User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/10/2023 11:00:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Castillo]
[#1]
What NY usually does with a law that a court rules unconstitutional is just leave on the books anyways
|
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 12/11/2023 9:30:54 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Castillo: What NY usually does with a law that a court rules unconstitutional is just leave on the books anyways I would lay money in Vegas that at some point in the next 15 years Heller WILL be overturned. It will require a change in the make up of SCOTUS and (most likely) a blue state in a progressive circuit court district (2nd or 9th) passing a draconian gun control law that eventually gives SCOTUS a bite at the apple to undo it all. All it will take to get the ball rolling is to replace Thomas (75) and Alito (73) who are the oldest Justices. Presidential elections in 2024, 2028 and possibly 2032 are going to matter in that regard since they will be into their 80's by 2031 and have exceeded their actuarial table lifespans by then. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 12/12/2023 11:17:05 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Castillo: What NY usually does with a law that a court rules unconstitutional is just leave on the books anyways |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 12/15/2023 12:08:52 PM EDT
[#4]
What's next for Antonyuk on the court agenda?
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 12/15/2023 1:28:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: DaveM4P99]
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By M-Aurelius: What's next for Antonyuk on the court agenda? I believe we go back to the district courts for full trials. Suddaby and Sinatra's courts. Who gave us big, big wins. Once we win there, they will unfortunately grant stays, or the 2nd circuit will, until a full trial can be had at the 2nd circuit. Then when we lose (or partially lose) at the 2nd circus we appeal to SCOTUS...if it's still favorable. Either way the defacto private property ban is toast. Even the 2nd circus agrees. The rest, we can only keep fighting. Training needs to get tossed. If not the entire permit scheme. All the sensitive / restricted locations need to get tossed too. Then AWB and mag limits. The law is on our side with Bruen. Just not time. |
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 12/15/2023 4:28:42 PM EDT
[#6]
I've said this before but when the dust settles, I'd bet on school bans being kept even if other sensitive locales go. I also think training will survive but perhaps cut down in time spent.
Reason - you can argue 1791 as the overriding concept but given that many states have training (and for many years), that will influence some of the justices. I heard folks signing up for classes now that property is freed and some folks interested in becoming instructors, so I don't know if the general gun interested public thinks the class is a hot button issue. I do think the restaurant/alcohol ban needs rethinking. Other states have had different solutions to alcohol and carry. Limits on how much you can drink and what is the proportion of food vs. alcohol sales in a restaurant. The challenge will see who puts up ban signs. One can threaten a boycott but more effective is having gun friendly lawyer write coherent briefs to major stores, etc. dispelling the liability myths that antigun folks will push. Something for NYSPRA to think about. The number of carriers is too small to effectively boycott a Wegmans or Tops. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 12/15/2023 5:26:32 PM EDT
[#7]
There’s no history for alcohol and carry. In fact, the opposite- at times they were handed out by the militia (and others) for use simultaneously.
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 12/16/2023 6:27:17 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DaveM4P99: Once we win there, they will unfortunately grant stays, or the 2nd circuit will, until a full trial can be had at the 2nd circuit. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 12/16/2023 7:13:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: fnub315]
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By EXSUNY: The challenge will see who puts up ban signs. One can threaten a boycott but more effective is having gun friendly lawyer write coherent briefs to major stores, etc. dispelling the liability myths that antigun folks will push. Something for NYSPRA to think about. The number of carriers is too small to effectively boycott a Wegmans or Tops. If a store or business chooses to not allow CCW and places a sign on the door that's fine. I'll gladly take my business elsewhere. I've been paying attention to signage like this even before ccia and frankly, there wasn't a lot of it, around me at least. I also doubt NY will have very much influence on places putting up no weapons signs. Most places just dont want to be involved in the restricting of legal weapons, and I don't blame them. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 12/16/2023 7:50:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: DaveM4P99]
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fnub315: Since the whole private property ban and social media parts were struck down and deemed unconstitutional by the 2nd, does that mean those parts cannot be stayed during the rest of this procedure? Well the 2nd deemed that we were likely to succeed on the merits of those arguments... meaning yeah they pretty much agreed, but said it has to be decided at full trial. But hey Suddaby or Sinatra could change their minds. No way that happens though. And yeah...no business is putting up a no weapons sign. Even if they do...who cares? Ignore it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2023 9:24:45 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DaveM4P99: Well the 2nd deemed that we were likely to succeed on the merits of those arguments... meaning yeah they pretty much agreed, but said it has to be decided at full trial. But hey Suddaby or Sinatra could change their minds. No way that happens though. And yeah...no business is putting up a no weapons sign. Even if they do...who cares? Ignore it. Buffalo Wild wings had had the signs for years around here... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2023 9:28:01 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By shocktrp: Buffalo Wild wings had had the signs for years around here... BWWs is trash Too many Gin Mills around here with great wings to waste my money in that place |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 12/16/2023 10:44:00 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By shocktrp: Buffalo Wild wings had had the signs for years around here... Like I said, put a sign up and I'll gladly go somewhere else. |
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 12/17/2023 8:35:05 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fnub315: I also doubt NY will have very much influence on places putting up no weapons signs. You have to start thinking like a New York State politician. I can honestly see the legislature appropriating money in the next session to do a massive statewide mailing to all businesses advising them that they can post signs restricting carry, include one sign in the envelope AND provide instructions on getting more "free" (taxpayer paid for) signs for their business. |
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 12/17/2023 3:32:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: kzin]
[#15]
I see some kind of liability law where if an incident happens and you're not posted no guns you're more or less automatically sued out of business.
They will not stop the crusade just because the courts tell them to. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 12/17/2023 6:57:57 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By kzin: I see some kind of liability law where if an incident happens and you're not posted no guns you're more or less automatically sued out of business. They will not stop the crusade just because the courts tell them to. Two can play at that game. You post a no guns sign, and I so much as get a stubbed toe, and I'm suing. |
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 12/18/2023 9:12:39 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DaveM4P99: You post a no guns sign, and I so much as get a stubbed toe, and I'm suing. I would fully expect New York to provide immunity from civil suits since they hate us. |
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 12/18/2023 10:29:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: EXSUNY]
[#18]
With no offense, this NYS discussion is behind the curve of what happened in other states.
1. Antigun folks did organize and mail signs to businesses. Articles were put in local business trade papers arguing for liability if you allow carry in your place of business. Counters were requiring the signs to be so big to as to be obnoxious. However, this failed in on the issue of open carry as many folks were ok with concealed but found open to be more obnoxious so they put up open carry ban signs. In some businesses, they added a concealed ban - so OC was a net loss but really not so much. Progun folks also posted that this liability didn't exist for carriers. Store employees - yes. There is a legal review back and forth on this. 2. Some folks threatened boycotts over the concealed signs but there weren't that many so it was a minor issue. Boycotts over the OC signs amounted to nothing as most folks (even gun folks) found OC bans not to be an issue. 3. Legal folks have examined whether you can sue if you were banned and something bad happened that you might have needed your gun. The consensus based on other kinds of law (not a lawyer) is that a business is NOT responsible for the action of person not employed by the store. The shooter is responsible and not the store. So that threat may not be viable. There are law review articles on that for someone motivated to see the back and forth on that issue. Bad PR is a good threat for business but organizations that want to challenge signs cannot go off the deep end with conspiracies and politics. They need to be factual. Calling a store commies, etc. - gets you nowhere. Laws for immunity have worked for businesses and schools in some states but fat chance here. |
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 12/18/2023 11:01:07 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By EXSUNY: Laws for immunity have worked for businesses and schools in some states but fat chance here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2023 3:39:18 PM EDT
[#20]
https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/federal-judge-blocks-california-law-restricting-concealed-carry
A federal judge has blocked a California law forbidding the carrying of firearms in many public settings that was set to take effect on Jan. 1. U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney on Wednesday issued an injunction, deeming the measure "repugnant to the Second Amendment, and openly defiant of the Supreme Court," the Associated Press reported. The California Rifle and Pistol Association had challenged the law, which Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed earlier this year. The measure would have prevented the concealed carry of firearms in 26 venues regardless of whether the individual possessed a permit. It appears to resemble a legally-embattled New York law that the Empire State passed in response to Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen last year... |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 12/21/2023 3:52:24 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By shocktrp: https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/federal-judge-blocks-california-law-restricting-concealed-carry Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By shocktrp: https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/federal-judge-blocks-california-law-restricting-concealed-carry A federal judge has blocked a California law forbidding the carrying of firearms in many public settings that was set to take effect on Jan. 1. U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney on Wednesday issued an injunction, deeming the measure "repugnant to the Second Amendment, and openly defiant of the Supreme Court," the Associated Press reported. The California Rifle and Pistol Association had challenged the law, which Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed earlier this year. The measure would have prevented the concealed carry of firearms in 26 venues regardless of whether the individual possessed a permit. It appears to resemble a legally-embattled New York law that the Empire State passed in response to Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen last year... We are indeed slowly winning against the anti gun fanatics. They hate law abiding people who want to carry to protect themselves. Plain and simple. And the courts (even the liberal ones) are seeing that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2023 7:35:35 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DaveM4P99: We are indeed slowly winning against the anti gun fanatics. They hate law abiding people who want to carry to protect themselves. Plain and simple. And the courts (even the liberal ones) are seeing that. Just pisses me off residents of blue states that copied NY's CCIA get some modicum of relief through the courts while NY residents get jack diddly shit. |
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 12/21/2023 7:49:59 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GTwannabe: Just pisses me off residents of blue states that copied NY's CCIA get some modicum of relief through the courts while NY residents get jack diddly shit. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GTwannabe: Originally Posted By DaveM4P99: We are indeed slowly winning against the anti gun fanatics. They hate law abiding people who want to carry to protect themselves. Plain and simple. And the courts (even the liberal ones) are seeing that. Just pisses me off residents of blue states that copied NY's CCIA get some modicum of relief through the courts while NY residents get jack diddly shit. You and me both! |
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 12/21/2023 8:06:54 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GTwannabe: Just pisses me off residents of blue states that copied NY's CCIA get some modicum of relief through the courts while NY residents get jack diddly shit. Right? And we have it much worse off now than we did before Bruen. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 12/21/2023 8:51:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: DaveM4P99]
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GTwannabe: Just pisses me off residents of blue states that copied NY's CCIA get some modicum of relief through the courts while NY residents get jack diddly shit. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GTwannabe: Originally Posted By DaveM4P99: We are indeed slowly winning against the anti gun fanatics. They hate law abiding people who want to carry to protect themselves. Plain and simple. And the courts (even the liberal ones) are seeing that. Just pisses me off residents of blue states that copied NY's CCIA get some modicum of relief through the courts while NY residents get jack diddly shit. I mean we got the blanket private property carry ban tossed. The other location restrictions? Ignore them. NY wouldn't prosecute and we all know they are unconstitutional. |
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 12/21/2023 10:16:52 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DaveM4P99: NY wouldn't prosecute and we all know they are unconstitutional. Look how fast they dropped charges on Inna Vernikov, the Council Member who had the gun at the protest. They don't want to give anyone standing to challenge it in court. |
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 12/22/2023 10:38:27 AM EDT
[#27]
What's the status of her permit? Did they pull that?
Also, besides standing - going after a Jewish legislator in today's world might not be a good idea in NY. Don't want to admit or have a challenge that Jews might have a specific threat profile as that challenges so many different beliefs and political angles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2023 2:19:03 PM EDT
[#28]
Its interesting The same thing happened in NY with HR218 legislation, allowing qualified active and retired leos an exemption against state firearms restrictions. NYC Democratic politicians decried the sky was falling and that this legislation's passage would result in Podunk LEOs carrying in the City engaging in unsafe, unjustified and unnecessary shootings of City residents and all sorts of mayhem would occur. The reality is, as far as I know, there has not been even a single such incident in the decade since the passage of HR218. Hopefully, one day they will pass national reciprocity which was defeated by a single vote... during the Obama presidency (Don't get me started on Trump's not lifting a finger to repay the unswerving support he received from the 2A community).
|
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 12/22/2023 7:09:38 PM EDT
[#29]
Trump will step up after he pays Rudy's bills. Remember his conversation with Diane? He was talked out of a total semi ban out of Las Vegas by NRA folks who diverted him to the bump stock ban. Want to ask him about that? Take the guns first?
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 7:54:58 PM EDT
[#30]
I'm happy with the changes. I know we didn't get everything, but the default ban was my biggest gripe; I'm glad we got something. Based on all the stuff that you guys posted, I'm optimistic that we'll get more stuff.
Side Note: I was amused by the posts/pictures of the P365, LCP, G42. For over a year prior to those posts, I'd been wondering how many people had gotten that idea... great minds think alike. Side Note 2 [not related to the legal battle, but still noteworthy]: Rest in Peace, Gaston Glock; even though I do have some 1911's and a revolver, Glocks are very special to me. Police like them, Hickock45 likes them, I like them, and I'm guesing that a lot of you here also like them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 8:15:11 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fnub315: Good for them and their shitty food lol.. Like I said, put a sign up and I'll gladly go somewhere else. |
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 1/4/2024 2:41:46 PM EDT
[#32]
Curious - are any of the current challenges battling the background check for ammo? So much has changed then changed back in the last year i lost track. That was part of the CCIA correct?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2024 3:13:58 PM EDT
[#33]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2024 3:15:11 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fighter443: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/122302/IMG_3243-3081786.jpg Nice. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2024 7:22:21 PM EDT
[#35]
A sliver of hope after 11 years of tyranny?
 BREAKING 2A NEWS! NEW YORK FAILS TO DISMISS AR BAN CASE! |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/4/2024 7:55:31 PM EDT
[#36]
Motions to dismiss and summary judgement are just part of the process and rarely granted.
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/4/2024 9:04:24 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Abom: Motions to dismiss and summary judgement are just part of the process and rarely granted. Summary judgement in our favor should be par for the course after Bruen. Glad to see an AWB case is making its way through! Even though we all know AW and mag laws are unconstitutional already. |
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 1/5/2024 12:50:38 PM EDT
[#38]
Good decision and progress. If the decision is favorable in the end - the usual 2nd Circuit freeze for a bit? Given their property decision - might they go along with removing the ban or find a reason (after their stall) to go for balancing, despite Bruen?
State might put in some extreme semi long arm training requirement for a license? That's a ploy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2024 1:00:44 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By EXSUNY: Good decision and progress. If the decision is favorable in the end - the usual 2nd Circuit freeze for a bit? Given their property decision - might they go along with removing the ban or find a reason (after their stall) to go for balancing, despite Bruen? State might put in some extreme semi long arm training requirement for a license? That's a ploy. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2024 2:11:24 AM EDT
[#40]
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/mizelle-trump-judge/2024/01/13/id/1149480/
A federal judge in Florida on Friday ruled that a U.S. law that bars people from possessing firearms in post offices is unconstitutional, citing a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling from 2022 that expanded gun rights. Mizelle said that charge violated Emmanuel Ayala's right to keep and bear arms under the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, saying "a blanket restriction on firearms possession in post offices is incongruent with the American tradition of firearms regulation." Mizelle said that while post offices have existed since the nation's founding, federal law did not bar guns in government buildings until 1964 and post offices until 1972. No historical practice dating back to the 1700s justified the ban, she said. Mizelle said allowing the federal government to restrict visitors from bringing guns into government facilities as a condition of admittance would allow it to "abridge the right to bear arms by regulating it into practical non-existence." |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2024 6:52:15 PM EDT
[#41]
Has there been an appeal filed to strike down the remaining sensitive places?
|
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 1/18/2024 3:43:11 PM EDT
[#42]
So what does this mean exactly?
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65364032/110/antonyuk-v-hochul/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2024 5:30:17 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NonTypical361: So what does this mean exactly? https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65364032/110/antonyuk-v-hochul/ It means all parties agree that nothing will happen in the case until we decide whether we will seek to challenge the second circuit's stay of Suddaby's injunction in the Supreme Court, We have until March 7th to make that decision. The state agreed seeing as it maintains the status quo until that time. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/18/2024 5:42:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: DaveM4P99]
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HiramRanger: It means all parties agree that nothing will happen in the case until we decide whether we will seek to challenge the second circuit's stay of Suddaby's injunction in the Supreme Court, We have until March 7th to make that decision. The state agreed seeing as it maintains the status quo until that time. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HiramRanger: Originally Posted By NonTypical361: So what does this mean exactly? https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65364032/110/antonyuk-v-hochul/ It means all parties agree that nothing will happen in the case until we decide whether we will seek to challenge the second circuit's stay of Suddaby's injunction in the Supreme Court, We have until March 7th to make that decision. The state agreed seeing as it maintains the status quo until that time. What's there to lose asking SCOTUS? Why not? Does it delay going back to Suddaby and Sinatra for full trials? Maybe SCOTUS would actually take this one because it's already been through the district court and 2nd circuit court, albeit it's only been for injunction/stay hearings...and not full trials...but those hearings have all been exhaustive in their research and arguments. Plus the CCIA is THE direct response to Bruen...that adds some weight. Either way, what is the next step if SCOTUS isn't next? Back to Suddaby and Sinatra for a full trial? And can they again reverse the second circuits decision on the other sensitive places? And the other parts of the CCIA? If it's a full trial, technically other evidence can be presented that the second circuit did not take into account. So decisions can be made by district judges that go against the 2nd circuit still? I'm hoping Suddaby or Sinatra can return to their original decisions gutting the CCIA in full. The only thing Suddaby really got wrong was training. He said because people in the 1700s knew more about guns than people do now, that training should be required... Which is bullshit. Plus if you didn't complete militia training back in the 1700s they didn't just take your guns away and forbid you to carry them for protection. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2024 7:20:53 PM EDT
[#45]
I'm sure our side are weighing the pro's and cons of how to proceed
hopefully they make a decision soon we need answers asap from the judicial system . |
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 1/19/2024 9:23:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: NonTypical361]
[#46]
From what I understand, Christian vs Nigrelli is moving for lower court summary judgement with Sinatra, and with Antonyuk possibly going to SCOTUS?
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/19/2024 9:59:34 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NonTypical361: From what I understand, Christian vs Nigrelli are moving for lower court summary judgement with Sinatra with Antonyuk possibly going to SCOTUS? Honestly I'd hope we shoot for SCOTUS. The CCIA with the carry restrictions, and ridiculous training / licensing requirements is ripe... because SCOTUS clearly said those were likely all unconstitutional. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/19/2024 11:06:02 AM EDT
[#48]
If you listened to the Rahimi arguments, it was very revealing. It is indeed a domestic violence case and should be viewed in that respect. However, the way in which it was argued and the justices responses were cautionary. In my opinion, there was a lot of discussion around the "danger" of Rahimi's actions. It seemed an attempt by both some of the justices and the USSG to use "danger" as the new limiting factor in the history and tradition test. It's an ambiguity that if not properly and contextually addressed in the ruling, will permeate and poison every other case.
I don't believe any reasonable citizen would argue a person convicted of domestic violence or at least subject to a legal court order executed within the boundaries of due process (read, not "red flag") for such should be in possession of a firearm. There are no questions about the "danger" or potential harm to another person within that context, per se. However, whether that "standard" using "danger" or "potential harm" will be used elsewhere as a limiting factor is yet to be seen. Argumentatively, that appears a fallback to some of the pre Bruen tests. But overall it seems to me they are searching for the basis of historical laws and traditions, to bring that test into the modern age and ultimately obfuscate the Bruen standard. I am willing to have that argument as I believe history and tradition will ultimately win the day. I also believe some of the initial rulings in places like California have defeated that approach. Nonetheless, I won't be surprised to see it raised elsewhere. YMMV. |
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 1/22/2024 5:46:09 PM EDT
[#49]
Hi - posted a few replies back trying to figure out if the ammo checks fell into any of these challenges. Think my question got lost in the shuffle of the AWB decision. Is the ammo background check currently being challenged? It was a part of the CCIA right? I know a bunch of the stupidity got overturned - can someone give an update as to what is currently still active, and where the ammo background crap lies (if anywhere) in a challenge?
Thanks! |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/22/2024 7:49:38 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By nyguy147258: Hi - posted a few replies back trying to figure out if the ammo checks fell into any of these challenges. Think my question got lost in the shuffle of the AWB decision. Is the ammo background check currently being challenged? It was a part of the CCIA right? I know a bunch of the stupidity got overturned - can someone give an update as to what is currently still active, and where the ammo background crap lies (if anywhere) in a challenge? Thanks! I thought one of the 5 attorneys at the joint hearing at the 2nd circuit a while back represented some FFLs who were challenging the ammo and gun background checks...but maybe that was just the gun checks NY took over? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
