« Ruling striking down NY's ban on guns in churches | Main | At the Federalist Society, presentations by Steve Halbrook and others on Bruen »
Big win in NY US District Court
Story here. Winning attorneys are Stephen Stamboulieh and William Olson, the suit was backed by Gun Owners of America. The entire opinion is 184 pages, the key part, the court's order, reads:
"DECISION AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION that Defendant Hochul is DISMISSED from this action as a party. Plaintiffs' motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. [6]) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part in accordance with this Decision. Defendants, as well as their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys (and any other persons who are in active concert or participation with them) are PRELIMINARILY ENJOINED from enforcing the following provisions of the Concealed Carry Improvement Act, 2022 N.Y. Sess. Laws ch. 371 ("CCIA"): (1) the following provisions contained in Section 1 of the CCIA: (a) the provision requiring "good moral character"; (b) the provision requiring the "names and contact information for the applicant's current spouse, or domestic partner, any other adults residing in the applicant's home, including any adult children of the applicant, and whether or not there are minors residing, full time or part time, in the applicant's home"; (c) the provision requiring "a list of former and current social media accounts of the applicant from the past three years"; and (d) the provision contained in Section 1 of the CCIA requiring "such other information required by review of the licensing application that is reasonably necessary and related to the review of the licensing application"; (2) the following "sensitive locations" provision contained in Section 4 of the CCIA: (a) "any location providing... behavioral health, or chemical dependance care or services" (except to places to which the public or a substantial group of persons have not been granted access) as contained in Paragraph "2(b)"; (b) "any place of worship or religious observation" as contained in Paragraph "2(c)"; (c) "public parks, and zoos" as contained in Paragraph "2(d)"; (d) "airports" to the extent the license holder is complying with federal regulations, and "buses" as contained in Paragraph "2(n)"; (e) "any establishment issued a license for on-premise consumption pursuant to article four, four-A, five, or six of the alcoholic beverage control law where alcohol is consumed" as contained in Paragraph "2(o)"; (f) "theaters," "conference centers," and "banquet halls" as contained in Paragraph "2(p)"; and (g) "any gathering of individuals to collectively express their constitutional rights to protest or assemble" as contained in Paragraph "2(s)"; and (3) the "restricted locations" provision contained in Section 5 of the CCIA. Plaintiffs are EXCUSED from giving security. The State Defendants' request for a limitation in the scope of this Preliminary Injunction and for a stay of it pending appeal (Dkt. No. [48], at 115-16) is DENIED. Signed by U.S. District Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 11/7/2022. (sal)"
14 Comments | Leave a comment
Big Gov't Law built the lawless society we suffer now. The last thing they deserve is any more reach into American's lives. Their irresponsibility should be punished further.
Well, good, except the "sensitive areas" struck down do not appear to include transit, e.g., NYC subways.
Thus, the most dangerous area of NYC remains off limits to licensed carry.
"e.g., NYC subways.
Thus, the most dangerous area of NYC remains off limits to licensed carry."
Well- its not like the NYPD actually patrols the subway, so...
"the "sensitive areas" struck down do not appear to include transit, e.g., NYC subways"
The work is not complete. Write a check so it can continue.
Dave Kopel has a summary at Reason/Volokh Conspiracy.
While I have read only a fraction of the Decision, based on the analyses of others, it appears to me that J. Suddaby is moving in the "right direction".
Yet, and recognizing that this a Preliminary Injunction with trial and Final Decision to follow, regarding "training" and "references" it appears J. Suddaby may want to "legislate from the bench".
Both, "training" and "references" are redundant with an "official background check" (which did not exist in 1791 or 1868).
"(T)raining" is clearly common sense; and if one is not smart enough to recognize they need to know how to use a tool then they should be allowed to suffer the consequences (self-harm or as with criminals the skilled individual will stop the threat the untrained poses to others). ... Those who would "terrorize" others should not be allowed in public unsupervised. And, mandatory training designed by “government” will neither stop nor cure “stupidity” (which we all know is the first unremunerated, unimpaired right; celebrated by demonrats and “teachers’ unions” throughout the land).
"(R)eferences" are an overreach; if background checks do not yield sufficient evidence to identify the applicant as having a firearm defect, there should be no need to find four individuals (who may or may not share an understanding of the 2nd Amendment and "self defense", or want to have their name on another "government list") for "permission" to exercise an enumerated "right" (which "shall not be infringed") ? …
And, if NYS "politicians" are so concerned with safety why would they encourage / require a license applicant to inform four or more that the applicant owns or will possess firearms ? … (What’s to stop your references from telling two friends who might in turn tell two friends, and they tell … ?)
Hey @anonymous, your limp sarcasm leaves your meaning ambiguous, though I will assume you mean to imply the superfluousness of being armed in the subway since, presumably, there are hordes of transit cops maintaining a safe environment for all.
But if you ride the subway with any frequency you will have had many precarious experiences both in the cars and on the platform with belligerent and/or mentally ill persons making life hell for the “normies” who generally grin and bear the tirades with a mix of equanimity and desperate hope that the attention of the crazy person will not by chance fall upon them.
In these situations, there is no transit cop caped crusader to save the day. In fact, often the transit cops like to keep their heads down as though they were grazing animals with blinders on, who don’t want to be troubled by the extreme unpleasantness these individuals, who are rife on the streets, may effortlessly direct at anyone unlucky enough to be compelled to confront their raving aggressiveness.
In the subway, the rule that when seconds count, the police are minutes away surely applies, and is elongated when you are trapped in a moving train car with the odius persons who have been allowed to run riot in NYC and other Leftist bastions.
Thus, yes, CCW is important, even in the subway.
Bernie Goetz smiles.
"(T)raining" is clearly common sense ..."
Exactly right.
And it has the same meaning as "well regulated" does in the Second Amendment, and for the same reason.
Training is an issue, remember that some states require hundreds of hours of training to become a hairdresser or interior designer. Can you imagine how much they would require to carry a firearm?
Seems like not including transit such as subways denies the right even if your start and destination allows concealed carry. If you can't get from A to B in a reasonable manner with your CCW, does it matter if you can carry in B?
Dear tom and Pete,
Most of the People can "self validate". "Government's" role was not originally thought of as including the civil service of validating "you". ...
You exemplify the failure of the "system of education" as it exists in this country. I expect you are both knowledgeable "experts" in whatever narrow, focused, vocation has chosen you; and, yes that "expertise" allows you to offer your "life experience" on what is required to become "trained" - "training"; keep "training".
Yet, in fact prior to the advent of "public education", "licensed professions" (including what were once (not even) known as trades or semi-skilled activities (e.g., hairdresser, interior designer, etc.)), ... and, collective bargaining units (now any "special interest" group of means) which could afford to "buy" elected officials ... the ultimate goal of K - 12 schooling was to teach "children" how to teach themselves (then considered a fundamental life survival skill); that led to apprentices, and in turn skilled tradesman (the universally preferred pro noun) and professionals (originally an informal designation associated with a diverse university education, aptitude to serve others and "integrity").
The system worked, extremely well. Other than as with the system that produced each of you.
P.S., tom, "regulated" in the "prefab" means organized, which can mean both "command structure" or "armed" (the government had no money way back, so the People were expected to bring their own quality fighting tools), ...
P.P.S. tom / Pete you each apparently suffer from one or more deficiencies which affect cognition. Seek help. ...
P.P.P.S. Pete, before applying the hair spray and / or paint make sure the area is ventilated.
I got a good chuckle from Sisu's comments.
When you lack a substantive argument, fall back on Ad hominem attack. :P
What can the Court of Appeals of the 2nd Circuit Do to it???
….Christmas in November ! And on Election Day. Suweet !!!