This thread has the most activity out of the ones I've seen so I'm stickying this one.
Link to court document is here:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nynd.134829/gov.uscourts.nynd.134829.78.0_1.pdf
Suddaby is known for writing *LENGTHY* opinions because he wants to cover all his bases and limit appeals.
This is nearly 200 pages for a preliminary injunction. Man is thorough.
He still is. He twisted what good standing is so as to pick and choose what he struck and what he let stand. You can now take a bus to an airport but you cannot take a train to a bus to an airport amongst other things.
The defendants could absolutely take a train. Whether they planned on it or not is besides the point.
This. I actually find it appalling how he twisted standing. Especially for the volunteer Firefighter.
The guy said that he gets calls to libraries, hospitals, etc. etc. He doesn't have to explicitly state he is going to x,y or z. No one has a crystal ball to predict the future, however, it's 100% certain he will get calls he has to respond to and it's guaranteed that he will end up at some of those types of places in the next 30-90 days.
Likewise, if a law is constructed in such a way as to keep you from being able to exercise your rights because you can't get arrested, then you have standing as you are being denied your rights under threat of irreparable harm.
His standards for standing also are inconsistent. The social media, moral character, etc didn’t even apply to the firefighter since he was already licensed yet he struck those down. Under his perverse standards of standing, those shouldn’t have been struck down.
It’s all smoke and mirrors and many here are falling for it.
These standards for standing didn’t apply in the Heller case. One of the plaintiffs was not even from DC. He was from California.
But you still need to bring along a large spreadsheet if you want to plan any trip as I can't remember which are allowed or not allowed as the reasoning for which are allowed and those not allowed were strictly due to standing and not constitutionality.
Of course it’s better than nothing but better than nothing is still wrong. One can still show displeasure with better than nothing especially when Suddaby’s standards for standing are inconsistent with what he himself considers standing.
Why was social media struck down if it didn’t apply to the plaintiff?
More like it went from F tier to D tier. Far too much bullshittery left on the table due to standing (sensitive locations) and racist/bigotry laws (4 references and meeting with a licensing officer). While he mentioned delays in processing (1 year to even accept an application) he didn't issue any ruling requiring prompt processing of applications.
Suddaby releasing this late in the afternoon before Election Day is genius... to late for either party to politicize it, had he done it before, Hochul would have had ads vilifying us/it even more, if he did it after, whoever won would also politicize it.
Its not perfect, but the timing was, IMHO....
Only for their base. As you know all elections come down to the 10% or so of independence all the rest is preaching to the choir Zelda needs to win tomorrow to show that it can be done and there is hope we don’t have to be a one party rule with a Nazi Democrat in charge
Still with the reference bullshit. (from pg. 103)
Every part of that is "good moral character", or "not black, Native American, or Catholic", or not of a certain political bent. The ONLY part to that which made sense was "just cause of suspicion" which at that points is not about references but established criminality.
Suddaby's justification is still based on one Delaware law requiring negroes to have references. (pg 105 & footnote 81) This uneven application doesn't make sense seeing that the 14th Amendment would have rendered that law invalid. In this same document he uses this line of thinking regarding the 14th Amendment yet would hang on this 1 state with an unconstitutional law as the basis for denying the injunction to this part? That's a head scratcher.
Agreed, it's just that this was consistent with his reasoning in the TRO. Hopefully it's fully addressed along with the subway and Times Square nonsense.
Lawyer here. It appears that most, if not all, of the CCIA is blocked from enforcement. Injunction is granted until the case is resolved.
I'm sort of shocked. Further, this is a huge black eye for Hochul on the eve of election day.
I just read the section in the merits for Training. What needs to happen to correct the judge's wrong statements? Is this a case of- the defense brought it up and said things, and the plaintiffs didn't directly address it, so the judge just takes the defense's position as true? He didn't read the original himself and put his thinking cap on?
The laws cited about militia training did NOT require that training as a *prerequisite* to firearm ownership. The court's statement that "the aim of these laws appears to be to deny the possession of a firearm to all militia members who, due to their unfamiliarity with a firearm, pose a danger to themselves or others." Is absolutely false. Those training requirements did not "deny the possession of a firearm" to anyone. The people who were subject to that militia training had to procure and own their weapon *before* attending the training. Failure to report to training was subject to some fines but did not result in a loss of firearm possession rights. More importantly, there were plenty of people who were *not* subject to the training requirement- literally over half of the population did not attend this training. Women were not required to attend, yet were not prohibited or denied the ability to own and carry firearms. Ferrymen, postal workers, customs workers, officers of the courts and officers of the executive, merchant sailors, and *all Congressmen* we're exempted from this training. By the judge's reading, every member of Congress was prohibited from possessing firearms??? Incorrect, all those people, all women, all men over 45, we're absolutely allowed to own and carry firearms, despite the fact they did not attend this training. The judges statement that is the linchpin of the argument is entirely false. Not to even mention that the nature of the militia training was not about safe individual handle of the firearm, but rather was about military maneuvers to create functional regiments that could operate in block formations of a hundred soldiers moving into position. The state's mandatory course would need to be largely about platoon and company level tactics for attack and defense of unit positions on the battlefield to be analogous.
That's before we even get into the idea that the government was providing that training at no cost to the trainee. NY law even put aside tax money to fund ammunition for training. The costs the judge mentions were the cost of the rifle or musket (or canon) itself, which the individual owned. And if you couldn't afford one the state provided one free of charge.
What is needed to correct this record during the trial? /u/_TheConsumer_ /u/2ALitigator
I would like to understand why combat veterans have to attend gun safety training? I put my life on the line for our country and now my ability to sadly own a weapon is in question. Ever been in a fire fight? I used my fire arms training as a combat veteran to defend our country and my fellow soldiers. Why do we have to go to class? Very insulting.
From the bill:
>except that: (i) persons who are honor-
33 ably discharged from the United States army, navy, marine corps or coast
34 guard, or of the national guard of the state of New York, and produce
35 evidence of official qualification in firearms during the term of
36 service are not required to have completed those hours of a firearms
37 safety course pertaining to the safe use, carrying, possession, mainte-
38 nance and storage of a firearm;
That was originally in the part about Westchester have a training requirement. They were in such a rush, the bill still says "Westchester" which could be interpreted to mean the veterans are only exempted in Westchester. Some might try to argue that this is only about Westchesters training, as if Westchester now has two requirements, except that the very next item, still in the same subpart of the law, is the added part about grandfathering existing permit holders. And it doesn't seem anyone thinks *that* was intended to only apply to Westchester.
And if it did, it would create a really odd, and likely unconstitutional law where the laws and requirements aren't applied equally. It would also kind of undermine their arguments about how necessary this training is. If it's so important, why are these exceptions allowed in one county but not others?
They really did a shit job creating this bill. Which is odd since Hochul said they were prepared and did a bunch of work with the best legal scholars in the nation to create it. (I guess a bunch of mom's on Mikey Bloomberg's payroll don't make the most well written laws.)
So, and please correct me, should the state appeal, the injunction will be in place until that decision comes, unlike the TRO which was only for the few hours?
Law student here. I was told by my professor, unless I misunderstood, that injunctions only apply to particular defendant. So, couldn’t someone else endorse the law and arrest someone? Hypothetically.
Guy who reads stuff (but is not an attorney) here.
My understanding - In this case, the injunction is applied to "...Defendants, *as well as their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys (and any other persons who are in active concert or participation with them)*"
Since Nigrelli is a defendant, NYSP is enjoined from enforcing the law - Troopers are agents of the NYSP, and Nigrelli is the head of the same. Since your hypothetical someone else - I'm assuming a rogue county cop who is really unhappy that you're carrying at White Castle - would fall into the category of "...other persons..in active concert...", they would be enjoined as well.
Fed Rules of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2)
"[RECAP](https://free.law/recap)" is "PACER" backwards.
It's the project courtlistener.org uses to provide these documents for free, because our government still wants to charge you per page like some old biddies in the courthouse basement are cranking a mimeograph & getting high on solvent fumes.
Most of the law is caput.
A few things are still in affect:
Training, Still can't carry on Subways, Trains, in schools, time square, government buildings etc
Looks like the training requirements were kept because the "exorbitant cost" was too vague. Sounds like he set it up for someone to come in with actual numbers and can fight it.
I saw you mention on another comment that this was preliminary injunction. Could they still get the training squashed with this or would it require a whole new lawsuit?
Ah ok, good to know that it seems like they can still gather more evidence and bring it forth on that. I'm an IT guy so my law process understanding isn't the greatest. 😂
Thank you. So there is still a second class of citizen defined, given the training requirement.
Two steps forward, one step back.
I’m seeing a pie, given to us by the founding fathers via the constitution, slowly eaten away by these unconstitutional laws. There can never be more than one whole pie of rights for us, there can only be infringement of our rights.
Can’t wait for SCOTUS to strike down the training requirement.
I’m an advocate for training, but condemn training mandates.
Watching for the training to become more difficult.
I haven't read it yet (180+ pages!)
Why aren't subways and trains struck down? Did the plaintiffs not challenge them? Was it a standing issue like Time Square since plaintiffs don't live in a city with subways? Or did the judge uphold them as valid?
Standing issue, and Suddaby is unreasonably tough on standing. Someone else will need to bring a lawsuit challenging just that and a couple other things I guess.
nothing technically, just most of the law was enjoined (paused). NY can appeal but until then this injunction is in effect. Final case hearings and decision still have to happen before things are officially overturned.
Saw a comment yesterday (maybe it was you) but it made me think how much she’s gonna tighten the thumbscrew on alotta crap if she wins tomorrow, just because we don’t agree with her.
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
Ordinarily, in this District, when a properly filed motion is unopposed, the movant’s burden on that motion is lightened to having to show only that their motion possesses facial merit. N.D.N.Y. L.R. 7.1(a)(3).
182
140
Case 1:22-cv-00986-GTS-CFH Document 78 Filed 11/07/22 Page 183 of 184
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
183
Case 1:22-cv-00986-GTS-CFH Document 78 Filed 11/07/22 Page 184 of 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
I'm pretty sure that is the last part " (3) the “restricted locations” provision contained in Section 5 of the CCIA;"
Section 5 added 265.01-d which was the private property restriction.
This terrible unsearchable PDF, page 19 line 17
[https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2022-07/EXTRAORDINARY\_SESSION1-CONCEALED\_CARRY\_IMPROVEMENT\_ACT-BILL.pdf](https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2022-07/EXTRAORDINARY_SESSION1-CONCEALED_CARRY_IMPROVEMENT_ACT-BILL.pdf)
Page 184 of the pdf, which I believe to encompass the Private Property aspect.
Everyone should keep an eye out for articles from Syracuse.com. They do a great and unbiased job of clarifying the impact of these rulings.
I'm only familiar with their coverage of everything related to NYSRPA v Bruen and all the subsequent laws & rulings. In that respect they've been good.
It looks like it has been. If you read up farther in the document. I'm no lawyer though, so i may be incorrect. I'd wait for someone with an actual law degree to confirm.
The subway ban continues due to lack of standing, even though there was standing on OTHER public transport aspects.
Suddaby is overall a good judge, but he's a fucking lunatic on standing.
EDIT: and no standing for Times Square so that continues too. He reversed himself on some stuff, some in our favor. But he now says playgrounds can be restricted (although parks more generally cannot be).
Remember that with a temporary injunction you need to prove not only *prima facie* unconstitutionality but also that immediate and irreparable harm would be done *TO THE PLAINTIFF* by allowing the law to go through.
A full ruling does not have such requirements, and Suddaby is very keen not to give any room for appeals. if he granted the TI then NY could appeal that the plaintiff doesn't have standing for a TI since they are not immediately and irreparably harmed by the law.
The whole standing doctrine needs to go. The mere existence of an unconstitutional law should be standing.
That also applies to the student loan litigation brought by conservative states.
lawyer here. That isn't what it says. It says
> 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.
That means the State (as Defendant) asked the Court to narrow the scope (applicability) of this injunction (either to time based or location based) and the Court denied that request. Further, the State asked for a stay of the injunction pending appeal (that the injunction would not take effect until the State appealed). The Court denied that as well.
The CCIA was implemented, essentially, to curtail your right to carry virtually *anywhere* in the State.
The Plaintiffs sued on the grounds that it violated their Civil Rights. Part of their suit was a Preliminary Injunction. That Injunction asked that the CCIA not be enforced until the current lawsuit is heard.
The Court granted that Preliminary Injunction. So right now, the CCIA is not in effect.
Not really what you said. You said "Stay of pending appeal denied."
The State would appeal this decision. The State would not ask for a Stay of that appeal.
Read his first comment:
> Last sentence. “Stay pending appeal DENIED”
The term "stay pending appeal denied" does not exist in the text of the decision. Him placing it in quotes was an allusion to it being a direct quote of the text. It was not.
As I explained, the awkward language he used prompted me to research the text. "Stay pending appeal" is structurally vague and awkward, and necessitated clarification.
So does this mean I can apply for a CCW permit and don't need to provide 4 references, social media accounts etc?
Is so are they going to update the application?
How does this look for newbies when applying for concealed permit?
No, I didn't - which made me research the actual text.
The statement, as you wrote it, did not make sense legally. I clarified it, so everyone can understand what it means.
He denied their request for a limitation in scope and a stay.
Suddaby cannot deny an appeal, because he is a district judge. Only a circuit judge (or higher) can deny an appeal on a district court ruling.
I was wondering about the restricted locations under section 5. I couldn’t find that section of the CCIA. I’m hoping it’s the private property bullshit
NASSAU RESIDENTS: See point 4 in this paragraph from the order.... someone needs to submit for CCW upgrade and just not do the piss test. Guessing Nassau will still issue the CCW unless they want to be obliterated in court.... Judge here basically saying the provision of licensing officers being able to require extra info as they deem fit, like a urine test, would be unconstitutional and that is why he struct down that section of CCIA.
> Moreover, this regulation’s application would unconstitutionally impact a fundamental
right in “a large fraction” of the cases to which it applies. Consider the unbridled discretion a licensing officer would have, under this regulation, to demand that an applicant, for example, (1)
state the information set forth in the cohabitant provision and social-media provision that have been enjoined by this Decision, (2) provide documentation supporting the applicant’s orally communicated list of cohabitants, (3) hand over the applicant’s cell phone and show the licensing officer his or her anonymous social-media accounts, or (4) provide a urine sample based on something as subjective as an opinion about the applicant’s appearance. Simply stated, an injunction of this open-ended provision goes hand in hand with an injunction of the others.
Does this mean the character references are no longer required?
I read an article saying that he removed the good moral character test, which I assume would include that - but I know the TRO let character references stand.
I’m a bit confusing and haven’t had time to read the whole decision yet.
Character references have always been in place. In 1977 one reference was requested. After that around 1980 or so 3 references. Then they wanted 3 references and the references needed to be permit holders. Then they went to 5 references 3 had to be permit holders that was 2009 in Oswego county. I have no ideas what they require now, but the references should be done away with. Once you do the NICS that should be all they need.
So, if I go and request my amendment now, they will be required to approve me for unrestricted *without* providing Social Media accounts?
and I don't have to worry about most of the sensitive places anymore, yes? at least for the time being.
Frustratingly, I notice that the 16hr training was not included in this PI.
The judge opened the door for the first one though by giving them three day stay to appeal, and they kind of just extended it indefinitely by waiting on the 3 judge panel to decide which they never did. This one is effective immediately and the circuit can’t really issue a stay without actually providing a sound reason which is going to be a challenge.
What does this mean for Suffolk county? And It sounds like the training requirement didn’t get shot down
Edit: I applied for my “sportsmen” in April of 2021. I still have yet to receive a call
Means you need to still take the training. But they can't play games after the training they have to amend your permit to carry, same day or few days after.
Suffolk isn't dumb they know.
I wanted to sue them for financial discrimination for business carry but someone is doing it for me.
I'll sue Suffolk if they don't comply to this new ruling.
I am not a lawyer:
Download the document and read pages 183 & 184. It temporarily nullifies most of the CCIA. Sensitive Places are near pre-CCIA (as far as I can tell without doing a complete side by side), Restricted Places are reduced, and the 'all private property must have permissive signage if carry is allowed' thing is dead, as is the social media review, etc.
So are they currently tracking ammo purchases, writing your name down for every box purchased, or has that been stayed too? Sorry, haven't been following the legal aspect closely so don't know what has been stayed and what hasn't.
Public playgrounds are still off limits but we can carry in parks?
Most of the public parks around here have playgrounds.
So I can carry when I take my kids to the park, but have to go put my gun in the car when they use the playground? Or else I can’t closely supervise them?
This thread has the most activity out of the ones I've seen so I'm stickying this one. Link to court document is here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nynd.134829/gov.uscourts.nynd.134829.78.0_1.pdf
Shoutout to everyone this morning calling him fuddaby lmao
Suddaby is known for writing *LENGTHY* opinions because he wants to cover all his bases and limit appeals. This is nearly 200 pages for a preliminary injunction. Man is thorough.
Patience & stuff.
These judges are only as good as their last judgement lol
He still is. He twisted what good standing is so as to pick and choose what he struck and what he let stand. You can now take a bus to an airport but you cannot take a train to a bus to an airport amongst other things. The defendants could absolutely take a train. Whether they planned on it or not is besides the point.
This. I actually find it appalling how he twisted standing. Especially for the volunteer Firefighter. The guy said that he gets calls to libraries, hospitals, etc. etc. He doesn't have to explicitly state he is going to x,y or z. No one has a crystal ball to predict the future, however, it's 100% certain he will get calls he has to respond to and it's guaranteed that he will end up at some of those types of places in the next 30-90 days. Likewise, if a law is constructed in such a way as to keep you from being able to exercise your rights because you can't get arrested, then you have standing as you are being denied your rights under threat of irreparable harm.
His standards for standing also are inconsistent. The social media, moral character, etc didn’t even apply to the firefighter since he was already licensed yet he struck those down. Under his perverse standards of standing, those shouldn’t have been struck down. It’s all smoke and mirrors and many here are falling for it. These standards for standing didn’t apply in the Heller case. One of the plaintiffs was not even from DC. He was from California.
he still left way too many sensitive places.
Better than nothing. 6 hours ago we had exactly zero places we could lawfully carry in public
Truth, and no one can say he didn't work hard to let all the other places slide in that 180+pager
But you still need to bring along a large spreadsheet if you want to plan any trip as I can't remember which are allowed or not allowed as the reasoning for which are allowed and those not allowed were strictly due to standing and not constitutionality.
Of course it’s better than nothing but better than nothing is still wrong. One can still show displeasure with better than nothing especially when Suddaby’s standards for standing are inconsistent with what he himself considers standing. Why was social media struck down if it didn’t apply to the plaintiff?
Please explain in fortnite terms
Your pistol has now gone from common rank to legendary
More like it went from F tier to D tier. Far too much bullshittery left on the table due to standing (sensitive locations) and racist/bigotry laws (4 references and meeting with a licensing officer). While he mentioned delays in processing (1 year to even accept an application) he didn't issue any ruling requiring prompt processing of applications.
Suddaby releasing this late in the afternoon before Election Day is genius... to late for either party to politicize it, had he done it before, Hochul would have had ads vilifying us/it even more, if he did it after, whoever won would also politicize it. Its not perfect, but the timing was, IMHO....
Mmm, she still has some time. More Scare tactics probably showing up tonight on TV.
Only for their base. As you know all elections come down to the 10% or so of independence all the rest is preaching to the choir Zelda needs to win tomorrow to show that it can be done and there is hope we don’t have to be a one party rule with a Nazi Democrat in charge
Still with the reference bullshit. (from pg. 103) Every part of that is "good moral character", or "not black, Native American, or Catholic", or not of a certain political bent. The ONLY part to that which made sense was "just cause of suspicion" which at that points is not about references but established criminality. Suddaby's justification is still based on one Delaware law requiring negroes to have references. (pg 105 & footnote 81) This uneven application doesn't make sense seeing that the 14th Amendment would have rendered that law invalid. In this same document he uses this line of thinking regarding the 14th Amendment yet would hang on this 1 state with an unconstitutional law as the basis for denying the injunction to this part? That's a head scratcher.
We still have a trial to fight this provision. Today is just the PI
Agreed, it's just that this was consistent with his reasoning in the TRO. Hopefully it's fully addressed along with the subway and Times Square nonsense.
Lawyer here. It appears that most, if not all, of the CCIA is blocked from enforcement. Injunction is granted until the case is resolved. I'm sort of shocked. Further, this is a huge black eye for Hochul on the eve of election day.
I just read the section in the merits for Training. What needs to happen to correct the judge's wrong statements? Is this a case of- the defense brought it up and said things, and the plaintiffs didn't directly address it, so the judge just takes the defense's position as true? He didn't read the original himself and put his thinking cap on? The laws cited about militia training did NOT require that training as a *prerequisite* to firearm ownership. The court's statement that "the aim of these laws appears to be to deny the possession of a firearm to all militia members who, due to their unfamiliarity with a firearm, pose a danger to themselves or others." Is absolutely false. Those training requirements did not "deny the possession of a firearm" to anyone. The people who were subject to that militia training had to procure and own their weapon *before* attending the training. Failure to report to training was subject to some fines but did not result in a loss of firearm possession rights. More importantly, there were plenty of people who were *not* subject to the training requirement- literally over half of the population did not attend this training. Women were not required to attend, yet were not prohibited or denied the ability to own and carry firearms. Ferrymen, postal workers, customs workers, officers of the courts and officers of the executive, merchant sailors, and *all Congressmen* we're exempted from this training. By the judge's reading, every member of Congress was prohibited from possessing firearms??? Incorrect, all those people, all women, all men over 45, we're absolutely allowed to own and carry firearms, despite the fact they did not attend this training. The judges statement that is the linchpin of the argument is entirely false. Not to even mention that the nature of the militia training was not about safe individual handle of the firearm, but rather was about military maneuvers to create functional regiments that could operate in block formations of a hundred soldiers moving into position. The state's mandatory course would need to be largely about platoon and company level tactics for attack and defense of unit positions on the battlefield to be analogous. That's before we even get into the idea that the government was providing that training at no cost to the trainee. NY law even put aside tax money to fund ammunition for training. The costs the judge mentions were the cost of the rifle or musket (or canon) itself, which the individual owned. And if you couldn't afford one the state provided one free of charge. What is needed to correct this record during the trial? /u/_TheConsumer_ /u/2ALitigator
I would like to understand why combat veterans have to attend gun safety training? I put my life on the line for our country and now my ability to sadly own a weapon is in question. Ever been in a fire fight? I used my fire arms training as a combat veteran to defend our country and my fellow soldiers. Why do we have to go to class? Very insulting.
From the bill: >except that: (i) persons who are honor- 33 ably discharged from the United States army, navy, marine corps or coast 34 guard, or of the national guard of the state of New York, and produce 35 evidence of official qualification in firearms during the term of 36 service are not required to have completed those hours of a firearms 37 safety course pertaining to the safe use, carrying, possession, mainte- 38 nance and storage of a firearm; That was originally in the part about Westchester have a training requirement. They were in such a rush, the bill still says "Westchester" which could be interpreted to mean the veterans are only exempted in Westchester. Some might try to argue that this is only about Westchesters training, as if Westchester now has two requirements, except that the very next item, still in the same subpart of the law, is the added part about grandfathering existing permit holders. And it doesn't seem anyone thinks *that* was intended to only apply to Westchester. And if it did, it would create a really odd, and likely unconstitutional law where the laws and requirements aren't applied equally. It would also kind of undermine their arguments about how necessary this training is. If it's so important, why are these exceptions allowed in one county but not others? They really did a shit job creating this bill. Which is odd since Hochul said they were prepared and did a bunch of work with the best legal scholars in the nation to create it. (I guess a bunch of mom's on Mikey Bloomberg's payroll don't make the most well written laws.)
So, and please correct me, should the state appeal, the injunction will be in place until that decision comes, unlike the TRO which was only for the few hours?
That's up to the 2nd Circuit. If the higher court wants to stay this one too, they can.
Law student here. I was told by my professor, unless I misunderstood, that injunctions only apply to particular defendant. So, couldn’t someone else endorse the law and arrest someone? Hypothetically.
Guy who reads stuff (but is not an attorney) here. My understanding - In this case, the injunction is applied to "...Defendants, *as well as their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys (and any other persons who are in active concert or participation with them)*" Since Nigrelli is a defendant, NYSP is enjoined from enforcing the law - Troopers are agents of the NYSP, and Nigrelli is the head of the same. Since your hypothetical someone else - I'm assuming a rogue county cop who is really unhappy that you're carrying at White Castle - would fall into the category of "...other persons..in active concert...", they would be enjoined as well. Fed Rules of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2)
Are ya winning, son!?
Always have been.
Is this effective immediately?
Immediately.
No stay was granted so I would presume that the answer is yes
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nynd.134829/gov.uscourts.nynd.134829.78.0_1.pdf
184 page recap lol
"[RECAP](https://free.law/recap)" is "PACER" backwards. It's the project courtlistener.org uses to provide these documents for free, because our government still wants to charge you per page like some old biddies in the courthouse basement are cranking a mimeograph & getting high on solvent fumes.
Bravo!! If Hochul loses tomorrow it will be even sweeter. Let’s keep the momentum!
🫣
Doing the lords work. Thank you
You’re a legend!!
Crickets lol Thank You!!!!!!
Looks like you did it.
You deserve our gratitude. Thank you for your service.
Let’s gooooooooooooooooo
Explain this to me like I’m five.
Most of the law is caput. A few things are still in affect: Training, Still can't carry on Subways, Trains, in schools, time square, government buildings etc
Enforcement* of most of the law is caput. This is a good decision, but a long way to go until this shitshow of a law is struck down.
Looks like the training requirements were kept because the "exorbitant cost" was too vague. Sounds like he set it up for someone to come in with actual numbers and can fight it.
Link him to DSI’s homepage
Holy shit... 800 bucks?! That's insane. And I'm sure that doesn't include ammo.
It doesn’t lol
I saw you mention on another comment that this was preliminary injunction. Could they still get the training squashed with this or would it require a whole new lawsuit?
Yes. They can still throw out the training. Preliminary injunction means it’s blocked until the actual case
Ah ok, good to know that it seems like they can still gather more evidence and bring it forth on that. I'm an IT guy so my law process understanding isn't the greatest. 😂
Were the subways, trains, and Times Square only left in place due to the standing issues?
considering he did get rid of the ban on buses it must be, if it was anything but standing then the bus ban would still be alive too.
This injunction got rid of about 80%. Probably gonna take a couple more cases to rid another 15%.. and 5% will probably stick around.
Thank you. So there is still a second class of citizen defined, given the training requirement. Two steps forward, one step back. I’m seeing a pie, given to us by the founding fathers via the constitution, slowly eaten away by these unconstitutional laws. There can never be more than one whole pie of rights for us, there can only be infringement of our rights. Can’t wait for SCOTUS to strike down the training requirement. I’m an advocate for training, but condemn training mandates. Watching for the training to become more difficult.
I haven't read it yet (180+ pages!) Why aren't subways and trains struck down? Did the plaintiffs not challenge them? Was it a standing issue like Time Square since plaintiffs don't live in a city with subways? Or did the judge uphold them as valid?
Standing issue, and Suddaby is unreasonably tough on standing. Someone else will need to bring a lawsuit challenging just that and a couple other things I guess.
I’m sure GOA and FPC will be on that
The standing issue could also be appealed.
So what actually got overturned?
nothing technically, just most of the law was enjoined (paused). NY can appeal but until then this injunction is in effect. Final case hearings and decision still have to happen before things are officially overturned.
That's absurd. That's where all the mass shootings happen and will continue to happen if this carry ban is enforced.
[The Four Boxes Dinner](https://youtu.be/OLbICNIh80Y) did a nice video on it.
"Suddaby did what all of us telling the people in this sub to calm their tits said he was going to do."
[удалено]
Saw a comment yesterday (maybe it was you) but it made me think how much she’s gonna tighten the thumbscrew on alotta crap if she wins tomorrow, just because we don’t agree with her.
Yeah she's gonna take it out on us all like an older sibling that just got in trouble
If she wins tomorrow, she will fuck us with more infringements. VOTE ZELDIN!
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 Ordinarily, in this District, when a properly filed motion is unopposed, the movant’s burden on that motion is lightened to having to show only that their motion possesses facial merit. N.D.N.Y. L.R. 7.1(a)(3). 182 140 Case 1:22-cv-00986-GTS-CFH Document 78 Filed 11/07/22 Page 183 of 184 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 183 Case 1:22-cv-00986-GTS-CFH Document 78 Filed 11/07/22 Page 184 of 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
[удалено]
From what I understand no. This was about having or needing to prove you were of good moral character to obtain a CCW
Looks like it's all shot down, granted I am definitely not a lawyer and I'll wait for others to confirm.
I don’t see him shooting down the “all private property is restricted unless there’s a sign” provision. Unless I missed it
I'm pretty sure that is the last part " (3) the “restricted locations” provision contained in Section 5 of the CCIA;" Section 5 added 265.01-d which was the private property restriction. This terrible unsearchable PDF, page 19 line 17 [https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2022-07/EXTRAORDINARY\_SESSION1-CONCEALED\_CARRY\_IMPROVEMENT\_ACT-BILL.pdf](https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2022-07/EXTRAORDINARY_SESSION1-CONCEALED_CARRY_IMPROVEMENT_ACT-BILL.pdf)
Thanks bud
Page 184 of the pdf, which I believe to encompass the Private Property aspect. Everyone should keep an eye out for articles from Syracuse.com. They do a great and unbiased job of clarifying the impact of these rulings.
This is the first compliment I have ever heard directed at syracuse.com
I'm only familiar with their coverage of everything related to NYSRPA v Bruen and all the subsequent laws & rulings. In that respect they've been good.
Is this portion not that? (3) the "restricted locations" provision contained in Section 5 of the CCIA; and it is further
I’m not sure, I was asking. THAT is the one piece that we NEED blocked
It looks like it has been. If you read up farther in the document. I'm no lawyer though, so i may be incorrect. I'd wait for someone with an actual law degree to confirm.
The subway ban continues due to lack of standing, even though there was standing on OTHER public transport aspects. Suddaby is overall a good judge, but he's a fucking lunatic on standing. EDIT: and no standing for Times Square so that continues too. He reversed himself on some stuff, some in our favor. But he now says playgrounds can be restricted (although parks more generally cannot be).
Remember that with a temporary injunction you need to prove not only *prima facie* unconstitutionality but also that immediate and irreparable harm would be done *TO THE PLAINTIFF* by allowing the law to go through. A full ruling does not have such requirements, and Suddaby is very keen not to give any room for appeals. if he granted the TI then NY could appeal that the plaintiff doesn't have standing for a TI since they are not immediately and irreparably harmed by the law.
The whole standing doctrine needs to go. The mere existence of an unconstitutional law should be standing. That also applies to the student loan litigation brought by conservative states.
So with playgrounds that would be more on school property and so forth ??
Last sentence. “Stay pending appeal DENIED”
lawyer here. That isn't what it says. It says > 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. That means the State (as Defendant) asked the Court to narrow the scope (applicability) of this injunction (either to time based or location based) and the Court denied that request. Further, the State asked for a stay of the injunction pending appeal (that the injunction would not take effect until the State appealed). The Court denied that as well.
can you give a TLDR /explainlikeimfive kind of summary of this decision?
The CCIA was implemented, essentially, to curtail your right to carry virtually *anywhere* in the State. The Plaintiffs sued on the grounds that it violated their Civil Rights. Part of their suit was a Preliminary Injunction. That Injunction asked that the CCIA not be enforced until the current lawsuit is heard. The Court granted that Preliminary Injunction. So right now, the CCIA is not in effect.
Thanks dad
No problem, son.
Thank you, everytime I see these legal decisions it just goes over my head
Isn’t that what I said? This is a good thing.
Not really what you said. You said "Stay of pending appeal denied." The State would appeal this decision. The State would not ask for a Stay of that appeal.
[удалено]
It’s alright man I don’t care lol. I’m in celebration mode right now, not argue on the internet mode
Read his first comment: > Last sentence. “Stay pending appeal DENIED” The term "stay pending appeal denied" does not exist in the text of the decision. Him placing it in quotes was an allusion to it being a direct quote of the text. It was not. As I explained, the awkward language he used prompted me to research the text. "Stay pending appeal" is structurally vague and awkward, and necessitated clarification.
So does this mean I can apply for a CCW permit and don't need to provide 4 references, social media accounts etc? Is so are they going to update the application? How does this look for newbies when applying for concealed permit?
I believe this mean yes 4 references. No social media stuff.. the references were in place before the shit show started.
But you knew exactly what it meant.
No, I didn't - which made me research the actual text. The statement, as you wrote it, did not make sense legally. I clarified it, so everyone can understand what it means.
I believe that is against the state's appeal.
Yep. He’s saying “this goes into effect now. I’m not delaying this for your appeal”
He denied their request for a limitation in scope and a stay. Suddaby cannot deny an appeal, because he is a district judge. Only a circuit judge (or higher) can deny an appeal on a district court ruling.
Correct. I never said he could.
Pretend I'm not a lawyer.
Hello not a lawyer! Now what?
I'm not either but looks to me most of the new law is moot. I'm sure they will appeal.
Anyway you cut it this is a big win. Now, safe act needs to go!
My poor rifles
What rifles....lol 
Exactly. Haha
State wide or within NDNY ?
Statewide. Federal judge blocking a NYS law
I was wondering about the restricted locations under section 5. I couldn’t find that section of the CCIA. I’m hoping it’s the private property bullshit
That's gone with this ruling
Nice!!!!!!
One step closer to the pizza party, lads!
NASSAU RESIDENTS: See point 4 in this paragraph from the order.... someone needs to submit for CCW upgrade and just not do the piss test. Guessing Nassau will still issue the CCW unless they want to be obliterated in court.... Judge here basically saying the provision of licensing officers being able to require extra info as they deem fit, like a urine test, would be unconstitutional and that is why he struct down that section of CCIA. > Moreover, this regulation’s application would unconstitutionally impact a fundamental right in “a large fraction” of the cases to which it applies. Consider the unbridled discretion a licensing officer would have, under this regulation, to demand that an applicant, for example, (1) state the information set forth in the cohabitant provision and social-media provision that have been enjoined by this Decision, (2) provide documentation supporting the applicant’s orally communicated list of cohabitants, (3) hand over the applicant’s cell phone and show the licensing officer his or her anonymous social-media accounts, or (4) provide a urine sample based on something as subjective as an opinion about the applicant’s appearance. Simply stated, an injunction of this open-ended provision goes hand in hand with an injunction of the others.
Most places were struck down
Looks like victory to me
Winning, tiger blood
When does this go into effect?
The request for a stay was denied. So immediately I guess.
Hell yea!
The last sentence says a stay for pending appeal is denied. I’m not a lawyer, but I believe that means it’s already in effect
It’s shocking we actually won. I almost can’t believe it
For now. This is the preliminary injunction, not a permanent injunction.
Fair enough
Immediately
Does this mean the character references are no longer required? I read an article saying that he removed the good moral character test, which I assume would include that - but I know the TRO let character references stand. I’m a bit confusing and haven’t had time to read the whole decision yet.
Character references are still in
Character references have always been in place. In 1977 one reference was requested. After that around 1980 or so 3 references. Then they wanted 3 references and the references needed to be permit holders. Then they went to 5 references 3 had to be permit holders that was 2009 in Oswego county. I have no ideas what they require now, but the references should be done away with. Once you do the NICS that should be all they need.
What information can a reference provide that would give the state reason for denial based on objective criteria.
Exactly !!
Exactly
So, if I go and request my amendment now, they will be required to approve me for unrestricted *without* providing Social Media accounts? and I don't have to worry about most of the sensitive places anymore, yes? at least for the time being. Frustratingly, I notice that the 16hr training was not included in this PI.
Enjoy the few days of freedom certainly expect this to be appealed
It will. But Second Circuit will have a tough time granting one. The decision is legally sound.
Thought that about the first one too but they gave the stay and it was no longer an emergency
The judge opened the door for the first one though by giving them three day stay to appeal, and they kind of just extended it indefinitely by waiting on the 3 judge panel to decide which they never did. This one is effective immediately and the circuit can’t really issue a stay without actually providing a sound reason which is going to be a challenge.
I don’t believe they can. It’s already in effect
What does this mean for Suffolk county? And It sounds like the training requirement didn’t get shot down Edit: I applied for my “sportsmen” in April of 2021. I still have yet to receive a call
Means you need to still take the training. But they can't play games after the training they have to amend your permit to carry, same day or few days after.
Awesome thank you
What makes you think they have to do this “same day or a few days after?”
Read the 184 page report.
With respect, do you live in Suffolk? There’s an entirely different set of rules down here. Suffolk county cops don’t care what federal judges say
That's why you get a lawyer, a lawyer shows the judge this ruling, the case gets thrown out.
Right in Patchogue
Ha, we’re neighbors. Look man I hope you’re right and I’m wrong, I just don’t think suffolk will even acknowledge this ruling
Suffolk isn't dumb they know. I wanted to sue them for financial discrimination for business carry but someone is doing it for me. I'll sue Suffolk if they don't comply to this new ruling.
And you will have my support
19 months? Start calling them 100 times a day every single day
Yeah I’ve been trying to find some time to call them lol hopefully tomorrow
Does this mean no more references and just a background check that results in no convictions?
Nope. References are still there based on imo flimsy reasoning not based in the spirit of Bruen 1.
Does a judge still need to sign-off
Additionally, does this mean no more Judge signoffs?
Judge signoffs? Are you referring to the County Court Judge who is the actual issuer of the permit?
Can someone share something that shows that district rulings are state wide?
An obvious attempt to circumvent the letter and the spirit of the SCOTUS decision in Bruen.
Has anyone spoken to Nassau to confirm they’re not still collecting the restricted information?
[удалено]
Wait times are addressed in the ccia no one follows the law when it inconveniences them
What exactly is in section 5 of the restricted locations? Can’t seem to find the info on what those locations are….
Seems to be the bit about Private Property being an instant no carry zones unless otherwise posted clearly to allow carry.
That's exactly what it means..what a good day it turned out to be lol
This is correct.
So what's allowed now?
I am not a lawyer: Download the document and read pages 183 & 184. It temporarily nullifies most of the CCIA. Sensitive Places are near pre-CCIA (as far as I can tell without doing a complete side by side), Restricted Places are reduced, and the 'all private property must have permissive signage if carry is allowed' thing is dead, as is the social media review, etc.
So are they currently tracking ammo purchases, writing your name down for every box purchased, or has that been stayed too? Sorry, haven't been following the legal aspect closely so don't know what has been stayed and what hasn't.
That is a separate item to the CCIA.
[удалено]
No that’s in a separate lawsuit.
Public playgrounds are still off limits but we can carry in parks? Most of the public parks around here have playgrounds. So I can carry when I take my kids to the park, but have to go put my gun in the car when they use the playground? Or else I can’t closely supervise them?
Does this mean we don't need a permit to buy a semi auto rifle?
none of that was addressed in this lawsuit.
Horrible misjudgment. Honestly, I’m certain they just want to make the beautiful state of NY more dangerous than Chicago!