules. They don't because they're inconsistent with Shall Issue standards whereas the State MUST demonstrate why the applicant must be denied their 2A RIGHT!!! Not quite STRICT Scrutiny, but it's close!
Edit to add:. The acknowledgement that a place of worship, the basis of freedom upon which this country was founded, cannot be a sensitive place of denial by automation... Ridiculous! This is a serious and grossly malfeasant encroachment into practicing religion! What next? That the State can tell you what scripture is acceptable? Hmmmmm....
Fuck NY, concealed is concealed and that's it!