New York Firearms Forum banner
1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hi Folks,

So - in post Bruen New York State - it seems New York is usurping even more of our rights guaranteed by the US Constitution.

I know GOA has filed legal action against New York - has anyone else?

Providing (4) references and social media accounts to the State - for another subjective test - is just New York's attempt to render the SCOTUS ruling moot on CCW.

What specifics are being addressed in active legal action within New York.

Is anyone addressing the SAFE Act?

Thanks.

Regards,
Scott
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
278 Posts
Hi Folks,

So - in post Bruen New York State - it seems New York is usurping even more of our rights guaranteed by the US Constitution.

I know GOA has filed legal action against New York - has anyone else?

Providing (4) references and social media accounts to the State - for another subjective test - is just New York's attempt to render the SCOTUS ruling moot on CCW.

What specifics are being addressed in active legal action within New York.

Is anyone addressing the SAFE Act?

Thanks.

Regards,
Scott
The Safe Act is being challenged in Central Islip Long Island.
The new law goes in full effect 9/1/22 unless an injunction is granted. It will be appealed, New York will fight to keep all these unconstitutional laws.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Hi Folks,

So - in post Bruen New York State - it seems New York is usurping even more of our rights guaranteed by the US Constitution.

I know GOA has filed legal action against New York - has anyone else?

Providing (4) references and social media accounts to the State - for another subjective test - is just New York's attempt to render the SCOTUS ruling moot on CCW.

What specifics are being addressed in active legal action within New York.

Is anyone addressing the SAFE Act?

Thanks.

Regards,
Scott
Carl Paladino filed a more limited suit, just against the private property carry restriction. GOP congressional candidate Paladino files lawsuit challenging 'patently absurd' gun laws
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
This entire thing is a temper tantrum by an unelected Governor. She has made it basically impossible to legally carry a fire arm. I'm a business owner with a business carry permit, how am I supposed to get the and from work? Can I stop for gas? Can I get coffee? Are we supposed to handle our firearms in public to take them on and off over and over again?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
278 Posts
This entire thing is a temper tantrum by an unelected Governor. She has made it basically impossible to legally carry a fire arm. I'm a business owner with a business carry permit, how am I supposed to get the and from work? Can I stop for gas? Can I get coffee? Are we supposed to handle our firearms in public to take them on and off over and over again?
She is clearly another sell out like Gilibrand!
A rising star in the Liberal Progressive Democrat Party.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Hi Folks,

Thanks for the responses.

Has anyone ever tried using - 42 US 1983 - to hold politicians personally accountable in civil litigation?

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

This is clearly a case of politicians flagrantly violating our Constitutional Rights.

Regards,
Scott
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Hi Folks,

Thanks for the responses.

Has anyone ever tried using - 42 US 1983 - to hold politicians personally accountable in civil litigation?

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

This is clearly a case of politicians flagrantly violating our Constitutional Rights.

Regards,
Scott
Yes, its been tried, but prior to the Bruen SCOTUS decision, the courts could hide behind 'scrutiny', now they can't do that. For example, here is an excerpt from a "May Issue" case from 2013 in CA:
"Because the LASD and LACSD policies, as implementing the California concealed weapons regime and as applied to Plaintiff, satisfy intermediate scrutiny, they do not violate the Second Amendment. There has been no violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, and no resulting violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988. "
But now, new cases must follow the 'text and tradition" guidance from the SCOTUS decision. So, even though many people are knocking the decision and the NYSRPA, they should just be knocking the overreaching Whorechul legislation. In the long run, the NYSRPA/Bruen SCOTUS case will be a big win for all actions that are brought.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
80 Posts
The 'actions' would not have to be brought if Scotus had thought out the responses from states like NY and precluded them explicitly. Undoing them will take years, unless there is an emergency route to Scotus, and in the mean time carry is destroyed here. There is no guarantee that in a few years time Scotus will be friendly. Some older conservative drops dead and a new one from Biden, Roberts and 3 - RKBA is sunk.

Let's be clear - all these legal weeds, precedents, historical this or that, levels of scrutiny are fun for lawyers but do not speak to a decision that actual looked at the pragmatics of day to day carry and clearly freed it up from actions such as the NYS legislative response. Blather about sensitive spaces without clearly knocking that idea back was a mistake. Now, I'm speaking about licensed carry. Consitutional carry can be another day.

A clear definition would be that no local can be called sensitive unless there is a precise and technical nature to the threat, such as a gun in the MRI, having to lose control in a medical exam or procedure, the court house, trial or jail.

Emotionally defined sensitive spaces like the library or places or worship are precluded. Public transportation (except for airplane flights) are precluded. Schools are precluded from bans.

Private property:
1. Your home is your castle.
2. If you own a business open to the public to drop in you cannot ban carry. The right of SD trumps your 'property rights'. You dont' have to have a business. We have decided that businesses cannot ban on protected classes. Businesses need to be zoned, licensed, fire codes, health regulations, all kinds of regulations - thus your property rights are not so absolute as those who rant my property rights would claim. It is my opinion that this rant is left over from those who want to discriminate or are part of the wedding cake fearful, if you get my drift.

Scotus might have made some progress, that has yet to be seen. Heller really didn't change much except for some positive actions in Illinois. Certainly, state weapons bans quoted Scalia as supporting such. Yeah, he had to kiss Kennedy's butt (who listened to Stevens) but it gave a bad precedent.

I'm surprised by some of the gun carrying NYers who didn't even know this was coming on 9/1. What - one says - the criminals can carry in the store but I can't. Surprise. Another says to me - well, they won't prosecute and it's only a misdemeanor. Oh, dear - study up cowboy. Look at Bernhard Goetz - he beat the murder charges but was convicted on the gun charges. That will be you if you use the gun.

Bah, on Sept.1 - carry is fundamentally useless. Great. That's all that matters to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
199 Posts
Still trying to wrap my head around all of this. So a month from now, for all practical purposes I can only conceal carry at home or I will be risking the commission of a felony? I mean, what the f*ck!
And what about going to the range? Can I still put my unloaded handgun, boxes of ammo, shooting glasses, etc. in a range bag to drive to and from the range and my home?
What else do we need to know?
Thank you for helping me to navigate this sh*t show!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
278 Posts
The 'actions' would not have to be brought if Scotus had thought out the responses from states like NY and precluded them explicitly. Undoing them will take years, unless there is an emergency route to Scotus, and in the mean time carry is destroyed here. There is no guarantee that in a few years time Scotus will be friendly. Some older conservative drops dead and a new one from Biden, Roberts and 3 - RKBA is sunk.

Let's be clear - all these legal weeds, precedents, historical this or that, levels of scrutiny are fun for lawyers but do not speak to a decision that actual looked at the pragmatics of day to day carry and clearly freed it up from actions such as the NYS legislative response. Blather about sensitive spaces without clearly knocking that idea back was a mistake. Now, I'm speaking about licensed carry. Consitutional carry can be another day.

A clear definition would be that no local can be called sensitive unless there is a precise and technical nature to the threat, such as a gun in the MRI, having to lose control in a medical exam or procedure, the court house, trial or jail.

Emotionally defined sensitive spaces like the library or places or worship are precluded. Public transportation (except for airplane flights) are precluded. Schools are precluded from bans.

Private property:
1. Your home is your castle.
2. If you own a business open to the public to drop in you cannot ban carry. The right of SD trumps your 'property rights'. You dont' have to have a business. We have decided that businesses cannot ban on protected classes. Businesses need to be zoned, licensed, fire codes, health regulations, all kinds of regulations - thus your property rights are not so absolute as those who rant my property rights would claim. It is my opinion that this rant is left over from those who want to discriminate or are part of the wedding cake fearful, if you get my drift.

Scotus might have made some progress, that has yet to be seen. Heller really didn't change much except for some positive actions in Illinois. Certainly, state weapons bans quoted Scalia as supporting such. Yeah, he had to kiss Kennedy's butt (who listened to Stevens) but it gave a bad precedent.

I'm surprised by some of the gun carrying NYers who didn't even know this was coming on 9/1. What - one says - the criminals can carry in the store but I can't. Surprise. Another says to me - well, they won't prosecute and it's only a misdemeanor. Oh, dear - study up cowboy. Look at Bernhard Goetz - he beat the murder charges but was convicted on the gun charges. That will be you if you use the gun.

Bah, on Sept.1 - carry is fundamentally useless. Great. That's all that matters to me.
An injunction will possibly take place before 9/1/22, if this happens. Expect NY to appeal, causing further delays with removing restrictions and issuing a pistol license until a court decides what may remain in effect.
The best case scenario, is the Supreme Court takes another pro 2A case next year. Justice Thomas will prevent states like New York and California from creating punitive laws for law abiding citizens with firearms.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
80 Posts
The interplay is what is more important, removing restrictions and/granting more permits or preventing the new law from taking force. Issuing more permits that are functionally useless is not much of a win. Next year - that means two years of no useful permits for many of us. That Clarence will fix this - that is an unknown. That Clarence will act against property rights is an unknown. If he is worried about wedding cakes, he might not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
278 Posts
The interplay is what is more important, removing restrictions and/granting more permits or preventing the new law from taking force. Issuing more permits that are functionally useless is not much of a win. Next year - that means two years of no useful permits for many of us. That Clarence will fix this - that is an unknown. That Clarence will act against property rights is an unknown. If he is worried about wedding cakes, he might not.
The other liberal states like Maryland were asked by the Governor to proceed issuing qualified applicants full carry. Massachusetts Attorney General also agreed the new ruling must be granted.
In New York, the county clerk or judge can remove restrictions when an amendment is filed for unrestricted. It’s political, the excuse is the State is holding things up like they will do dragging it out with appeals if the injunction happens before 9/1/22.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
123 Posts
What I find most appalling in this whole sorry mess is that there has been absolutely no outreach on the part of the state to notify permit holders: no letters from the state police or the sheriff's office, no PSAs on television, nothing. I follow the news and I follow firearms issues online, but not everyone does. Some of these unwitting permit holders will be like sitting ducks if they go about their daily routines while carrying after September 1st.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
80 Posts
I found some gun folk who were absolutely clueless that this was coming down on 9/1. Catching some sitting ducks and making a big deal of it:
1. Scared the crap out of folks and cause carry to cease - that's the plan!
2. Someone becomes a test case and years later, an unknown composition Scotus upholds opt in as Property Rights are supreme!! Thus, killing useful carry.

Folks are supposed to be impressed by Clarence and his historical precedent analysis bu that's naive. If you read the state's reply to the GOA, they have quite a few historical counters. Basically, the legal folks think these weeds are important (scrutiny, history, originalism, etc.). That's all trivial because as some scholars pointed out (see Dave Kopel's analysis of the NY law) judges and justices are personally, ideologically or politically in favor of gun rights or not. This is before decisions are made and written. They or their clerks then comb through the vast legal sources to cherry pick verbiage that supports their world view.

That sets of lawyers and judges can come up with numerous citations either supporting or not supporting a position indicates this is the operative mode on most social issues. Their rationalizations are worth spit in the actual end decision implementation. They will support gun rights, gay rights, corporate rights, etc. based on their personal view and then come up with blather.

They will deny this but the scholarship is clear. It is the same analysis Kahneman made of economic - it was all the rational person until he showed it was more the psychology of decision making.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,823 Posts
What I find most appalling in this whole sorry mess is that there has been absolutely no outreach on the part of the state to notify permit holders: no letters from the state police or the sheriff's office, no PSAs on television, nothing. I follow the news and I follow firearms issues online, but not everyone does. Some of these unwitting permit holders will be like sitting ducks if they go about their daily routines while carrying after September 1st.
Yup. They know every permit holder's address, phone number, place of employment, but they can't be assed to notify people of major changes like this. Leave it to NY to make it a felony to not follow the news.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top