User Panel
Posted: 7/20/2022 6:21:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: fish223]
This is what we've been waiting for. From the GOA suit.
GOA requests injunction |
|
|
|
Bravo Nolo bravo!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Originally Posted By ar-jedi:
SO MUCH WIN IN ONE POST IT COULD CRASH ARFCOM !!! |
Fantastic!
Godspeed! |
|
|
How long before it is denied or granted? What is the process?
|
|
|
Originally Posted By LamePostCount: How long before it is denied or granted? What is the process? View Quote Also interested in the answer , I'm sure we'll here something soon as it's a time sensitive issue . CCIA declare's the whole of NY state a sensitive area and they also want 5X the amount of training that was previously required . Just reading the reason and request for an injunction and it's scary what the state wants to put gun owners through ,any level headed judge should side with us on this . |
|
|
Lol ar15.com shout out
|
|
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Fiat justitia ruat caelum. |
This is awesome! Who do I need to donate to to support this?
|
|
|
Haha yeah nice ar15.com Easter egg.
And this is great...I think it challenges the entirety of the "concealed carry improvement act" right? |
|
If you have a Japanese sword from WWII - PM ME!
|
Well done! Now to see how the Northern District tries to weasel.
|
|
"Freedom through Victory"
"Those who can ... do Those who can't ... become site staff" |
Over on reddit someone said it was supposed to be heard on August 10th, but the state sent a letter to the judge asking for more time to prepare, due to the"complexity of the constitutional matters involved"
They passed the legislation in 12 hours, would seem to me that 3 weeks is enough time to prepare to defend it. |
|
|
Originally Posted By Tahawus: This is awesome! Who do I need to donate to to support this? View Quote https://www.firearmspolicy.org/ https://www.nysrpa.org/ I believe the first link is the one who brought the lawsuit. The others have also had a hand in the wins. |
|
|
Originally Posted By cranberry1: Just reading the reason and request for an injunction and it's scary what the state wants to put gun owners through ,any level headed judge should side with us on this . View Quote Right there you gave the defining reason as to why there will be no injunction and it will take five years to work the case through the courts while the state adds additional laws during the same period (just like California). |
|
|
Originally Posted By CatskillDraht: Over on reddit someone said it was supposed to be heard on August 10th, but the state sent a letter to the judge asking for more time to prepare, due to the"complexity of the constitutional matters involved" They passed the legislation in 12 hours, would seem to me that 3 weeks is enough time to prepare to defend it. View Quote Does GOA have the opportunity to respond to that request? |
|
|
Originally Posted By CatskillDraht: Over on reddit someone said it was supposed to be heard on August 10th, but the state sent a letter to the judge asking for more time to prepare, due to the"complexity of the constitutional matters involved" They passed the legislation in 12 hours, would seem to me that 3 weeks is enough time to prepare to defend it. View Quote Obviously NYS and CA will try to run out the clock by delay, delay and more delay hoping for a change in the makeup of the Supreme Court. Unfortunately time is on their side and the longer it takes the more they can violate our constitutional rights. Too bad Hawaii judge won't issue a nationwide injunction instantly like for certain "other" legal issues! |
|
"Freedom through Victory"
"Those who can ... do Those who can't ... become site staff" |
Originally Posted By CatskillDraht: Over on reddit someone said it was supposed to be heard on August 10th, but the state sent a letter to the judge asking for more time to prepare, due to the"complexity of the constitutional matters involved" They passed the legislation in 12 hours, would seem to me that 3 weeks is enough time to prepare to defend it. View Quote Maybe @nolocontendere can help clarify the timeline??? |
|
|
Where is the arfcom shout out? I can't find it.
|
|
|
Originally Posted By Tahawus: Does GOA have the opportunity to respond to that request? View Quote Yep. We did. And the judge said this in an order: Docket Text: TEXT ORDER granting in part and denying in part [10] Defendant's letter-motion for an extension of the deadline by which he must respond to Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Although Defendant certainly must (as he argues) review "extensive" history to brief the Court on the relevant historical traditions in his response, he has already gotten a head start in amassing the necessary historical sources in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Assoc., Inc. v. Bruen, 18-CV-0134 (N.D.N.Y.). Moreover, although Plaintiffs did not also file a motion for emergency relief in the form of a Temporary Restraining Order, the law they challenge does take effect on September 1, 2022: the Court could not grant Defendant the full extension he seeks without shortening (1) the seven-day period for Plaintiffs' reply, (2) the time afforded the Court to review that reply before the hearing, (3) the window of time in which to hold the hearing, and (4) the time afforded the Court (between the hearing and September 1, 2022) to prepare a Decision and Order. In short, the complete relief that Defendant seeks in his letter-motion would deprive Plaintiffs of their right to have their motion for a preliminary injunction fairly and justly decided, if not the very relief they are seeking. As a result, the deadline for Defendant's response to Plaintiffs' motion is extended five days to the end of MONDAY, AUGUST 15, 2022; and the deadline for Plaintiffs' reply is extended five days to the end of MONDAY, AUGUST 22, 2022. Defendant is respectfully advised that the partial granting of his letter-motion is contingent on him making himself available for an in-person hearing at any point between TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 2022, and the end of FRIDAY, AUGUST 26, 2022. A Decision and Order on Plaintiffs' motion will be issued before the statute in question takes effect on September 1, 2022. SO ORDERED |
|
My lungs are black, my heart is pure
My hands are scarred from nights before |
Originally Posted By Bushman_269: Obviously NYS and CA will try to run out the clock by delay, delay and more delay hoping for a change in the makeup of the Supreme Court. View Quote I have been reading Justice Stevens dissent in Heller , and will eventually get around to his dissent in McDonald too, as I have feeling states like New York and California are going to be lifting a lot of text and tradition material, as documented by Justice Stevens, from those dissents. I would not be surprised at all if at least one circuit court accepts such arguments in upholding current laws. I just hope SCOTUS is willing to take on the extra work that will be coming its way. |
|
|
Originally Posted By NoloContendere: Yep. We did. And the judge said this in an order: Docket Text: TEXT ORDER granting in part and denying in part [10] Defendant's letter-motion for an extension of the deadline by which he must respond to Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Although Defendant certainly must (as he argues) review "extensive" history to brief the Court on the relevant historical traditions in his response, he has already gotten a head start in amassing the necessary historical sources in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Assoc., Inc. v. Bruen, 18-CV-0134 (N.D.N.Y.). Moreover, although Plaintiffs did not also file a motion for emergency relief in the form of a Temporary Restraining Order, the law they challenge does take effect on September 1, 2022: the Court could not grant Defendant the full extension he seeks without shortening (1) the seven-day period for Plaintiffs' reply, (2) the time afforded the Court to review that reply before the hearing, (3) the window of time in which to hold the hearing, and (4) the time afforded the Court (between the hearing and September 1, 2022) to prepare a Decision and Order. In short, the complete relief that Defendant seeks in his letter-motion would deprive Plaintiffs of their right to have their motion for a preliminary injunction fairly and justly decided, if not the very relief they are seeking. As a result, the deadline for Defendant's response to Plaintiffs' motion is extended five days to the end of MONDAY, AUGUST 15, 2022; and the deadline for Plaintiffs' reply is extended five days to the end of MONDAY, AUGUST 22, 2022. Defendant is respectfully advised that the partial granting of his letter-motion is contingent on him making himself available for an in-person hearing at any point between TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 2022, and the end of FRIDAY, AUGUST 26, 2022. A Decision and Order on Plaintiffs' motion will be issued before the statute in question takes effect on September 1, 2022. SO ORDERED View Quote Smackdown! Thanks NOLO! |
|
|
Originally Posted By NoloContendere: Yep. We did. And the judge said this in an order: Docket Text: TEXT ORDER granting in part and denying in part [10] Defendant's letter-motion for an extension of the deadline by which he must respond to Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Although Defendant certainly must (as he argues) review "extensive" history to brief the Court on the relevant historical traditions in his response, he has already gotten a head start in amassing the necessary historical sources in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Assoc., Inc. v. Bruen, 18-CV-0134 (N.D.N.Y.). Moreover, although Plaintiffs did not also file a motion for emergency relief in the form of a Temporary Restraining Order, the law they challenge does take effect on September 1, 2022: the Court could not grant Defendant the full extension he seeks without shortening (1) the seven-day period for Plaintiffs' reply, (2) the time afforded the Court to review that reply before the hearing, (3) the window of time in which to hold the hearing, and (4) the time afforded the Court (between the hearing and September 1, 2022) to prepare a Decision and Order. In short, the complete relief that Defendant seeks in his letter-motion would deprive Plaintiffs of their right to have their motion for a preliminary injunction fairly and justly decided, if not the very relief they are seeking. As a result, the deadline for Defendant's response to Plaintiffs' motion is extended five days to the end of MONDAY, AUGUST 15, 2022; and the deadline for Plaintiffs' reply is extended five days to the end of MONDAY, AUGUST 22, 2022. Defendant is respectfully advised that the partial granting of his letter-motion is contingent on him making himself available for an in-person hearing at any point between TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 2022, and the end of FRIDAY, AUGUST 26, 2022. A Decision and Order on Plaintiffs' motion will be issued before the statute in question takes effect on September 1, 2022. SO ORDERED View Quote @nolocontendere Who is the judge? As we know, anyone appointed by a democrat is going to be an activist. Ahem. Skretny. Ahem. |
|
If you have a Japanese sword from WWII - PM ME!
|
My lungs are black, my heart is pure
My hands are scarred from nights before |
See ya'll in Syracuse real soon...
|
|
My lungs are black, my heart is pure
My hands are scarred from nights before |
Thanks for fighting. I need to donate.
|
|
|
Originally Posted By NoloContendere: It's the Chief Judge of the Northern District. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By NoloContendere: Originally Posted By DaveM4P99: @nolocontendere Who is the judge? As we know, anyone appointed by a democrat is going to be an activist. Ahem. Skretny. Ahem. It's the Chief Judge of the Northern District. Suddaby? A Bush appointment in 2008. Let's hope not a RINO. |
|
If you have a Japanese sword from WWII - PM ME!
|
|
Awesome.
|
|
|
Originally Posted By NoloContendere: Yep. We did. And the judge said this in an order: Docket Text: TEXT ORDER granting in part and denying in part [10] Defendant's letter-motion for an extension of the deadline by which he must respond to Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Although Defendant certainly must (as he argues) review "extensive" history to brief the Court on the relevant historical traditions in his response, he has already gotten a head start in amassing the necessary historical sources in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Assoc., Inc. v. Bruen, 18-CV-0134 (N.D.N.Y.). Moreover, although Plaintiffs did not also file a motion for emergency relief in the form of a Temporary Restraining Order, the law they challenge does take effect on September 1, 2022: the Court could not grant Defendant the full extension he seeks without shortening (1) the seven-day period for Plaintiffs' reply, (2) the time afforded the Court to review that reply before the hearing, (3) the window of time in which to hold the hearing, and (4) the time afforded the Court (between the hearing and September 1, 2022) to prepare a Decision and Order. In short, the complete relief that Defendant seeks in his letter-motion would deprive Plaintiffs of their right to have their motion for a preliminary injunction fairly and justly decided, if not the very relief they are seeking. As a result, the deadline for Defendant's response to Plaintiffs' motion is extended five days to the end of MONDAY, AUGUST 15, 2022; and the deadline for Plaintiffs' reply is extended five days to the end of MONDAY, AUGUST 22, 2022. Defendant is respectfully advised that the partial granting of his letter-motion is contingent on him making himself available for an in-person hearing at any point between TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 2022, and the end of FRIDAY, AUGUST 26, 2022. A Decision and Order on Plaintiffs' motion will be issued before the statute in question takes effect on September 1, 2022. SO ORDERED View Quote Thank you @NoloContendere !!!! |
|
|
Originally Posted By DaveM4P99: @nolocontendere Who is the judge? As we know, anyone appointed by a democrat is going to be an activist. Ahem. Skretny. Ahem. View Quote Skretny DID SAY that AR-15 type Rifles WERE in Common Use; he was the first to put it in writing, he also dismissed muzzle BREAKS as the people writing the Bill were too ignorant to know the difference between BRAKE and BREAK, he also said the 7 rounds in a 10 round magazine was pure bullshit. |
|
What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?
|
What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?
|
Originally Posted By fp1201: Skretny DID SAY that AR-15 type Rifles WERE in Common Use; he was the first to put it in writing, he also dismissed muzzle BREAKS as the people writing the Bill were too ignorant to know the difference between BRAKE and BREAK, he also said the 7 rounds in a 10 round magazine was pure bullshit. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By fp1201: Originally Posted By DaveM4P99: @nolocontendere Who is the judge? As we know, anyone appointed by a democrat is going to be an activist. Ahem. Skretny. Ahem. Skretny DID SAY that AR-15 type Rifles WERE in Common Use; he was the first to put it in writing, he also dismissed muzzle BREAKS as the people writing the Bill were too ignorant to know the difference between BRAKE and BREAK, he also said the 7 rounds in a 10 round magazine was pure bullshit. Well he and the 2nd I think said "allowing 10 round mags but limiting people to only loading 7" is ridiculous because criminals would obviously not obey that...since they'd have 10 round mags anyway. But I do think he or the 2nd mentioned that if NY just made the law limit mags to 7 (or less) rounds..it would be A OK with him. Skretny ruled wrong and fucked us hard. |
|
If you have a Japanese sword from WWII - PM ME!
|
*post contains personal opinion only and should not be considered information released in an official capacity*
0110001101101100011010010110001101101011 |
Originally Posted By tc556guy: If he comes we need to get the HTF guys together for a meal View Quote Attached File |
|
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Fiat justitia ruat caelum. |
Award: 24/365 Most likely to be an appendix.
"Arfcom makes me happy. Arfcom is like a giant, heavily armed, dysfunctional family that smells like cheetos and gun oil." - Undefined |
Originally Posted By fp1201: Skretny DID SAY that AR-15 type Rifles WERE in Common Use; he was the first to put it in writing, he also dismissed muzzle BREAKS as the people writing the Bill were too ignorant to know the difference between BRAKE and BREAK, he also said the 7 rounds in a 10 round magazine was pure bullshit. View Quote |
|
Award: 24/365 Most likely to be an appendix.
"Arfcom makes me happy. Arfcom is like a giant, heavily armed, dysfunctional family that smells like cheetos and gun oil." - Undefined |
*post contains personal opinion only and should not be considered information released in an official capacity*
0110001101101100011010010110001101101011 |
Originally Posted By emsjeep: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/174485/29AF3FF4-4CA9-4106-BEF8-8E16BC68AF33_jpe-2461081.JPG View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By emsjeep: Originally Posted By tc556guy: If he comes we need to get the HTF guys together for a meal https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/174485/29AF3FF4-4CA9-4106-BEF8-8E16BC68AF33_jpe-2461081.JPG |
|
Award: 24/365 Most likely to be an appendix.
"Arfcom makes me happy. Arfcom is like a giant, heavily armed, dysfunctional family that smells like cheetos and gun oil." - Undefined |
*post contains personal opinion only and should not be considered information released in an official capacity*
0110001101101100011010010110001101101011 |
Award: 24/365 Most likely to be an appendix.
"Arfcom makes me happy. Arfcom is like a giant, heavily armed, dysfunctional family that smells like cheetos and gun oil." - Undefined |
And I love how the judge basically says that the state has a head start and can use New York's arguments in Bruen...ya know the case where you already lost bigly.
|
|
If you have a Japanese sword from WWII - PM ME!
|
|
|
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Fiat justitia ruat caelum. |
My lungs are black, my heart is pure
My hands are scarred from nights before |
Originally Posted By NoloContendere: See ya'll in Syracuse real soon... View Quote Let us know if you’re up for a dinner meet-up at Twin Trees in Cicero (or wherever), more than a few of us would love to buy you dinner. Don’t worry, no hanky panky. Edit: cripes that’s what I get for not reading the rest of the thread first…. |
|
|
Originally Posted By NoloContendere: Yep. We did. And the judge said this in an order: Docket Text: TEXT ORDER granting in part and denying in part [10] Defendant's letter-motion for an extension of the deadline by which he must respond to Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Although Defendant certainly must (as he argues) review "extensive" history to brief the Court on the relevant historical traditions in his response, he has already gotten a head start in amassing the necessary historical sources in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Assoc., Inc. v. Bruen, 18-CV-0134 (N.D.N.Y.). Moreover, although Plaintiffs did not also file a motion for emergency relief in the form of a Temporary Restraining Order, the law they challenge does take effect on September 1, 2022: the Court could not grant Defendant the full extension he seeks without shortening (1) the seven-day period for Plaintiffs' reply, (2) the time afforded the Court to review that reply before the hearing, (3) the window of time in which to hold the hearing, and (4) the time afforded the Court (between the hearing and September 1, 2022) to prepare a Decision and Order. In short, the complete relief that Defendant seeks in his letter-motion would deprive Plaintiffs of their right to have their motion for a preliminary injunction fairly and justly decided, if not the very relief they are seeking. As a result, the deadline for Defendant's response to Plaintiffs' motion is extended five days to the end of MONDAY, AUGUST 15, 2022; and the deadline for Plaintiffs' reply is extended five days to the end of MONDAY, AUGUST 22, 2022. Defendant is respectfully advised that the partial granting of his letter-motion is contingent on him making himself available for an in-person hearing at any point between TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 2022, and the end of FRIDAY, AUGUST 26, 2022. A Decision and Order on Plaintiffs' motion will be issued before the statute in question takes effect on September 1, 2022. SO ORDERED View Quote Awesome. |
|
|
Anyone know what sort of extension the state was looking to get? Surely past Sept. 1, but were they looking at after Election Day?
|
|
|
Until august 24. Meaning my reply would be due on august 31. And law takes effect 9/1. Very unworkable.
|
|
My lungs are black, my heart is pure
My hands are scarred from nights before |
|
Excuse me for my lack of understanding how all of this works, but who is it that decides that these new laws will be stopped from being inacted and for how long? Then what happens?
|
|
|
If we were leftists, we could just start ignoring the laws immediately.
|
|
Award: 24/365 Most likely to be an appendix.
"Arfcom makes me happy. Arfcom is like a giant, heavily armed, dysfunctional family that smells like cheetos and gun oil." - Undefined |
|
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.