User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/15/2023 11:17:52 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By shocktrp: Was it on a college campus or what was the "sensitive location"? Or is this the any time people gather it now sensitive bullshit? |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 10/15/2023 12:26:46 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By waldershrek: Was it on a college campus or what was the "sensitive location"? Or is this the any time people gather it now sensitive bullshit? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By waldershrek: Originally Posted By shocktrp: Was it on a college campus or what was the "sensitive location"? Or is this the any time people gather it now sensitive bullshit? Yeah basically any gathering is now no carry. Like that's constitutional. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/15/2023 12:47:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Castillo]
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By waldershrek: Was it on a college campus or what was the "sensitive location"? Or is this the any time people gather it now sensitive bullshit? § 265.01-e Criminal possession of a firearm, rifle or shotgun in a sensitive location. 1. A person is guilty of criminal possession of a firearm, rifle or shotgun in a sensitive location when such person possesses a firearm, rifle or shotgun in or upon a sensitive location, and such person knows or reasonably should know such location is a sensitive location. 2. For the purposes of this section, a sensitive location shall mean: (s) any gathering of individuals to collectively express their constitutional rights to protest or assemble; |
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 10/15/2023 1:30:58 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Castillo:(s) any gathering of individuals to collectively express their constitutional rights to protest or assemble; New York violates your 2nd Amendment rights anytime you dare exercise your 1st Amendment rights. |
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 10:10:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: EXSUNY]
[#5]
It is true I want a silver bullet. However, the lack of support for the TROs told me that Scotus doesn't have rights as a priority but procedural posturing.
The bottom line is that the CCIA will be in place for many years. I do think that if the filers of Bruen and the Justices didn't see this coming, they were remiss in their planning and analyses. I've read that some predicted a CCIA type law. There is no escaping that we would have been better off without the Bruen decision in NYS. That there are triumphs for drug users and domestic abusers in other states, lower court decisions that their Circuits overturn is really not to the point. Perhaps, some folks find it easier to get a useless permit in some counties. That is a trivial win if follow up decisions against the counter Bruen laws aren't made in real time. I do fault Scotus for not finding a path to do that. I don't buy into the procedural apologists. They can act when they feel like it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 8:36:38 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By EXSUNY: It is true I want a silver bullet. However, the lack of support for the TROs told me that Scotus doesn't have rights as a priority but procedural posturing. The bottom line is that the CCIA will be in place for many years. I do think that if the filers of Bruen and the Justices didn't see this coming, they were remiss in their planning and analyses. I've read that some predicted a CCIA type law. There is no escaping that we would have been better off without the Bruen decision in NYS. That there are triumphs for drug users and domestic abusers in other states, lower court decisions that their Circuits overturn is really not to the point. Perhaps, some folks find it easier to get a useless permit in some counties. That is a trivial win if follow up decisions against the counter Bruen laws aren't made in real time. I do fault Scotus for not finding a path to do that. I don't buy into the procedural apologists. They can act when they feel like it. |
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 10/17/2023 10:01:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: NonTypical361]
[#7]
 2A DESPERATION: Anti-gun Group Submits Amazing Filing in US Court in NY Trying to Avoid Huge Loss |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 10/17/2023 10:18:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: DaveM4P99]
[#8]
Quote HistoryCliffs notes...Everytown clowns filed an amicus or letter or something, too late for starters...that supposedly lists historical analogues for park carry restrictions. But...all of these examples seem to be park regulations, not laws...most are poaching rules...and all are 1850s or later. Most are even from the 20th century. Not early enough to count. And this ending gem from @nolocontendere On January 11, 2023, two Justices from the United States Supreme Court stated that “[a]pplicants [in this case] should not be deterred by today’s order from again seeking relief if the Second Circuit does not, within a reasonable time, provide an explanation for its stay order or expedite consideration of the appeal.” Antonyuk v. Nigrelli, 143 S. Ct. 481 (2023) (Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins, respecting the denial of the application to vacate stay). While this Court scheduled briefing and heard argument quickly, its opinion has not been forthcoming. Now, Everytown seeks to reset the clock entirely, asking the Court to begin its historical analysis (at least to parks3 ) anew, with the only possible effect to further delay issuance of the Court’s opinion. To permit Everytown’s shenanigans would be to ignore the Justices’ warning. |
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 10/18/2023 9:08:57 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DaveM4P99: On January 11, 2023, two Justices from the United States Supreme Court stated that "[a]pplicants [in this case] should not be deterred by today's order from again seeking relief if the Second Circuit does not, within a reasonable time, provide an explanation for its stay order or expedite consideration of the appeal." Antonyuk v. Nigrelli, 143 S. Ct. 481 (2023) (Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins, respecting the denial of the application to vacate stay). |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2023 9:18:09 AM EDT
[Last Edit: P400]
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DaveM4P99: Cliffs notes...Everytown clowns filed an amicus or letter or something, too late for starters...that supposedly lists historical analogues for park carry restrictions. But...all of these examples seem to be park regulations, not laws...most are poaching rules...and all are 1850s or later. Most are even from the 20th century. Not early enough to count. And this ending gem from @nolocontendere On January 11, 2023, two Justices from the United States Supreme Court stated that “[a]pplicants [in this case] should not be deterred by today’s order from again seeking relief if the Second Circuit does not, within a reasonable time, provide an explanation for its stay order or expedite consideration of the appeal.” Antonyuk v. Nigrelli, 143 S. Ct. 481 (2023) (Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins, respecting the denial of the application to vacate stay). While this Court scheduled briefing and heard argument quickly, its opinion has not been forthcoming. Now, Everytown seeks to reset the clock entirely, asking the Court to begin its historical analysis (at least to parks3 ) anew, with the only possible effect to further delay issuance of the Court’s opinion. To permit Everytown’s shenanigans would be to ignore the Justices’ warning. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DaveM4P99: Cliffs notes...Everytown clowns filed an amicus or letter or something, too late for starters...that supposedly lists historical analogues for park carry restrictions. But...all of these examples seem to be park regulations, not laws...most are poaching rules...and all are 1850s or later. Most are even from the 20th century. Not early enough to count. And this ending gem from @nolocontendere On January 11, 2023, two Justices from the United States Supreme Court stated that “[a]pplicants [in this case] should not be deterred by today’s order from again seeking relief if the Second Circuit does not, within a reasonable time, provide an explanation for its stay order or expedite consideration of the appeal.” Antonyuk v. Nigrelli, 143 S. Ct. 481 (2023) (Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins, respecting the denial of the application to vacate stay). While this Court scheduled briefing and heard argument quickly, its opinion has not been forthcoming. Now, Everytown seeks to reset the clock entirely, asking the Court to begin its historical analysis (at least to parks3 ) anew, with the only possible effect to further delay issuance of the Court’s opinion. To permit Everytown’s shenanigans would be to ignore the Justices’ warning. Shenanigans!  Nice work slipping that in there. We are well beyond what most people would consider to be a reasonable or expedited time period. These cases were heard at the end of one winter season and we have yet to hear anything as the next one approaches. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2023 7:39:47 PM EDT
[#11]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2023 8:16:20 PM EDT
[#12]
 HUGE 2A BREAKING NEWS NOW: AR-15 BAN DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2023 8:32:29 PM EDT
[#13]
I read that whole decision this afternoon. Benitez is awesome. NY sucks balls.
|
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 10/20/2023 7:54:21 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fish223: I read that whole decision this afternoon. Benitez is awesome. NY sucks balls. If the 9th does find it violated its own rules, then that buys it much more time because they will have to send the case to a three judge panel and that is more than a year away. On some odd chance that the three-judge panel upholds Judge Benitez's decision, then it will go to an en banc panel and that is still years away. Figure the 2027-2028 time frame. Justices Thomas and Alito will be approaching 80 at that point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2023 9:28:26 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Aardvark: Californians are not about to get their freedom back. I fully expect the 9th to follow the exact same playbook they just did for Duncan v Bocera (standard capacity magazine ban). Rather than take a chance on the randomly selected three-judge panel to evaluate California's soon to be requested permanent stay, they will most likely tap the same 11-judge en banc panel that originally heard the case and they will issue the stay. This will automatically (by estimates) put the case on hold for about four years as the 9th has not yet decided whether or not this process violates its own rules and the hearing on that issue is not until March 2024. There will be no progress on this or the magazine ban until that is decided from what some posts have indicated. There is still one more decision coming from Judge Benitez in the near future which will also probably go the same way: law found unconstitutional, 9th permanently stays, 9th waits to decide if the extraordinary process they invoked broke their procedural rules, reset the clock to start again. If the 9th does find it violated its own rules, then that buys it much more time because they will have to send the case to a three judge panel and that is more than a year away. On some odd chance that the three-judge panel upholds Judge Benitez's decision, then it will go to an en banc panel and that is still years away. Figure the 2027-2028 time frame. Justices Thomas and Alito will be approaching 80 at that point. Sadly, I feel, and fear, your analysis is likely accurate. I'll probably be right on schedule to be leaving NY on the same 5 or 6 years timeline.  And while I know that NY and Cali are following the exact same playbook of deny, delay, deny, delay, deny, I would like to see a NY judge verbally eviscerate the higher courts in a similar fashion to the way Judge Benitez has repeatedly done. The man is a master. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2023 6:19:13 PM EDT
[#16]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2023 6:20:13 PM EDT
[#17]
I didn't even know this was an option.
Kick the can down the road? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2023 7:22:07 PM EDT
[#18]
Sooo. It’s been so loooooong I lost track.
2nd circuit grants stay to who? |
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 11/15/2023 7:38:10 PM EDT
[#19]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2023 8:03:25 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Foosel: That is from last year!  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2023 9:30:43 PM EDT
[#21]
Any guessing when we may hear something, haven't heard anything from Nolo in a long time .
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2023 1:26:24 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By cranberry1: Any guessing when we may hear something, haven't heard anything from Nolo in a long time . No timeline unfortunately. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2023 1:26:47 AM EDT
[#23]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2023 7:46:46 AM EDT
[#24]
Oh geese. I need better glasses. Sorry.
|
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 11/16/2023 12:55:15 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere: That was last year. Then saw the "2022" 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2023 1:40:19 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Aardvark: I clicked on the link and was wondering why I had already commented on it Then saw the "2022" Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Aardvark: Originally Posted By NoloContendere: That was last year. Then saw the "2022" I see the original link is from Nov 15, 2022, it was the one year anniversary yesterday, probably why it popped up again. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/17/2023 12:55:09 PM EDT
[#27]
So we're...
 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/17/2023 3:15:55 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dopple: So we're... https://media4.giphy.com/media/um2kBnfo55iW4ZH1Fa/giphy.gif?cid=36b14fac3w8vg70h2zu7q60itx2jq79ii1sr1eic78cuujpb&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g We're only at the 8 month mark. 
|
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 11/22/2023 11:46:11 AM EDT
[#29]
Don't worry, Clarence Thomas and Thomas Alito are watching them from their yachts and private planes. They have their spanking paddles ready to make sure the Circuit does it job. Yes, indeed.
Seriously, when the 2nd Circuit finds against us, it then starts a years long process of appealing and uncertainty. Haven't the lower courts not really processed the CCIA - just issued a TRO but not a definitive decision? When they do that, if I have this correctly, it starts the whole 2nd Circuit charade again. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 11/22/2023 1:13:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: DaveM4P99]
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By EXSUNY: Don't worry, Clarence Thomas and Thomas Alito are watching them from their yachts and private planes. They have their spanking paddles ready to make sure the Circuit does it job. Yes, indeed. Seriously, when the 2nd Circuit finds against us, it then starts a years long process of appealing and uncertainty. Haven't the lower courts not really processed the CCIA - just issued a TRO but not a definitive decision? When they do that, if I have this correctly, it starts the whole 2nd Circuit charade again. That is correct...but during oral arguments the head judge kept speaking as if they were deciding the ultimate fate of all these laws...as if it wasn't just a TRO hearing. So not sure if the 2nd can just snatch the cases away from the district courts or not...but yeah I assume not. But if the 2nd finds against us regarding the TRO...I bet we could appeal the TRO decision to SCOTUS again. If not, then it goes back to a FULL trial at the district level...and we know how Suddaby and Sinatra will rule. Then after that it would theoretically get appealed to the 2nd but for a full trial. We all know how that goes... Then to SCOTUS. Timeline? Idk. 8 years? In my opinion...SCOTUS already ruled. Text history and tradition isn't hard. There were NO laws anything like what NY has. Unconstitutional. NY knows this. That's why they aren't prosecuting any carry crimes. Not even high profile ones against Republican politicians in NYC. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2023 1:38:27 PM EDT
[#31]
Is anyone actually surprised by this?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2023 1:42:18 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By crwdplsr: Is anyone actually surprised by this? Surprised? No... Pissed off and completely disgusted? YES! |
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 11/23/2023 8:26:31 AM EDT
[#33]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2023 9:05:47 AM EDT
[#34]
Go Nolo!
|
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 11/23/2023 9:37:04 AM EDT
[#35]
Interesting indeed! Looks like New York and the 2nd Circuit are essentially in a no-win situation for now. Either invalidate those portions of the CCIA and other New York laws that mirror Maryland or uphold New York's laws, create a circuit split and give Justice Thomas another go at New York
 I would imagine the 2nd will uphold New York and take its chances with SCOTUS. Buys New York more time.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2023 9:48:54 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NonTypical361: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca2.59354/gov.uscourts.ca2.59354.406.0.pdf Very nice, Nolo. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 11/23/2023 9:59:51 AM EDT
[Last Edit: DaveM4P99]
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NonTypical361: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca2.59354/gov.uscourts.ca2.59354.406.0.pdf Good decision out of Maryland and the 5th circuit. Basically saying permitting schemes are "a right delayed is a right denied." Bam. Shot across the bow. Excellent ammo for Nolo. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2023 10:07:47 AM EDT
[#38]
Fantastic
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 11/28/2023 11:00:46 AM EDT
[#39]
My hope springs eternal.
But seriously, maybe the next generation will enjoy some freedom someday in the Peoples Democratic Republic of NYS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2023 6:11:28 PM EDT
[#40]
New York State Court of Appeals Judge Jenny Rivera, one of the top court's two most liberal jurists, says she would strike down a state law that makes it easier to convict people who possess loaded firearms without a permit, following the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Second Amendment decision last year.
In a dissenting opinion from one of several gun cases decided last Tuesday, Rivera said it was time to invalidate the law at issue — which says the mere possession of an unlicensed firearm implies an intent to use that firearm illegally. https://www.lohud.com/story/news/crime/2023/11/28/liberal-judge-on-nys-top-court-says-key-gun-law-is-unconstitutional/71672846007/ |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2023 11:13:12 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Edge-To-Life: New York State Court of Appeals Judge Jenny Rivera, one of the top court's two most liberal jurists, says she would strike down a state law that makes it easier to convict people who possess loaded firearms without a permit, following the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Second Amendment decision last year. In a dissenting opinion from one of several gun cases decided last Tuesday, Rivera said it was time to invalidate the law at issue which says the mere possession of an unlicensed firearm implies an intent to use that firearm illegally. https://www.lohud.com/story/news/crime/2023/11/28/liberal-judge-on-nys-top-court-says-key-gun-law-is-unconstitutional/71672846007/ |
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 11/29/2023 12:50:26 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Sgt_Gold: My hope springs eternal. But seriously, maybe the next generation will enjoy some freedom someday in the Peoples Democratic Republic of NYS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2023 10:43:01 AM EDT
[#43]
Opinion released!!
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca2.59354/gov.uscourts.ca2.59354..0_1.pdf I’m on mobile and get headaches from legalese but early reports are good news. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 12/8/2023 11:32:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: fnub315]
[#44]
"For the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM the injunctions in part, VACATE in part, and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
In summary, we uphold the district court's injunctions with respect to N.Y. Penal L. 400.00(1)(o)(iv) (social media disclosure); N.Y. Penal L. 265.01-d (restricted locations) as applied to private property held open to the general public; and N.Y. Penal L. 265.01-e(2)(c) as applied to Pastor Spencer, the Tabernacle Family Church, its members, or their agents and licensees. We vacate the injunctions in all other respects, having concluded either that the district Court lacked jurisdiction because no plaintiff had Article III standing to challenge the laws or that the challenged laws do not violate the Constitution on their face." |
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 12/8/2023 11:49:11 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fnub315: "...We vacate the injunctions in all other respects, having concluded either that the district Court lacked jurisdiction because no plaintiff had Article III standing to challenge the laws or that the challenged laws do not violate the Constitution on their face." |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2023 11:50:03 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fnub315: "For the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM the injunctions in part, VACATE in part, and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this opinion. In summary, we uphold the district court's injunctions with respect to N.Y. Penal L. 400.00(1)(o)(iv) (social media disclosure); N.Y. Penal L. 265.01-d (restricted locations) as applied to private property held open to the general public; and N.Y. Penal L. 265.01-e(2)(c) as applied to Pastor Spencer, the Tabernacle Family Church, its members, or their agents and licensees. We vacate the injunctions in all other respects, having concluded either that the district Court lacked jurisdiction because no plaintiff had Article III standing to challenge the laws or that the challenged laws do not violate the Constitution on their face." I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but this is a damned sight better than what I expected us to get. Nolo has a lot of work ahead of him, and if you are not yet a member of Gun Owners of America I strongly urge you to join. They took this case at our request and have been amazing and are spending a metric shit ton of money on this critically important case! Let's show them we appreciate it and have their backs just like they have ours! |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 12/8/2023 12:06:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: DaveM4P99]
[#47]
So carry in private property open to public is now allowed. That's the big win.
And social media requirement is gone for now..but all other licensing requirements are allowed including training which sucks. But they basically upheld everything else, all the new sensitive locations...Good moral character is allowed somehow even though it's the same arbitrary requirement as proper cause. What about parks? Seems they said bannig guns in parks or anywhere with kids or lots of people is ok...which sucks too. On to SCOTUS now? Or back to the district court for a full trial? Then back to the 2nd circuit? Then to SCOTUS? |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 12/8/2023 12:22:54 PM EDT
[#48]
@EXSUNY
Obviously even the liberal 2nd circus couldn't justify the blanket private property ban, post Thomas' Bruen decision. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2023 12:27:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: xd341]
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DaveM4P99: So carry in private property open to public is now allowed. That's the big win. And social media requirement is gone for now..but all other licensing requirements are allowed including training which sucks. But they basically upheld everything else, all the new sensitive locations...Good moral character is allowed somehow even though it's the same arbitrary requirement as proper cause. What about parks? Seems they said bannig guns in parks or anywhere with kids or lots of people is ok...which sucks too. On to SCOTUS now? Or back to the district court for a full trial? Then back to the 2nd circuit? Then to SCOTUS? The private property open to the public thing is huge. That provision effectively killed CC in the state. Bigger win than I expected actually. Can't say the 2nd didn't put in effort, over 200 pages of bullshit. They must really care about this one. |
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 12/8/2023 1:35:07 PM EDT
[#50]
This is good news and a step forward. If I read this correctly, I can now carry going to a store or supermarket? That's great. Houses of worship are ambiguous as it only pertains to the plantiffs?
The other sensitive locales still stand. Parks, libraries, these need to go. Maybe I won't be so pessimistic. Schools would be a hard one to free up. |
|
|
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.
