If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS September Giveaway ***Ruger Wrangler***
“10 days after New York passed a set of revised licensing and gun laws post-Bruen (known colloquially as the Concealed Carry Improvement Act, or CCIA), those laws were challenged in federal court. The case is Antonyuk et al. v. Bruen, Docket No. 1:22-cv-00734 in the Northern District of New York. Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby is presiding over the case.
In a 37-page complaint, the plaintiffs—Ivan Antonyuk (who lives in Schenectady County, NY), Gun Owners of America, Inc., Gun Owners Foundation, and Gun Owners of America New York, Inc.—challenged most aspects of New York’s revised gun laws, including: the “good moral character” requirement (which long pre-dates Bruen); the requirement that applicants attend an in-person interview and submit character references and a list of social media accounts; New York’s sensitive-places prohibition; New York’s default rule that guns are prohibited on private property unless explicitly allowed; and the time and cost of New York’s training requirements. The complaint asserts § 1983 claims under both the First and Second Amendments.
After filing their complaint on July 11, the plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction on July 20. The state subsequently requested additional time to respond to the PI motion. Judge Suddaby granted that motion in part and set the following briefing schedule, noting that the CCIA is set to take effect on September 1: defendant’s response was due on August 15, plaintiffs’ reply is due on August 22, and the preliminary injunction hearing is set for August 23. New York subsequently requested, and was granted, leave to file a response brief longer than the court’s default page limi… New York filed its 65-page response brief (attaching 54 exhibits) on August 15…
The briefs illustrate a fundamental disagreement over Bruen’s stance on shall-issue regimes that retain some discretionary elements.”
The same Court has not been a friend of RKBA, so it’ll be an uphill battle.
Everytown Filed an Amicus Brief in the Case with Other Local and National Gun Violence Prevention Groups NEW YORK – Today, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of …www.everytown.org
"Antonyuk is not the only ongoing case dealing with sensitive places. Angelo v. District of Columbia, currently pending in the federal district court in Washington, D.C., was filed on June 30 and involves a challenge by several permitholders to Washington D.C.’s designation of the Metro as a sensitive place where guns are banned (the law was passed in 2014, and went into effect the following year)...
As to the Metro specifically, the District seems more likely to succeed on its activities-based argument: that the Metro prohibition is sufficiently similar to “early American laws prohibiting the carrying of arms near parades and on trains” because such laws illustrate a historical tradition of prohibiting guns in areas of dense congregation or around official government activities. Specifically, the airport/airplane comparison seems apt, as those are also locations which simply did not exist at the time of the Founding but where few doubt that guns can be banned today...
The plaintiffs cite an 1803 observation by St. George Tucker that it was common for Americans to leave home armed with a rifle or musket. The District, on the other hand, relies on historical laws in the militia context as evidence that normal civilians did not commonly carry arms in public at the time. If judges are to evaluate modern gun regulations by reference to historical laws, there should presumably be some showing that people actually used guns in the manner contemplated during the Founding Era. If guns were not normally carried in certain public settings as a matter of custom, then what we today view as a lack of regulation may just be evidence that there was no need for government to regulate in that setting. The difficult question, of course, is how courts should resolve differing accounts of social custom that might exist in the historical record."
Requiring a person to place themselves at jeopardy of permanent loss of rights by exercising that right is BS.Plaintiffs must instead show that they have “been personally threatened with prosecution,” id. at 1255, in the sense of being “singled out or uniquely targeted Case 1:22-cv-01878-RDM Document 18 Filed 09/16/22 Page 20 of 44 15 by the D.C. government for prosecution,” Parker, 478 F.3d at 374–75. “[F]eared injury” is “insufficiently imminent.” Id. (holding that “a general threat of prosecution” does not suffice).
They are quoting 1870's Texas law but the idea is confounding - the persons most in need of protection from the lawless are prohibited from being prepared to defend themselves.These laws were designed to, among other things, protect vulnerable groups of people who, because of their age or physical state, cannot easily escape attack, much less defend themselves
So since they principally exclude the entirety of areas of commerce and social interaction, a person may enjoy their 2nd amendment rights only by forgoing all other protected activitiesBecause citizens “can preserve an undiminished right of self-defense by not entering those places” or by “taking an alternate route,” Class, 930 F.3d at 463–65, laws restricting guns “in sensitive locations” “neither prohibit nor broadly frustrate any individual from generally exercising his right to bear arms,”
Such laws were intended to prevent the carrying of firearms from hindering the government’s operation or chilling the exercise of other constitutional rights.
Indictment is different from convictionSo, all this big talk about those with a felony, great.
How about the whole thing with "mis-da-felony" in Massachusetts? Is it asking too much to do something there? Sorry to be doubtful of anything happening...
Just this past Tuesday?????
Was there even a post about it?
How about “suitability” is based on factual information?A licensing authority could still deny an application if it determines a person is “unsuitable” based on “reliable, articulable, and credible information” that the applicant has “exhibited or engaged in behavior” that “may create a risk to public safety or a risk of danger to self or others.”
How about “suitability” is based on factual information?
Just a thought.
This - they can use the suitability clause to deny people who can't handle life without the police getting involved on a regular basis but don't get to the point of actual prohibited status.In practice, that's what it will have to be. CoPs are unlikely to stick their necks out. Some might, but then they'll lose in court and the law will go away.
The law can say what it likes. Until someone enforces it, knowing the courts will smack them down, it's posturing.
Listening to this today...
Panel 1 – 8:45-9:45 am – Keynote Discussion: Criminal Justice and Prosecutorial Discretion in the Wake of Bruen
Moderator: Vincent Southerland (NYU)
Panelists: Alvin Bragg (Manhattan District Attorney), Zellnor Myrie (New York State Senator), Steven Wu (Chief of Appeals, Manhattan DA’s Office)
Panel 2 – 9:50-10:55 am – Bruen’s Methodology and Practical Consequences for Legislation and Criminal Law
Moderator: Mark Tushnet (Harvard)
Panelists: Cynthia Lee (George Washington), Eric Ruben (SMU), Eugene Volokh (UCLA)
Panel 3 – 11:00-12:05 pm – Sensitive Places and the Challenges of Applying Bruen in the Lower Courts
Moderator: Jamal Greene (Columbia)
Panelists: Joseph Blocher (Duke), Jacob Charles (Pepperdine), Adam Samaha (NYU), Reva Siegel (Yale)
Panel 4 – 12:40-1:45 pm – After Bruen: Implications for Law Enforcement, Stare Decisis, and Supreme Court Legitimacy
Moderator: Sanford Levinson (Texas)
Panelists: Brandon del Pozo (Rhode Island Hospital), Mary Anne Franks (Miami), Barry Friedman (NYU), Haley Proctor (Missouri)
Listening to this today...
Apparently, NY scoured laws in the states since 1776 and compiled a list of who's, what's and where's that restricted guns and went as broad as possible. In effect, NY took all US history, threw it against the wall in their new laws, and will litigate to see what sticks and for how long. And made up some new stuff too. Freely admitted as a strategy.
The irony when the much-maligned NRA pulls out their original charter to remind them "we were founded in part to ensure freed blacks have access to firearms." If Wayne could get out of his own way to do that, I might toss them a couple bucks.I can't wait to see NY dem lawyers using slavery based laws to defend their new laws.
Especially when you announce your intention is to negate the effects of the ruling.Ergo, Catholics and blacks, and ESPECIALLY Black Catholics will be banned from any sort of firearm ownership.
It's going to end bad for them. I'm not even a bit nervous. When you shit all over a plain-text writing of a ruling, the ruling body tends to make it even MORE plainer. Like "Short of X, you're not banning shit. Because you can't play nice."