Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Government handing out free M4s | Main | 2A lawsuits everywhere! »

Latest NY decision

Posted by David Hardy · 7 October 2022 10:12 AM

Mark Smith discusses it here. Post Bruen, it's a whole new legal day!

8 Comments | Leave a comment

Fyooz | October 7, 2022 10:42 AM | Reply

He failed to note that his preliminary injunction is stayed for 3 days so defendants can appeal.

Fyooz | October 7, 2022 10:43 AM | Reply

"his" meaning Judge Suddaby's injunction.

Lagman | October 7, 2022 6:26 PM | Reply

The TRO (after 3 days) is only in place until Oct. 20 or the day of oral arguments; assuming "state actors" appeal is neither filed nor successful.

This is basically a "nothing burger" until it is an actual Judicial Decision. ... Other than if J. Suddaby follows through on his assertion (page 22): "Simply stated, instead of moving toward becoming a shall-issue jurisdiction, New York State has further entrenched itself as a shall-not-issue jurisdiction."

And, unless, each of the "may stand" conclusions, (hopefully) only relate to the fact that this is a TRO.

The Judge is emphatically wrong regarding: i) references (name another "natural right" one needs "references to exercise); ii) "household members" (why is their privacy more important than potential references); iii) "training" is right out of teacher unions' dictate of pedagogy of standardized tests to "graduate"; iv) "follow-up" information - either the license application is complete or not; v) government places - either one can carry or need not be compelled to enter; vi) "places of worship", "place of worship" lacks specificity and the analogues are post 1868, failure to consider 1791 and fails to consider Article.IV., Section.2. (first sentence); vii) "Schools, Colleges, Universities" a whimpy punt, "public assemblies" lacks clear definition (other than ftnt 40.), ...

All of NYS' arms laws and regulations should be deemed unlawful. NYS government over the course of more than a century and a quarter has proven itself unwilling to / incapable of writing laws compliant with the US Constitution, including the Second Amendment absolute restriction on "infringement".

NYS governments continual failure to protect its citizens and visitors, as well as those in need of protection from themselves and incapable of providing for their own care and safety should result in a "permanent restraint" on all government actors (present and future) from attempting to legislate or enforce any laws, rules, regulations or provision/ guidelines whatsoever regarding the "public safety".

As well no NYS elected official, public employee, member of law enforcement, or contractor should enjoy or benefit from any form of "immunity" or indemnification should they violate the civil rights of any member of the "public".

Withstanding the above, it would appear that J. Suddaby is taking a methodical, measured approached to possibly strike down this "shall not issue" regime.

Regardless, this TRO does not deserve the "hype" it is receiving.

John | October 7, 2022 8:11 PM | Reply

To Lagman,
I know you want everything right now but the history of fighting for civil rights proves that is unachievable. However this is a "good first step"

Fyooz | October 8, 2022 1:17 PM | Reply

It's been what? 48 hours?

Wonder if an appeal has been filed.

Anonymous | October 9, 2022 9:00 AM | Reply

John:

"the history of fighting for civil rights proves"
that it's a fight. No certainty of winning; other civilizations have lost, and those who won, didn't win it all at once nor quickly.

The 'good first step' is only that, a temporary win in a battle.

jdunmyer | October 12, 2022 8:19 AM | Reply

RE: not winning all at once:

I live in MI, just outside Ohio, so I follow their politics closely, especially in regards to guns and RKBA. MI passed our Shall-Issue CCW law in 2000, but it took a few more years for Ohio to follow. Of course, the Antis predicted Blood in the Streets.

The CCW law in Ohio was far from perfect, and many folks on our side complained bitterly. One example was that if you carried in your car, you had to have the gun visible to an officer approaching during a traffic stop. I installed snaps on my pocket holster so I could attach a strap so as to hang the thing around my neck, with the holster in the middle of my chest.

Over the years, the activists in Ohio managed to liberalize the law, culminating in passing Constitutional Carry last year. That was in spite of the Governor not being a big supporter of gun rights. Of course, it helps that Ohio has had a Republican legislature for all of these years.

Chin up, and keep fighting!

wrangler5 | October 15, 2022 12:01 AM | Reply

As I understand it, in NY a permit too own a weapon is also a permit to carry it, EXCEPT that permits issued outside NY City (not sure if that's just the 5 boroughs or a slightly larger area) are not valid inside NY City. They were good everywhere else in the state, just not in The City. To carry IN The City you had to have a permit FROM The City.

Does anybody know if the statewide law that was passed post-Bruen and at least partially gutted in this case, made any change to the NY City/Everywhere Else distinctions?

Leave a comment