Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner
1 - 20 of 55 Posts

· Super Moderator
Joined
·
74,285 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Antonyuk sued to enjoin New York's new law restricting carry rights. Mr. Anonyuk held a carry license, and he argues that the law restricts him more than before the Supreme Court decided the Bruen case.


New York requested an extra two weeks to respond, and the judge said no.
 

· Super Moderator
Joined
·
74,285 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·

· Registered
Joined
·
1,558 Posts
That would be great if New York has finally overplayed its hand and the court slaps everyone down on an over-abundance of "sensitive places." Sadly, I doubt it would affect Georgia though since we're much less restrictive than most states.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,606 Posts
If I am reading it right, NY wants to argue each and every one of the potential "sensitive places" as unique cases, thus driving a paper storm of briefs to grind down the plaintiff, then complaining the plaintiff is taking too long to respond. I don't think the judge is buying that approach. He reminded NY that they asked for more time and a longer than typical response brief so they shouldn't complain about timelines.
 

· Super Moderator
Joined
·
74,285 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
I don't think the judge is buying that approach. He reminded NY that they asked for more time and a longer than typical response brief so they shouldn't complain about timelines.
Yeah, he seemed perturbed by the government attorneys.
 

· Man of Myth and Legend
Joined
·
19,658 Posts
Seems today's order is there, just needs to be formalized properly.

Nemo



39

Aug 19, 2022

AMENDED TEXT ORDER granting # 36 Defendant's letter-motion for clarification. The Court hereby amends its Text Order of 08/18/2022 (Dkt. No. 34) so as to permit additional or supplemental declarations that regard ONLY the issues of standing or justiciability. Such declarations may also detail the fair traceability of Plaintiffs' alleged injuries to Defendant (as distinguishable from the factual allegations in Libertarian Party of Erie Cnty. v. Cuomo, 15-CV-0654, Amended Complaint, at Para. 123 [W.D.N.Y. filed Dec. 23, 2015]). In response to Defendant's challenge to the propriety of Plaintiff Antonyuk using a new declaration to "allege[ ] for the first time that [he] intends to violate a specific subsection of the CCIA," Defendant is respectfully advised that Plaintiff Antonyuk has already alleged what would happen if he were to carry his handgun into a gas station or store that is not specifically posted with a sign allowing him to carry there, the latter of which is something he "currently" does (Dkt. No. 1, at Para(s). 112, 114; Dkt. No. 1, Attach. 6, at Para(s). 14-18), and, as indicated in the Court's Text Order of 08/18/2022, he will indeed be able to further particularize allegations of fact supportive of his claims (e.g., by adducing additional declaration testimony regarding any intent he has to engage in conduct proscribed by the CCIA). Finally, Defendant is respectfully reminded that the brevity of time between the filing of Plaintiffs' reply and the hearing in this matter is due primarily to Defendant's own request for an extension of the deadline by which to file his opposition papers. SO ORDERED by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 8/19/2022. (kee) (Entered: 08/19/2022)

Main Document

Order


Aug 19, 2022

Order on Letter Request


Aug 19, 2022

Order
 

· Registered
Joined
·
10,275 Posts
Not sure if this got included but I am curious how they sell this scrutiny…
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,606 Posts
Today, New York State enacted their version of an old Jim Crow era "public gathering" law, once again proving all gun control is racist.
 

· Super Moderator
Joined
·
74,285 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Court ruled!



Apparently, Antonyuk voluntarily took away his own standing, by removing any future potential harm?

The judge also noted that the lawsuit's only individual plaintiff, a Schenectady County gun owner named Ivan Antonyuk, has voluntarily opted himself out of any future harm from the law.​
Antonyuk told the judge during an August court hearing that simply as a courtesy, he has no intention to carry a gun in a sensitive location or anywhere else where it wasn't welcome, the judge said.​
 

· Super Moderator
Joined
·
74,285 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·

Judge Glenn Suddaby, of the US district court in the northern district of New York, said the two gun groups lacked standing to bring the case.​
But Suddaby also indicated support, describing “a strong sense of the safety that a licensed concealed handgun regularly provides, or would provide, to the many law-abiding responsible citizens in the state too powerless to physically defend themselves in public without a handgun”.​
An appeal is likely. The CCIA went into effect on Thursday.​
On Wednesday the mayor of New York City, Eric Adams, said: “The US supreme court’s … decision was the shot heard round the world that took dead aim at the safety of all New Yorkers.​
“New York City will defend itself against this decision, and, beginning tomorrow, new eligibility requirements for concealed carry permit applicants and restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons in ‘sensitive locations’, like Times Square, take effect.”​
 

· Super Moderator
Joined
·
74,285 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·

· Super Moderator
Joined
·
74,285 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·

Attorneys involved in other cases are sure to notice Suddaby’s contention that the plaintiffs would have had a “strong likelihood of success” on several of their claims, noted Margaret Finerty, co-chair of the New York State Bar Association’s Task Force on Mass Shootings.​
“I think they’ll learn from the judge’s ruling,” said Finerty, a partner with Getnick and Getnick LLP and member of the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Gun Violence.​
“The judge basically said we were right,” said William Robinson, communications director for Gun Owners of America New York.​
The state Republican Party said it plans to take the judge’s decision into consideration as it prepares a suit . . .​
 

· Super Moderator
Joined
·
74,285 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Ibid.

The judge dismissed the case, largely because Antonyuk didn’t specify that he intended to carry a concealed weapon after the law took effect, only that he would like to.​
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,606 Posts
Is anyone else suspicious that the named plaintiff got a "visit" from New York's Finest and was "encouraged" to drop the suit?
 

· Super Moderator
Joined
·
74,285 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Antonyuk 2.0?


The lawsuit was filed by seven New York men. The primary plaintiff is Ivan Antonyuk, a Schenectady man who wished to carry his gun for protection virtually everywhere.​
Antonyuk has stated that the law’s restriction of guns on private property without explicit permission impeded his 2nd Amendment right. This is the second suit filed by the same man.​
Suddaby previously ruled -- in the first lawsuit filed by Antonyuk-- that the plaintiffs had no grounds to sue because the law had not yet gone into effect.​
Is there any better coverage? What did the plaintiffs do better the second time around that resulted in preliminary relief?

Ruling is stayed for 3 days to give the state time to file an interlocutory appeal, then goes into effect until October 20, when there will be a hearing.

6 elements of the law enjoined. Read the article to find out more.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
10,275 Posts
 

· Super Moderator
Joined
·
74,285 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
Court ruled!



Apparently, Antonyuk voluntarily took away his own standing, by removing any future potential harm?

The judge also noted that the lawsuit's only individual plaintiff, a Schenectady County gun owner named Ivan Antonyuk, has voluntarily opted himself out of any future harm from the law.​
Antonyuk told the judge during an August court hearing that simply as a courtesy, he has no intention to carry a gun in a sensitive location or anywhere else where it wasn't welcome, the judge said.​

This case is the gun rights groups' second challenge to the CCIA. In the first case, Judge Glenn Suddaby found most of the CCIA to be unconstitutional, but since Ivan Antonyuk, the plaintiff in the case, did not plan to break the law, the judge felt he did not have standing. The court basically said that Mr. Antonyuk was too law-abiding. Gun Owners Foundation disagrees with the court’s ruling but respects its decision.​
Now Antonyuk is back in court with additional plaintiffs who do plan to violate the CCIA. GOF believes these other plaintiffs will encourage the court to give standing to the case.​

 

· NRA Certified Instructor
Joined
·
6,806 Posts

This case is the gun rights groups' second challenge to the CCIA. In the first case, Judge Glenn Suddaby found most of the CCIA to be unconstitutional, but since Ivan Antonyuk, the plaintiff in the case, did not plan to break the law, the judge felt he did not have standing. The court basically said that Mr. Antonyuk was too law-abiding. Gun Owners Foundation disagrees with the court’s ruling but respects its decision.​
Now Antonyuk is back in court with additional plaintiffs who do plan to violate the CCIA. GOF believes these other plaintiffs will encourage the court to give standing to the case.​
The first article linked in your post is from 09/01/2022.
 
1 - 20 of 55 Posts
Top