User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/20/2022 6:21:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: fish223]
This is what we've been waiting for. From the GOA suit.
GOA requests injunction |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2022 6:28:02 PM EDT
[#1]
 My credit cards are ready. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 7/20/2022 7:56:41 PM EDT
[#2]
Bravo Nolo bravo!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2022 8:17:00 PM EDT
[#3]
|
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 7/20/2022 8:29:27 PM EDT
[#4]
Fantastic!
Godspeed! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2022 8:43:18 PM EDT
[#5]
How long before it is denied or granted? What is the process?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2022 8:58:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: cranberry1]
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LamePostCount: How long before it is denied or granted? What is the process? Also interested in the answer , I'm sure we'll here something soon as it's a time sensitive issue . CCIA declare's the whole of NY state a sensitive area and they also want 5X the amount of training that was previously required . Just reading the reason and request for an injunction and it's scary what the state wants to put gun owners through ,any level headed judge should side with us on this . |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2022 9:44:13 PM EDT
[#7]
Lol ar15.com shout out
|
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 7/20/2022 10:13:08 PM EDT
[#8]
This is awesome! Who do I need to donate to to support this?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2022 10:13:50 PM EDT
[#9]
Haha yeah nice ar15.com Easter egg.
And this is great...I think it challenges the entirety of the "concealed carry improvement act" right? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2022 6:30:51 AM EDT
[#10]
Well done! Now to see how the Northern District tries to weasel.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2022 7:09:30 AM EDT
[#11]
Over on reddit someone said it was supposed to be heard on August 10th, but the state sent a letter to the judge asking for more time to prepare, due to the"complexity of the constitutional matters involved"
They passed the legislation in 12 hours, would seem to me that 3 weeks is enough time to prepare to defend it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2022 7:23:02 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tahawus: This is awesome! Who do I need to donate to to support this? https://www.firearmspolicy.org/ https://www.nysrpa.org/ I believe the first link is the one who brought the lawsuit. The others have also had a hand in the wins. |
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 7/21/2022 7:36:29 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By cranberry1: Just reading the reason and request for an injunction and it's scary what the state wants to put gun owners through ,any level headed judge should side with us on this . Right there you gave the defining reason as to why there will be no injunction and it will take five years to work the case through the courts while the state adds additional laws during the same period (just like California). |
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 7/21/2022 8:48:20 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CatskillDraht: Over on reddit someone said it was supposed to be heard on August 10th, but the state sent a letter to the judge asking for more time to prepare, due to the"complexity of the constitutional matters involved" They passed the legislation in 12 hours, would seem to me that 3 weeks is enough time to prepare to defend it. Does GOA have the opportunity to respond to that request? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2022 8:59:02 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CatskillDraht: Over on reddit someone said it was supposed to be heard on August 10th, but the state sent a letter to the judge asking for more time to prepare, due to the"complexity of the constitutional matters involved" They passed the legislation in 12 hours, would seem to me that 3 weeks is enough time to prepare to defend it. Obviously NYS and CA will try to run out the clock by delay, delay and more delay hoping for a change in the makeup of the Supreme Court. Unfortunately time is on their side and the longer it takes the more they can violate our constitutional rights. Too bad Hawaii judge won't issue a nationwide injunction instantly like for certain "other" legal issues! |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 7/21/2022 11:05:51 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CatskillDraht: Over on reddit someone said it was supposed to be heard on August 10th, but the state sent a letter to the judge asking for more time to prepare, due to the"complexity of the constitutional matters involved" They passed the legislation in 12 hours, would seem to me that 3 weeks is enough time to prepare to defend it. Maybe @nolocontendere can help clarify the timeline??? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2022 11:33:11 AM EDT
[#17]
Where is the arfcom shout out? I can't find it.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2022 12:28:52 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tahawus: Does GOA have the opportunity to respond to that request? Yep. We did. And the judge said this in an order: Docket Text: TEXT ORDER granting in part and denying in part [10] Defendant's letter-motion for an extension of the deadline by which he must respond to Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Although Defendant certainly must (as he argues) review "extensive" history to brief the Court on the relevant historical traditions in his response, he has already gotten a head start in amassing the necessary historical sources in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Assoc., Inc. v. Bruen, 18-CV-0134 (N.D.N.Y.). Moreover, although Plaintiffs did not also file a motion for emergency relief in the form of a Temporary Restraining Order, the law they challenge does take effect on September 1, 2022: the Court could not grant Defendant the full extension he seeks without shortening (1) the seven-day period for Plaintiffs' reply, (2) the time afforded the Court to review that reply before the hearing, (3) the window of time in which to hold the hearing, and (4) the time afforded the Court (between the hearing and September 1, 2022) to prepare a Decision and Order. In short, the complete relief that Defendant seeks in his letter-motion would deprive Plaintiffs of their right to have their motion for a preliminary injunction fairly and justly decided, if not the very relief they are seeking. As a result, the deadline for Defendant's response to Plaintiffs' motion is extended five days to the end of MONDAY, AUGUST 15, 2022; and the deadline for Plaintiffs' reply is extended five days to the end of MONDAY, AUGUST 22, 2022. Defendant is respectfully advised that the partial granting of his letter-motion is contingent on him making himself available for an in-person hearing at any point between TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 2022, and the end of FRIDAY, AUGUST 26, 2022. A Decision and Order on Plaintiffs' motion will be issued before the statute in question takes effect on September 1, 2022. SO ORDERED |
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 7/21/2022 12:47:49 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bushman_269: Obviously NYS and CA will try to run out the clock by delay, delay and more delay hoping for a change in the makeup of the Supreme Court. I have been reading Justice Stevens dissent in Heller , and will eventually get around to his dissent in McDonald too, as I have feeling states like New York and California are going to be lifting a lot of text and tradition material, as documented by Justice Stevens, from those dissents. I would not be surprised at all if at least one circuit court accepts such arguments in upholding current laws. I just hope SCOTUS is willing to take on the extra work that will be coming its way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2022 12:53:59 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere: Yep. We did. And the judge said this in an order: Docket Text: TEXT ORDER granting in part and denying in part [10] Defendant's letter-motion for an extension of the deadline by which he must respond to Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Although Defendant certainly must (as he argues) review "extensive" history to brief the Court on the relevant historical traditions in his response, he has already gotten a head start in amassing the necessary historical sources in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Assoc., Inc. v. Bruen, 18-CV-0134 (N.D.N.Y.). Moreover, although Plaintiffs did not also file a motion for emergency relief in the form of a Temporary Restraining Order, the law they challenge does take effect on September 1, 2022: the Court could not grant Defendant the full extension he seeks without shortening (1) the seven-day period for Plaintiffs' reply, (2) the time afforded the Court to review that reply before the hearing, (3) the window of time in which to hold the hearing, and (4) the time afforded the Court (between the hearing and September 1, 2022) to prepare a Decision and Order. In short, the complete relief that Defendant seeks in his letter-motion would deprive Plaintiffs of their right to have their motion for a preliminary injunction fairly and justly decided, if not the very relief they are seeking. As a result, the deadline for Defendant's response to Plaintiffs' motion is extended five days to the end of MONDAY, AUGUST 15, 2022; and the deadline for Plaintiffs' reply is extended five days to the end of MONDAY, AUGUST 22, 2022. Defendant is respectfully advised that the partial granting of his letter-motion is contingent on him making himself available for an in-person hearing at any point between TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 2022, and the end of FRIDAY, AUGUST 26, 2022. A Decision and Order on Plaintiffs' motion will be issued before the statute in question takes effect on September 1, 2022. SO ORDERED Smackdown! Thanks NOLO! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2022 1:04:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: DaveM4P99]
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere: Yep. We did. And the judge said this in an order: Docket Text: TEXT ORDER granting in part and denying in part [10] Defendant's letter-motion for an extension of the deadline by which he must respond to Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Although Defendant certainly must (as he argues) review "extensive" history to brief the Court on the relevant historical traditions in his response, he has already gotten a head start in amassing the necessary historical sources in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Assoc., Inc. v. Bruen, 18-CV-0134 (N.D.N.Y.). Moreover, although Plaintiffs did not also file a motion for emergency relief in the form of a Temporary Restraining Order, the law they challenge does take effect on September 1, 2022: the Court could not grant Defendant the full extension he seeks without shortening (1) the seven-day period for Plaintiffs' reply, (2) the time afforded the Court to review that reply before the hearing, (3) the window of time in which to hold the hearing, and (4) the time afforded the Court (between the hearing and September 1, 2022) to prepare a Decision and Order. In short, the complete relief that Defendant seeks in his letter-motion would deprive Plaintiffs of their right to have their motion for a preliminary injunction fairly and justly decided, if not the very relief they are seeking. As a result, the deadline for Defendant's response to Plaintiffs' motion is extended five days to the end of MONDAY, AUGUST 15, 2022; and the deadline for Plaintiffs' reply is extended five days to the end of MONDAY, AUGUST 22, 2022. Defendant is respectfully advised that the partial granting of his letter-motion is contingent on him making himself available for an in-person hearing at any point between TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 2022, and the end of FRIDAY, AUGUST 26, 2022. A Decision and Order on Plaintiffs' motion will be issued before the statute in question takes effect on September 1, 2022. SO ORDERED @nolocontendere Who is the judge? As we know, anyone appointed by a democrat is going to be an activist. Ahem. Skretny. Ahem. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2022 1:06:33 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DaveM4P99: @nolocontendere Who is the judge? As we know, anyone appointed by a democrat is going to be an activist. Ahem. Skretny. Ahem. It's the Chief Judge of the Northern District. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2022 1:07:01 PM EDT
[#23]
See ya'll in Syracuse real soon...
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2022 1:11:36 PM EDT
[#24]
Thanks for fighting. I need to donate.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2022 1:22:48 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere: It's the Chief Judge of the Northern District. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere: Originally Posted By DaveM4P99: @nolocontendere Who is the judge? As we know, anyone appointed by a democrat is going to be an activist. Ahem. Skretny. Ahem. It's the Chief Judge of the Northern District. Suddaby? A Bush appointment in 2008. Let's hope not a RINO. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2022 1:38:22 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DaveM4P99: Suddaby? A Bush appointment in 2008. Let's hope not a RINO. He was an ADA for a number of years before being appointed. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2022 2:04:07 PM EDT
[#27]
Awesome.
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 7/21/2022 2:13:24 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere: Yep. We did. And the judge said this in an order: Docket Text: TEXT ORDER granting in part and denying in part [10] Defendant's letter-motion for an extension of the deadline by which he must respond to Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Although Defendant certainly must (as he argues) review "extensive" history to brief the Court on the relevant historical traditions in his response, he has already gotten a head start in amassing the necessary historical sources in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Assoc., Inc. v. Bruen, 18-CV-0134 (N.D.N.Y.). Moreover, although Plaintiffs did not also file a motion for emergency relief in the form of a Temporary Restraining Order, the law they challenge does take effect on September 1, 2022: the Court could not grant Defendant the full extension he seeks without shortening (1) the seven-day period for Plaintiffs' reply, (2) the time afforded the Court to review that reply before the hearing, (3) the window of time in which to hold the hearing, and (4) the time afforded the Court (between the hearing and September 1, 2022) to prepare a Decision and Order. In short, the complete relief that Defendant seeks in his letter-motion would deprive Plaintiffs of their right to have their motion for a preliminary injunction fairly and justly decided, if not the very relief they are seeking. As a result, the deadline for Defendant's response to Plaintiffs' motion is extended five days to the end of MONDAY, AUGUST 15, 2022; and the deadline for Plaintiffs' reply is extended five days to the end of MONDAY, AUGUST 22, 2022. Defendant is respectfully advised that the partial granting of his letter-motion is contingent on him making himself available for an in-person hearing at any point between TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 2022, and the end of FRIDAY, AUGUST 26, 2022. A Decision and Order on Plaintiffs' motion will be issued before the statute in question takes effect on September 1, 2022. SO ORDERED Thank you @NoloContendere !!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2022 2:48:58 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DaveM4P99: @nolocontendere Who is the judge? As we know, anyone appointed by a democrat is going to be an activist. Ahem. Skretny. Ahem. Skretny DID SAY that AR-15 type Rifles WERE in Common Use; he was the first to put it in writing, he also dismissed muzzle BREAKS as the people writing the Bill were too ignorant to know the difference between BRAKE and BREAK, he also said the 7 rounds in a 10 round magazine was pure bullshit. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2022 2:55:27 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere: See ya'll in Syracuse real soon... When you come, we would be pleased to take you to Dinner. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2022 3:27:44 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fp1201: Skretny DID SAY that AR-15 type Rifles WERE in Common Use; he was the first to put it in writing, he also dismissed muzzle BREAKS as the people writing the Bill were too ignorant to know the difference between BRAKE and BREAK, he also said the 7 rounds in a 10 round magazine was pure bullshit. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fp1201: Originally Posted By DaveM4P99: @nolocontendere Who is the judge? As we know, anyone appointed by a democrat is going to be an activist. Ahem. Skretny. Ahem. Skretny DID SAY that AR-15 type Rifles WERE in Common Use; he was the first to put it in writing, he also dismissed muzzle BREAKS as the people writing the Bill were too ignorant to know the difference between BRAKE and BREAK, he also said the 7 rounds in a 10 round magazine was pure bullshit. Well he and the 2nd I think said "allowing 10 round mags but limiting people to only loading 7" is ridiculous because criminals would obviously not obey that...since they'd have 10 round mags anyway. But I do think he or the 2nd mentioned that if NY just made the law limit mags to 7 (or less) rounds..it would be A OK with him. Skretny ruled wrong and fucked us hard. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2022 3:29:25 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fp1201: When you come, we would be pleased to take you to Dinner. If he comes we need to get the HTF guys together for a meal |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2022 4:29:05 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tc556guy: If he comes we need to get the HTF guys together for a meal  Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2022 4:30:53 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere: See ya'll in Syracuse real soon... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2022 4:31:48 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fp1201: Skretny DID SAY that AR-15 type Rifles WERE in Common Use; he was the first to put it in writing, he also dismissed muzzle BREAKS as the people writing the Bill were too ignorant to know the difference between BRAKE and BREAK, he also said the 7 rounds in a 10 round magazine was pure bullshit. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2022 4:32:19 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dopple: Need a Twin Trees III dinner. Nolo eats and drinks for free! Note to the group: don't infect anyone this time! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2022 4:32:52 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By emsjeep: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/174485/29AF3FF4-4CA9-4106-BEF8-8E16BC68AF33_jpe-2461081.JPG Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By emsjeep: Originally Posted By tc556guy: If he comes we need to get the HTF guys together for a meal https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/174485/29AF3FF4-4CA9-4106-BEF8-8E16BC68AF33_jpe-2461081.JPG 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2022 4:34:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: tc556guy]
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dopple: Applebees? Why not just go to Denny's? Keep it classy. Chuck-E-Cheese. And since he wouldn't join us before he went Mormon, we'll just have to have a stand-in: 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2022 4:37:27 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tc556guy: Keep it classy. Chuck-E-Cheese. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tc556guy: Originally Posted By Dopple: Applebees? Why not just go to Denny's? Keep it classy. Chuck-E-Cheese. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2022 4:45:41 PM EDT
[#40]
And I love how the judge basically says that the state has a head start and can use New York's arguments in Bruen...ya know the case where you already lost bigly.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2022 4:48:03 PM EDT
[#41]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2022 5:59:18 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fp1201: When you come, we would be pleased to take you to Dinner. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2022 6:05:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: MikeyCNY]
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere: See ya'll in Syracuse real soon... Let us know if you’re up for a dinner meet-up at Twin Trees in Cicero (or wherever), more than a few of us would love to buy you dinner. Don’t worry, no hanky panky. Edit: cripes that’s what I get for not reading the rest of the thread first…. |
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 7/21/2022 6:42:33 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere: Yep. We did. And the judge said this in an order: Docket Text: TEXT ORDER granting in part and denying in part [10] Defendant's letter-motion for an extension of the deadline by which he must respond to Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Although Defendant certainly must (as he argues) review "extensive" history to brief the Court on the relevant historical traditions in his response, he has already gotten a head start in amassing the necessary historical sources in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Assoc., Inc. v. Bruen, 18-CV-0134 (N.D.N.Y.). Moreover, although Plaintiffs did not also file a motion for emergency relief in the form of a Temporary Restraining Order, the law they challenge does take effect on September 1, 2022: the Court could not grant Defendant the full extension he seeks without shortening (1) the seven-day period for Plaintiffs' reply, (2) the time afforded the Court to review that reply before the hearing, (3) the window of time in which to hold the hearing, and (4) the time afforded the Court (between the hearing and September 1, 2022) to prepare a Decision and Order. In short, the complete relief that Defendant seeks in his letter-motion would deprive Plaintiffs of their right to have their motion for a preliminary injunction fairly and justly decided, if not the very relief they are seeking. As a result, the deadline for Defendant's response to Plaintiffs' motion is extended five days to the end of MONDAY, AUGUST 15, 2022; and the deadline for Plaintiffs' reply is extended five days to the end of MONDAY, AUGUST 22, 2022. Defendant is respectfully advised that the partial granting of his letter-motion is contingent on him making himself available for an in-person hearing at any point between TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 2022, and the end of FRIDAY, AUGUST 26, 2022. A Decision and Order on Plaintiffs' motion will be issued before the statute in question takes effect on September 1, 2022. SO ORDERED Awesome. |
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 7/21/2022 7:26:57 PM EDT
[#45]
Anyone know what sort of extension the state was looking to get? Surely past Sept. 1, but were they looking at after Election Day?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2022 7:31:58 PM EDT
[#46]
Until august 24. Meaning my reply would be due on august 31. And law takes effect 9/1. Very unworkable.
|
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 7/21/2022 7:36:19 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere: Until august 24. Meaning my reply would be due on august 31. And law takes effect 9/1. Very unworkable. Thanks. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 7/22/2022 1:39:36 AM EDT
[#48]
Excuse me for my lack of understanding how all of this works, but who is it that decides that these new laws will be stopped from being inacted and for how long? Then what happens?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2022 7:44:58 AM EDT
[#49]
If we were leftists, we could just start ignoring the laws immediately.
|
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 7/22/2022 9:15:55 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dopple: If we were leftists, we could just start ignoring the laws immediately. Many of us do… |
|
|
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.
Attached File