User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/23/2022 7:52:34 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Adirondack47: Can’t be deposed if you’re not on the stand. Just delays the inevitable for everyone and puts the judges promised decision by 9/1 under further duress. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Adirondack47: Originally Posted By Toker_: Interested neighbor here. Is it good or bad that the Superintendent didn't show? Can’t be deposed if you’re not on the stand. Just delays the inevitable for everyone and puts the judges promised decision by 9/1 under further duress. Judge was pretty clear, there will be a ruling on the injunction before 9/1 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2022 7:53:14 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By widerstehe: What a fucking scumbag move. I hope he couldn't make it on account of unsuccessful emergency Stage IV ass cancer treatment. Piece of shit. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By widerstehe: Originally Posted By HiramRanger: I’ll let Steve do the play by play, but Cliff Notes, the Superintendent of State Police was a no show. What a fucking scumbag move. I hope he couldn't make it on account of unsuccessful emergency Stage IV ass cancer treatment. Piece of shit. As someone with Stage IV Ass Cancer… I don’t ish it on even him. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2022 7:55:51 PM EDT
[#3]
6 business days plus a weekend before September 1st rolls around.
I assume it will go down to the wire. Gonna be a long week. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2022 8:00:18 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere: So keep this in mind. Ivan speak ukranian, russian and a bunch of other slavic languages. English is not his first or even his fifth language. the question was "what is the harm" in asking if you can carry. not, is it a burden to ask. of course it is a burden. But the question was "what is the harm" in asking someone if you can carry in their business. not whether it is a burden. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere: Originally Posted By slow3v: What is this I'm hearing about Antonyuk [plaintiff] admitting that there is no burden to ask permission to carry in a private establishment. Uhhh... come again? Might as well light that 40+ pages on fire if thats the case, unless I'm understanding that wrong.  So keep this in mind. Ivan speak ukranian, russian and a bunch of other slavic languages. English is not his first or even his fifth language. the question was "what is the harm" in asking if you can carry. not, is it a burden to ask. of course it is a burden. But the question was "what is the harm" in asking someone if you can carry in their business. not whether it is a burden. As someone who has been friends with Ivan for 10 years I can tell you he speaks English well, but sometimes understanding the nuances of questions is another issue as he no doubt processes his thoughts in his native tongue and sometimes struggles for the right words in English. I see it first hand almost daily. The questions asked also had so many sub questions that it could be difficult to understand what exactly was being asked and he did have the awareness to ask the defense counsel to ask it in a better way. It was incredibly brave for Ivan who fled from a totalitarian country where he was beaten for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time to stand up to another totalitarian regime and my gut tells me this was not lost on His Honor. Thanks for clarifying Nolocontendere. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2022 10:47:43 PM EDT
[#5]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2022 10:53:54 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JohnParker55: Praying the judge gets this decision right. Screenshot from the ny board. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/341059/suddaby_jpeg-2500679.JPG Yikes. That's not a good sign. At all. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2022 10:54:59 PM EDT
[#7]
Can't read to much into it with out knowing the case details though.
Keep the faith. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2022 7:38:49 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JohnParker55: Praying the judge gets this decision right. Screenshot from the ny board. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/341059/suddaby_jpeg-2500679.JPG There's also never been a bruen ruling to go off of. And i doubt the defendent has ever not showed up like this. Stay positive. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 8/24/2022 9:25:46 AM EDT
[#9]
If granted, will the injunction be statewide?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2022 9:30:39 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By M-Aurelius: If granted, will the injunction be statewide? I would imagine so |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 8/24/2022 10:09:38 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HiramRanger: I would imagine so Thanks. Because Rockland County continues to obfuscate and delay, using the state as their pretext. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2022 10:23:14 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By M-Aurelius: Thanks. Because Rockland County continues to obfuscate and delay, using the state as their pretext. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By M-Aurelius: Originally Posted By HiramRanger: I would imagine so Thanks. Because Rockland County continues to obfuscate and delay, using the state as their pretext. You're not alone in that brother... a number of counties are playing fuck fuck games and blaming the state. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2022 10:34:35 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HiramRanger: You're not alone in that brother... a number of counties are playing fuck fuck games and blaming the state. In the county's defense they are bound by what the state tells them. The real problem is the state isn't relaying information to the counties as to what they are supposed to do at all. So rather than act on their own(which could cost those clerks their jobs), they are waiting for the state to tall them what to do and what not to do. I have a really excellent clerk in my county. Very pro-gun and hates the system bc it makes way more work for her than it should. Even she says that she has no idea what the state is doing or what she is supposed to do if/when things change on Sept 1. The state has basically said we are going to do something and we'll let you(the clerks) know how to implement it later. Which leaves those clerks in a bad spot. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2022 10:38:50 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Crash1433: In the county's defense they are bound by what the state tells them. The real problem is the state isn't relaying information to the counties as to what they are supposed to do at all. So rather than act on their own(which could cost those clerks their jobs), they are waiting for the state to tall them what to do and what not to do. I have a really excellent clerk in my county. Very pro-gun and hates the system bc it makes way more work for her than it should. Even she says that she has no idea what the state is doing or what she is supposed to do if/when things change on Sept 1. The state has basically said we are going to do something and we'll let you(the clerks) know how to implement it later. Which leaves those clerks in a bad spot. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Crash1433: Originally Posted By HiramRanger: You're not alone in that brother... a number of counties are playing fuck fuck games and blaming the state. In the county's defense they are bound by what the state tells them. The real problem is the state isn't relaying information to the counties as to what they are supposed to do at all. So rather than act on their own(which could cost those clerks their jobs), they are waiting for the state to tall them what to do and what not to do. I have a really excellent clerk in my county. Very pro-gun and hates the system bc it makes way more work for her than it should. Even she says that she has no idea what the state is doing or what she is supposed to do if/when things change on Sept 1. The state has basically said we are going to do something and we'll let you(the clerks) know how to implement it later. Which leaves those clerks in a bad spot. But the Clerks could just continue doing things status quo and with no changes other than Shall Issue. The Counties run the PP bureau and if the state doesn’t give them direction……then the default is continuing as is and shall issue. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 8/24/2022 10:49:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: M-Aurelius]
[#15]
I am not about to defend the clerks lack of courage. Nor county officials who put their face in front of every camera for all other issues, and try to imply they are super serious Second Amendment supporters, but have not uttered a word about this grotesque overreach. In fact, some local officials are running on their support for this garbage.
The clerks cannot absolve themselves of their duty by pointing to the state. As I stated, that's a pretext to not act. The Bruen decision was pretty clear in its instruction. At a minimum current holders of permits who were, as per Bruen, "unconstitutionally" denied a carry permit should be granted those permits with a simple request to "remove restrictions" (e.g. sportsmen/home designations should be removed). The holders of those permits passed all the same (now arguably unconstitutional) demands that a carry permit holder did. They were just unconstitutionally denied that permit due to the may-issue subversion. This has become a game with both the clerks and the state of delay, obfuscate, deny, and subvert. I for one will be satisfied when the individual counties participating in this are sued, and have to spend thousands of taxpayer dollars defending their clearly illegal actions. IMVHO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2022 11:26:45 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By crwdplsr: But the Clerks could just continue doing things status quo and with no changes other than Shall Issue. The Counties run the PP bureau and if the state doesn’t give them direction……then the default is continuing as is and shall issue. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By crwdplsr: Originally Posted By Crash1433: Originally Posted By HiramRanger: You're not alone in that brother... a number of counties are playing fuck fuck games and blaming the state. In the county's defense they are bound by what the state tells them. The real problem is the state isn't relaying information to the counties as to what they are supposed to do at all. So rather than act on their own(which could cost those clerks their jobs), they are waiting for the state to tall them what to do and what not to do. I have a really excellent clerk in my county. Very pro-gun and hates the system bc it makes way more work for her than it should. Even she says that she has no idea what the state is doing or what she is supposed to do if/when things change on Sept 1. The state has basically said we are going to do something and we'll let you(the clerks) know how to implement it later. Which leaves those clerks in a bad spot. But the Clerks could just continue doing things status quo and with no changes other than Shall Issue. The Counties run the PP bureau and if the state doesn’t give them direction……then the default is continuing as is and shall issue. Yes and no. As for current applications in the pipeline, absolutely. The issue becomes what happens 9/1 when the 16 hour and live fire requirement comes into play - along with social media checks and such? The law says the SP have until April to come up with the training requirements. Applications are not complete and able to be processed without the required training certificate. There won't be any for at least 7 months. It is a forced standstill. My county has said any complete packets submitted before 9/1/22 will be processed in accordance with current law. After that their hands are tied. The counties arguing that they need to see the final ruling from the remanding are full of shit. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2022 11:42:13 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By M-Aurelius: I am not about to defend the clerks lack of courage. Nor county officials who put their face in front of every camera for all other issues, and try to imply they are super serious Second Amendment supporters, but have not uttered a word about this grotesque overreach. In fact, some local officials are running on their support for this garbage. The clerks cannot absolve themselves of their duty by pointing to the state. As I stated, that's a pretext to not act. The Bruen decision was pretty clear in its instruction. At a minimum current holders of permits who were, as per Bruen, "unconstitutionally" denied a carry permit should be granted those permits with a simple request to "remove restrictions" (e.g. sportsmen/home designations should be removed). The holders of those permits passed all the same (now arguably unconstitutional) demands that a carry permit holder did. They were just unconstitutionally denied that permit due to the may-issue subversion. This has become a game with both the clerks and the state of delay, obfuscate, deny, and subvert. I for one will be satisfied when the individual counties participating in this are sued, and have to spend thousands of taxpayer dollars defending their clearly illegal actions. IMVHO. The Clerks are punting the ball……the State is out in the parking lot tailgating |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2022 11:54:38 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By crwdplsr: The Clerks are punting the ball……the State is out in the parking lot tailgating Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By crwdplsr: Originally Posted By M-Aurelius: I am not about to defend the clerks lack of courage. Nor county officials who put their face in front of every camera for all other issues, and try to imply they are super serious Second Amendment supporters, but have not uttered a word about this grotesque overreach. In fact, some local officials are running on their support for this garbage. The clerks cannot absolve themselves of their duty by pointing to the state. As I stated, that's a pretext to not act. The Bruen decision was pretty clear in its instruction. At a minimum current holders of permits who were, as per Bruen, "unconstitutionally" denied a carry permit should be granted those permits with a simple request to "remove restrictions" (e.g. sportsmen/home designations should be removed). The holders of those permits passed all the same (now arguably unconstitutional) demands that a carry permit holder did. They were just unconstitutionally denied that permit due to the may-issue subversion. This has become a game with both the clerks and the state of delay, obfuscate, deny, and subvert. I for one will be satisfied when the individual counties participating in this are sued, and have to spend thousands of taxpayer dollars defending their clearly illegal actions. IMVHO. The Clerks are punting the ball……the State is out in the parking lot tailgating At the end of the day the Clerk can only send a completed package to the issuing authority - typically a judge. So long as the Clerks are processing the packages and sending them to the judges expeditiously I have few qualms. Any Clerk saying they won't process without guidance is indeed punting. They certainly can complete their mandated portion. My wife is in the midst of applying after me nagging her for years. Our Clerk said in by 9/1 and it will be sent to the Judge as received under the current guidelines. They aren't fucking around. However, once 9/1 comes they will process applications to have them ready to send to the judges as soon as training certifications are available. Hopefully we get the injunction and the current training suffices until the case is fully adjudicated. Fingers crossed and it can't be said enough, Thanks Nolo! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2022 12:21:06 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Crash1433: In the county's defense they are bound by what the state tells them. The real problem is the state isn't relaying information to the counties as to what they are supposed to do at all. So rather than act on their own(which could cost those clerks their jobs), they are waiting for the state to tall them what to do and what not to do. I have a really excellent clerk in my county. Very pro-gun and hates the system bc it makes way more work for her than it should. Even she says that she has no idea what the state is doing or what she is supposed to do if/when things change on Sept 1. The state has basically said we are going to do something and we'll let you(the clerks) know how to implement it later. Which leaves those clerks in a bad spot. FFLs are in the same boat. Absolutely zero guidance from the State and deadlines for some of the major bills that were passed are rapidly approaching |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2022 12:21:58 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By crwdplsr: But the Clerks could just continue doing things status quo and with no changes other than Shall Issue. The Counties run the PP bureau and if the state doesn’t give them direction……then the default is continuing as is and shall issue. It's not that simple for them |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2022 12:24:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Crash1433]
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tc556guy: It's not that simple for them Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tc556guy: Originally Posted By crwdplsr: But the Clerks could just continue doing things status quo and with no changes other than Shall Issue. The Counties run the PP bureau and if the state doesn’t give them direction……then the default is continuing as is and shall issue. It's not that simple for them Thank you. That's what I was trying to say. THey can't just "keep going". If they do something wrong, even not knowing what wrong is, they lose their jobs. So the answer for them is to do nothing untl they get guidance from the state. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2022 1:42:02 PM EDT
[#22]
5 business days left, bois.
|
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 8/24/2022 2:34:36 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By slow3v: 5 business days left, bois. An "emergency" appeal at 11:59pm on the last day for a delay on a ruling would not surprise me. California does this quite often and New York has been paying attention. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2022 2:52:31 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Aardvark: Not holding my breath. An "emergency" appeal at 11:59pm on the last day for a delay on a ruling would not surprise me. California does this quite often and New York has been paying attention. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Aardvark: Originally Posted By slow3v: 5 business days left, bois. An "emergency" appeal at 11:59pm on the last day for a delay on a ruling would not surprise me. California does this quite often and New York has been paying attention. I'm so glad those of us who have fought so hard to stop this from taking effect are greeted with such defeatism. Makes it all so worthwhile. 
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 8/24/2022 4:43:37 PM EDT
[#25]
What is the process for assigning cases to judges?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2022 4:58:48 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LamePostCount: What is the process for assigning cases to judges? I think it varies. In some jurisdictions I believe it is random and by lottery, in others they can be assigned by the Chief Judge. I'm not sure about the Northern District of New York. Judge Suddaby is the Chief Judge of that District. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2022 6:59:40 PM EDT
[#27]
I could see Nolo and Rick Rekieta having a fantastic discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2022 7:09:46 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Aardvark: Not holding my breath. An "emergency" appeal at 11:59pm on the last day for a delay on a ruling would not surprise me. California does this quite often and New York has been paying attention. This is just a gut feeling but I think we’ll here back from the judge sooner rather than by the deadline he’s had time to think about it since the injunction was requested hopefully we here something by Friday or Monday by the latest . |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2022 12:12:39 PM EDT
[#29]
I predict we will have a ruling tomorrow afternoon.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2022 1:17:16 PM EDT
[#30]
The state issuing the new training standards last night was in my opinion an attempt to head this off by making it look like they aren't creating a burden, that people with permits outside Westchester, NYC and LI are not impacted, etc.
What they are missing is we want that shit gone, but the priority is making every place essentially off-limits and they can't weasel out of that shit as they were very specific and detailed in their list of no go places... like a doctor, in his own office in a building he owns... This is where they are going to have real issues. We can always go back to court and fight the other bullshit with new applicants who are impacted by the new standards. While I know Nolo wanted to destroy it all, I went into it hoping primarily that (1) we got rid of the laundry list of places we couldn't carry in for any reason, (2) restored private property rights to business owners and not force them to affirm our right to carry and place themselves at risk by doing so, (3) toss the social media review as a chilling on the first amendment and as the judge pointed out possible fourth and fifth amendment issues, and (4) toss the ridiculous training requirements as unconstitutional, burdensome and unachievable in the time frame allotted... In that order. Nolo did a hell of a job. |
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 8/25/2022 1:18:56 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HiramRanger: The state issuing the new training standards last night was in my opinion an attempt to head this off by making it look like they aren't creating a burden, that people with permits outside Westchester, NYC and LI are not impacted, etc. What they are missing is we want that shit gone, but the priority is making every place essentially off-limits and they can't weasel out of that shit as they were very specific and detailed in their list of no go places... like a doctor, in his own office in a building he owns... This is where they are going to have real issues. We can always go back to court and fight the other bullshit with new applicants who are impacted by the new standards. While I know Nolo wanted to destroy it all, I went into it hoping primarily that (1) we got rid of the laundry list of places we couldn't carry in for any reason, (2) restored private property rights to business owners and not force them to affirm our right to carry and place themselves at risk by doing so, (3) toss the social media review as a chilling on the first amendment and as the judge pointed out possible fourth and fifth amendment issues, and (4) toss the ridiculous training requirements as unconstitutional, burdensome and unachievable in the time frame allotted... In that order. Nolo did a hell of a job. Excellent summary. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2022 1:23:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: DaveM4P99]
[#32]
Where does it say the new training isn't for upstate permit holders?
It seems to say it is a state wide requirement. Also, what about someone who lives in Westchester but has a carry permit from his original county of issuance upstate? I assume the training doesn't apply? But again I think it's for everyone no? Or are they just lying to not piss off upstaters until they find out in 3 years? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2022 1:27:31 PM EDT
[#33]
Hiram - any ETA on the transcript of the proceedings? Think that will come out before the decision?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2022 1:31:15 PM EDT
[#34]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2022 1:35:26 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DaveM4P99: Where does it say the new training isn't for upstate permit holders? It seems to say it is a state wide requirement. Also, what about someone who lives in Westchester but has a carry permit from his original county of issuance upstate? I assume the training doesn't apply? But again I think it's for everyone no? Or are they just lying to not piss off upstaters until they find out in 3 years? The state is arguing it only applies to those who renew/reapply, most people simply recert. I'd have to check, and I apologize for not having the time to do so right now, I believe there are contradicting sections of the law. What is key is the state is on record saying Ivan need not go through the training and social media review because he does not reside in one of those counties. That in and of itself was a partial victory, now we need to to challenge the contention that it applies in those counties. Unfortunately this will not be defeated in one fell swoop. We are at the early stages, but I feel as if the momentum is in our favor. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2022 1:36:00 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CatskillDraht: Just saw this https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/429939/transcript_request_JPG-2502404.JPG What does that mean |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2022 1:52:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: HiramRanger]
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By crwdplsr: What does that mean Looks like Nolo can get a copy now but he cannot publicly release it until the state has a chance to request redactions by 9/15 and any redactions must be requested by 8/30 (I'm trying to remember the dates as I type this) and all holds on release of transcript expire in November. I could be wrong, but that's how it reads to me. I don't remember hearing anything in the court room that should be subject to redaction. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2022 1:54:28 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HiramRanger: Looks like Nolo can get a copy now but he cannot publicly release it until the state has a chance to request redactions by 9/15 and any redactions must be requested by 8/30 (I'm trying to remember the dates as I type this) and all holds on release of transcript expire in November. I could be wrong, but that's how it reads to me. I don't remember hearing anything in the court room that should be subject to redaction. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HiramRanger: Originally Posted By crwdplsr: What does that mean Looks like Nolo can get a copy now but he cannot publicly release it until the state has a chance to request redactions by 9/15 and any redactions must be requested by 8/30 (I'm trying to remember the dates as I type this) and all holds on release of transcript expire in November. I could be wrong, but that's how it reads to me. I don't remember hearing anything in the court room that should be subject to redaction. Roger |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2022 2:22:22 PM EDT
[#39]
Even if they are able to somehow argue now that the training requirement is entirely downstate, I'm not seeing how they can justify that those counties are unique in some way that would require additional training as compared to permits issued anywhere else in the state. It's not like there aren't urban areas Upstate as well. The fact that the bill didn't even spell out their claim that it was limited to Downstate shows that they didn't even READ the draft copy that Moms, Everytown, and the other anti-gun groups drafted for them.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2022 2:29:09 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tc556guy: Even if they are able to somehow argue now that the training requirement is entirely downstate, I'm not seeing how they can justify that those counties are unique in some way that would require additional training as compared to permits issued anywhere else in the state. It's not like there aren't urban areas Upstate as well. The fact that the bill didn't even spell out their claim that it was limited to Downstate shows that they didn't even READ the draft copy that Moms, Everytown, and the other anti-gun groups drafted for them. I'm in complete agreement with you. But I don't expect the state to ever make sense... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2022 2:34:13 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HiramRanger: Looks like Nolo can get a copy now but he cannot publicly release it until the state has a chance to request redactions by 9/15 and any redactions must be requested by 8/30 (I'm trying to remember the dates as I type this) and all holds on release of transcript expire in November. I could be wrong, but that's how it reads to me. I don't remember hearing anything in the court room that should be subject to redaction. 
|
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 8/25/2022 3:00:44 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dopple: Nothing in any court should be redacted. Personally identifiable information of minor victims of sex crimes? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2022 3:02:20 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tahawus: Personally identifiable information of minor victims of sex crimes? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tahawus: Originally Posted By Dopple: Nothing in any court should be redacted. Personally identifiable information of minor victims of sex crimes? |
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 8/25/2022 3:02:41 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tc556guy: Even if they are able to somehow argue now that the training requirement is entirely downstate, I'm not seeing how they can justify that those counties are unique in some way that would require additional training as compared to permits issued anywhere else in the state. It's not like there aren't urban areas Upstate as well. The fact that the bill didn't even spell out their claim that it was limited to Downstate shows that they didn't even READ the draft copy that Moms, Everytown, and the other anti-gun groups drafted for them. That’s the thing…the law says what the law says. If later on, all the state says is that, “Oops, we were wrong, everybody needs to take the training” then shame on us for not questioning it/fighting it. |
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 8/25/2022 3:03:22 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dopple: I suppose that's fine. Though eventually, that won't be a crime anymore. Yeah…that’s sick…but it’s the way things are headed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2022 3:10:43 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tahawus: That’s the thing…the law says what the law says. If later on, all the state says is that, “Oops, we were wrong, everybody needs to take the training” then shame on us for not questioning it/fighting it. There's that, but it should point out their stupidity that they're so out of touch with what was in the bills and that they voted on all of that with having no idea on what they were actually voting on. Sheer ineptitude that passes for governance in this state. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2022 3:43:20 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tahawus: That's the thing the law says what the law says. If later on, all the state says is that, "Oops, we were wrong, everybody needs to take the training" then shame on us for not questioning it/fighting it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2022 3:44:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: widerstehe]
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HiramRanger: Unfortunately this will not be defeated in one fell swoop. We are at the early stages, but I feel as if the momentum is in our favor. Understood. But just so we all know what's going on, if this injunction is granted, then the law is "on hold" for now? For example, we don't have to worry about carrying in the forbidden "sensitive places" after 9/1? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2022 3:45:41 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tahawus: That’s the thing…the law says what the law says. If later on, all the state says is that, “Oops, we were wrong, everybody needs to take the training” then shame on us for not questioning it/fighting it. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tahawus: Originally Posted By tc556guy: Even if they are able to somehow argue now that the training requirement is entirely downstate, I'm not seeing how they can justify that those counties are unique in some way that would require additional training as compared to permits issued anywhere else in the state. It's not like there aren't urban areas Upstate as well. The fact that the bill didn't even spell out their claim that it was limited to Downstate shows that they didn't even READ the draft copy that Moms, Everytown, and the other anti-gun groups drafted for them. That’s the thing…the law says what the law says. If later on, all the state says is that, “Oops, we were wrong, everybody needs to take the training” then shame on us for not questioning it/fighting it. The problem with that is you don't really get to say oooops, sorry Federal court, we represented to you X which influenced your decision but it is really Y which would have likely resulted in a different decision... our bad! The look on the judge's face when the state said, "his honor indicated that the superintendent didn't have to come" was priceless and was curtly followed with a "that is not what I said, I said it was at your discretion and you clearly believed he did not have to be here." To Nolo, "would you like me to subpoena the superintendent to appear?" This judge strikes me as a "fuck around and find out" kind of guy. Nolo and Rob also did a masterful job of pointing out that the defense was selectively quoting laws to make them sound like they prohibited things which were not in fact prohibited and the defense was speaking with a forked tongue. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2022 3:46:41 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By widerstehe: Understood. But just so we all know what's going on, if this injunction is granted, then the law is "on hold" for now? For example, we don't have to worry about carrying in the forbidden "sensitive places" after 9/1? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By widerstehe: Originally Posted By HiramRanger: Unfortunately this will not be defeated in one fell swoop. We are at the early stages, but I feel as if the momentum is in our favor. Understood. But just so we all know what's going on, if this injunction is granted, then the law is "on hold" for now? For example, we don't have to worry about carrying in the forbidden "sensitive places" after 9/1? In a perfect world if the injunction is granted the law is on hold. I do not pretend to know what the 2nd Circuit might do. |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
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.
Attached File
Attached File