« Bob Baer has passed on | Main | Big win in NY US District Court »
Ruling striking down NY's ban on guns in churches
Hardaway v. Nigrelli, W.D.N.Y. A victory for FPC and SAF. Plaintiffs are clerics who want to carry to protect their churches. The court had earlier issued a temporary restraining order against enforcement of the ban, and now elevates that to a preliminary injunction (which usually turns into a permanent injunction once the trial is finished -- issuing a PI requires finding that the movant is likely to win on the trial).
The 2A analysis starts about p. 25. Text, history, and tradition, and the only examples defendants could find of bans in churches come from 1870 and later.
9 Comments | Leave a comment
What a great read.
Can a PI be appealed before trial? And if so, is the Second Circuit anything like the Ninth, where virtually all pro-gun opinions by a District Court are reversed?
I think that it's safe to say that virtually all pro-gun opinions by a District Court are then reviewed at the Circuit Appeals Court level. In the past, in the Ninth Circuit, virtually all pro-gun opinions by a three judge appeals panel have been reviewed "en banc" by the entire Ninth Circuit and almost always reversed. Bruen might change that.
Bruen WILL Change That!
I am Laughing that our VERY Anti-Gun Washington State Attorney General
With All his Constant Posts Daily and All His Blowhard Talk about “How He Will Defeat The Gun Lobby!” Has Not even Mentioned the Landmark 2nd Amendment Case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Kevin P. Bruen even ONCE lol
This is potentially a "big step" in the right direction.
But, it is very limited in scope: does not mention "carry" to and from place of worship; or its applicability to the "whole of the state". ... I expect the "State" will likely argue that it only applies to the Plaintiffs (and similarly situated within their counties.
Separately, this "piecemeal" approach to invalidating the CCIA (while again a step in the right direction) may ultimately be treated by the "State" as: "Okay, they proved they have 'Proper Cause'. Issue "restricted 'permits' to each individual plaintiff".
You are mostly right - they are ding all they can to piecemeal it because they want to drag it out as long as possible with the hope that the USSC will change it's composition any will get their way
After all it's not their money that they are spending on courts
The Composition of the Supreme Court Won’t Change for a Long Time.
Just think FDR’s “ The switch in time that saved nine" Basically Lasted from 1937-1986 Albeit with Truman, JFK, & Johnson Appointees.
Truman Appointed 4. But Alas the Topic of the Supreme Court wasn’t as Rabidly Divisive as Now.
And I suspect those bans were all state level. Those bans were allowed because of Barron v Baltimore (1833) which took all the Bill of Rights off the table for controlling state laws. No state law after 1833 concerning Arms should be accepted as anything but a blister on the law.
Now if the courts would simply overturn Barron on the supremacy clause which should have been used in Barron in 1833, we could clear a lot up and bind the states by the Bill of Rights. Even today many parts of the BoR have not been incorporated against the states.
WOW!