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

[maverick52]

I’m impressed. This is just the beginning…we must keep chipping away at this. Now we need to get rid of NYC ban, Safe Act and the semi auto license requirement.

 

[kev74]

I like to read the ending of books first. This seems to be the meat and potatoes:


F. Scope and Stay
As they did with regard to a Temporary Restraining Order, the State Defendants have
requested that any Preliminary Injunction that is issued by the Court be (1) either limited in
scope to Plaintiffs or the Northern District of New York, and (2) stayed for three business days
pending appeal. (Dkt. No. 48, at 115-16.)
After carefully considering the matter, the Court denies this request for the reasons stated
by Plaintiffs in their reply papers and during oral argument, and for the reasons stated recently by
U.S. District Judge John L. Sinatra in Hardaway v. Nigrelli. (Dkt. No. 69, at 54 [Plfs.’ Reply
Memo. of Law]; Dkt. No. 71, at 107-08 [Prelim. Inj. Tr.].) See also Hardaway v. Nigerelli, 22-
CV-0771, 2022 WL 16646220, at *18-19 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 3, 2022). To those reasons, the Court
adds the fact that five of the nine Defendants in this action have not even opposed Plaintiffs’
139 See Doctor's Assocs., Inc. v. Distajo, 107 F.3d 126, 136 (2d Cir.1997) (affirming district
court decision to not require a franchisor-plaintiff to post a bond for either of its injunctions
because the franchisee-defendants “would not suffer damage or loss from being forced to
arbitrate in lieu of prosecuting their state-court cases”); Doctor’s Assocs., Inc. v. Stuart, 85 F.3d
975, 985 (2d Cir. 1996) (“Defendants have not shown that they will likely suffer harm absent the
posting of a bond by [Plaintiff].”); Clarkson Co. v. Shaheen, 544 F.2d 624, 632 (2d Cir.1976)
(“ecause, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65[c], the amount of any bond to be given upon the issuance
of a preliminary injunction rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, the district court
may dispense with the filing of a bond.”); Ferguson v. Tabah, 288 F.2d 665, 675 (2d Cir.1961)
(“[The phrase ‘in such sum as the court deems proper’] indicates that the District Court is vested
with wide discretion in the matter of security and it has been held proper for the court to require
no bond where there has been no proof of likelihood of harm, or where the injunctive order was
issued “to aid and preserve the court's jurisdiction over the subject matter involved.”).
Case 1:22-cv-00986-GTS-CFH Document 78 Filed 11/07/22 Page 181 of 184


182
motion to preliminarily enjoin the below-enjoined provisions of this patently unconstitutional
law. See, supra, Part I of this Decision. Although the Court has not considered that de facto
consent in evaluating the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims,140 the Court does find it relevant in
evaluating any possible injury to the public that would be caused by this Preliminary Injunction
if, on appeal, this Court’s Decision were to be held to be in error.
For all of these reasons, the Court denies the State Defendants’ request for a limitation
and stay.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Defendant Hochul is DISMISSED from this action as a party; and it is
further
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for a Preliminary Injunction (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
PRELIMINARILY ENJOINED from enforcing the following provisions of the Concealed
Carry Improvement Act, 2022 N.Y. Sess. Laws ch. 371 (“CCIA”):
(1) the following provisions contained in Section 1 of the CCIA:
(a) the provision requiring “good moral character”;
(b) the provision 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”;
(c) the provision requiring “a list of former and current social
media accounts of the applicant from the past three years”; and
(d) the provision contained in Section 1 of the CCIA requiring
“such other information required by review of the licensing application
that is reasonably necessary and related to the review of the licensing
application”;
(2) the following “sensitive locations” provision contained in Section 4 of
the CCIA:
(a) “any location providing . . . behavioral health, or chemical
dependance care or services” (except to places to which the public or a
substantial group of persons have not been granted access) as contained in
Paragraph “2(b)”;
(b) “any place of worship or religious observation” as contained in
Paragraph “2(c)”;
(c) “public parks, and zoos” as contained in Paragraph “2(d)”;
(d) “airports” to the extent the license holder is complying with
federal regulations, and “buses” as contained in Paragraph “2(n)”;
(e) “any establishment issued a license for on-premise
consumption pursuant to article four, four-A, five, or six of the alcoholic
Case 1:22-cv-00986-GTS-CFH Document 78 Filed 11/07/22 Page 183 of 184


184
beverage control law where alcohol is consumed” as contained in
Paragraph “2(o)”;
(f) “theaters,” “conference centers,” and “banquet halls” as
contained in Paragraph “2(p)”; and
(g) “any gathering of individuals to collectively express their
constitutional rights to protest or assemble” as contained in Paragraph
“2(s)”; and
(3) the “restricted locations” provision contained in Section 5 of the
CCIA; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiffs are EXCUSED from giving security; and it is further
ORDERED that the State Defendants’ request for a limitation in the scope of this
Preliminary Injunction and for a stay of it pending appeal (Dkt. No. 48, at 115-16) is DENIED.
Dated: November 7, 2022
Syracuse, New York



Is it fair to say the state got spanked?

That's a lot of meat and potatoes!

 

[Vicarious]

I did not see where it stayed having all private property being a defacto ban on carry unless signs were posted. Pardon me as I may have missed it

Thats a biggie..

 

[Waffles!]

Just finished reading it. I totally disagree with his denying standing in cases where he claims the plaintiffs did not forcefully argue that they were GOING TO violate the CCIA. That's bullshit as far as I am concerned. Also, I don't see that anyone can now carry in subways, unless I missed that. And he EXCUSED Hochul! WTF!

Better than nothing at this point I suppose.

 

[Dr. Evil]

That's a lot of meat and potatoes!

And I'm a vegetarian.

 

[RomanRider]

I did not see where it stayed having all private property being a defacto ban on carry unless signs were posted. Pardon me as I may have missed it

Does anyone know if this is what section 5 restricted locations covers??

 

[togmaster]

The CCIA threw a truckload of shit against a wall to see if it would stick. Unfortunately a lot did.

 

[Truebeliever]

I'll wait for the summary.

Summary from ARFCOM:

This may be easier to read from today's opinion:

ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Defendant Hochul is DISMISSED from this action as a party; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for a Preliminary Injunction (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 PRELIMINARILY ENJOINED from enforcing the following provisions of the Concealed Carry Improvement Act, 2022 N.Y. Sess. Laws ch. 371 (“CCIA”):
(1) the following provisions contained in Section 1 of the CCIA:
(a) the provision requiring “good moral character”;
(b) the provision 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”;
(c) the provision requiring “a list of former and current social media accounts of the applicant from the past three years”; and
(d) the provision contained in Section 1 of the CCIA requiring “such other information required by review of the licensing application that is reasonably necessary and related to the review of the licensing application”;
(2) the following “sensitive locations” provision contained in Section 4 of the CCIA:
(a) “any location providing . . . behavioral health, or chemical dependance care or services” (except to places to which the public or a substantial group of persons have not been granted access) as contained in Paragraph “2(b)”;
(b) “any place of worship or religious observation” as contained in Paragraph “2(c)”;
(c) “public parks, and zoos” as contained in Paragraph “2(d)”;
(d) “airports” to the extent the license holder is complying with federal regulations, and “buses” as contained in Paragraph “2(n)”;
(e) “any establishment issued a license for on-premise consumption pursuant to article four, four-A, five, or six of the alcoholic beverage control law where alcohol is consumed” as contained in Paragraph “2(o)”;
(f) “theaters,” “conference centers,” and “banquet halls” as contained in Paragraph “2(p)”; and
(g) “any gathering of individuals to collectively express their constitutional rights to protest or assemble” as contained in Paragraph “2(s)”; and
(3) the “restricted locations” provision contained in Section 5 of the CCIA; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs are EXCUSED from giving security; and it is further ORDERED that the State Defendants’ request for a limitation in the scope of this Preliminary Injunction and for a stay of it pending appeal (Dkt. No. 48, at 115-16) is DENIED.

Basically , the state can not enforce the majority of the law. Playgrounds and schools , child care are still off limits.

 

[That_FNG]

Summary from ARFCOM:

This may be easier to read from today's opinion:

ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Defendant Hochul is DISMISSED from this action as a party; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for a Preliminary Injunction (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 PRELIMINARILY ENJOINED from enforcing the following provisions of the Concealed Carry Improvement Act, 2022 N.Y. Sess. Laws ch. 371 (“CCIA”):
(1) the following provisions contained in Section 1 of the CCIA:
(a) the provision requiring “good moral character”;
(b) the provision 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”;
(c) the provision requiring “a list of former and current social media accounts of the applicant from the past three years”; and
(d) the provision contained in Section 1 of the CCIA requiring “such other information required by review of the licensing application that is reasonably necessary and related to the review of the licensing application”;
(2) the following “sensitive locations” provision contained in Section 4 of the CCIA:
(a) “any location providing . . . behavioral health, or chemical dependance care or services” (except to places to which the public or a substantial group of persons have not been granted access) as contained in Paragraph “2(b)”;
(b) “any place of worship or religious observation” as contained in Paragraph “2(c)”;
(c) “public parks, and zoos” as contained in Paragraph “2(d)”;
(d) “airports” to the extent the license holder is complying with federal regulations, and “buses” as contained in Paragraph “2(n)”;
(e) “any establishment issued a license for on-premise consumption pursuant to article four, four-A, five, or six of the alcoholic beverage control law where alcohol is consumed” as contained in Paragraph “2(o)”;
(f) “theaters,” “conference centers,” and “banquet halls” as contained in Paragraph “2(p)”; and
(g) “any gathering of individuals to collectively express their constitutional rights to protest or assemble” as contained in Paragraph “2(s)”; and
(3) the “restricted locations” provision contained in Section 5 of the CCIA; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs are EXCUSED from giving security; and it is further ORDERED that the State Defendants’ request for a limitation in the scope of this Preliminary Injunction and for a stay of it pending appeal (Dkt. No. 48, at 115-16) is DENIED.

Basically , the state can not enforce the majority of the law. Playgrounds and schools , child care are still off limits.

What and why is defendant Hochul dismissed?

 

[Truebeliever]

Does anyone know if this is what section 5 restricted locations covers??

Section 5 is the entire restricted location part of the law. It’s in section 5 of the law

 

[Truebeliever]

The CCIA threw a truckload of shit against a wall to see if it would stick. Unfortunately a lot did.

Not that much. Training requirement but the majority of it is gone.

 

[fnfalguy]

And I'm a vegetarian.

And I still talk to you in spite of that. Go figure

 

[Steal2B]

 

[Jchrisls]

Beat me to it

 

[byron]

 

[Saltwater60]

Where's the damn videos already?!?!?!?

Video!! I want text

 

[Saltwater60]

Disappointing to me.

No injunction against NYC carry requiring a separate endorsement from NYPD

No injunction against walking past a school on the street not violating CCIA

No injunction against 4 references which serve no purpose since there is no longer a good moral character requirement

And no injunction against over the top and onerous training requirements

Who said you couldn’t walk past a school on a public street? That was never part of this and you’re allowed to now and before this ruling.

 

[Phazer]

I did not see where it stayed having all private property being a defacto ban on carry unless signs were posted. Pardon me as I may have missed it

"(3) the “restricted locations” provision contained in Section 5 of the CCIA"

 

[Saltwater60]

So is this effective immediately? The last sentence says that defendants request for stay pending appeal is DENIED.

Yes immediate, thank God or o don’t know how I would have lived with myself since I carried a gun to wegmans and to get gas today!! Phew I dodged that bullet.

 

[Saltwater60]

Now we just need her to lose the election tomorrow. The timing is suspicious to me and could sway the election in one direction or the other.

 

[C3D]

Who said you couldn’t walk past a school on a public street? That was never part of this and you’re allowed to now and before this ruling.

in or upon 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;


I will continue to have to detour around the streets that run through Cornell University when I go from Ithaca downtown to Cayuga Heights, much as I have had to for many years now.

 

[Lurch]

in or upon 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;


I will continue to have to detour around the streets that run through Cornell University when I go from Ithaca downtown to Cayuga Heights, much as I have had to for many years now.

Of its a public sidewalk your good to go. If it's on the campus itself then no

 

[cranberry]

Now we just need her to lose the election tomorrow. The timing is suspicious to me and could sway the election in one direction or the other.

No mention of it whatsoever on any of the local and national nightly news stations which I find a little odd but they are in full election mode so I don't think we'll be hearing about this for a few more days .

 

[Saltwater60]

in or upon 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;


I will continue to have to detour around the streets that run through Cornell University when I go from Ithaca downtown to Cayuga Heights, much as I have had to for many years now.

Yes you will but you had to do that previous to the CCIA. I was addressing sidewalks in front of schools. I walk by a school carrying a gun regularly because it’s city property and not the schools property.
Sorry it wasn’t clear to me what you meant and I’ve seen people say you can’t go on a public school or roadway because those are means of public transport so I wanted to be sure you knew you can go on sidewalks.

 

[C3D]

Yes you will but you had to do that previous to the CCIA. I was addressing sidewalks in front of schools. I walk by a school carrying a gun regularly because it’s city property and not the schools property.
Sorry it wasn’t clear to me what you meant and I’ve seen people say you can’t go on a public school or roadway because those are means of public transport so I wanted to be sure you knew you can go on sidewalks.

Yes sorry I was not clear in the post, but that detour around Cornell University-controlled streets has been a long time bugaboo of mine. It's true of many campuses around this state.

 

[Dr. Evil]

Yes immediate, thank God or o don’t know how I would have lived with myself since I carried a gun to wegmans and to get gas today!! Phew I dodged that bullet.

Damn... I could have reported you for a quick $250.

 

[Dr. Evil]

Excuse me if this was discussed but what about the whole you can't carry in a business unless they have a sign allowing it abortion?

 

[speedkills27]

Excuse me if this was discussed but what about the whole you can't carry in a business unless they have a sign allowing it abortion?

I believe that is covered in section 5 which was addressed today

 

[Beerman]

Video!! I want text

Jeeeeeezusssss…. I just watched that video. Holy shit, that fucker loves the sound of his own voice almost as much as the Armed Scholar. What a couple of self-aggrandizing blowhards. 60 seconds would have done it. See post #669

 

[Beerman]

Excuse me if this was discussed but what about the whole you can't carry in a business unless they have a sign allowing it abortion?

(3) the “restricted locations” provision contained in Section 5 of the CCIA; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs are EXCUSED from giving security; and it is further ORDERED that the State Defendants’ request for a limitation in the scope of this Preliminary Injunction and for a stay of it pending appeal (Dkt. No. 48, at 115-16) is DENIED