Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner
41 - 55 of 55 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,588 Posts
That is a real dodgy link on post #39. Seriously, a Flash Player update. 2008 called, they want their internet scams back.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,223 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,588 Posts
We have a preliminary injunction. 184 pages. My analysis follows:
I was correct about the "grind them down" strategy from New York, arguing each restriction and place individually. Judge Suddaby was up to the challenge. The first 85 pages addresses standing. He links (or does not, as appropriate) the plaintiff, the harm, and the appropriateness of each defendant to define proper standing for each and every individual restriction. In some cases, standing was lost because the plaintiff did not explicitly state they intended to carry a firearm in that exact place. The ones that survived are pretty much unbreakable.

One particularly noteworthy passage is on page 23 where the defendents tried to argue that until the plaintiff actually applied and was denied, they had no standing. The judge pointed out that there was over a one year delay to even create an appointment to apply, therefore the excessive delays provision kicked in and by extension every part of the application process. Yes, he cited "Bruen". The judge even helpfully pointed out that the police were in violation of New York statutes requiring them to accept applications when presented.

He dismissed Hochul as a defendant stating that open contempt for the Supreme Court decision does not necessarily make her a proper defendant. (p86)

Page 89 begins the discussion of "Likelihood of success on the merits". Judge Suddaby stared with the exact analysis required in Bruen. He made it clear that defendants were on the hook for providing relevant historical references, that was not the job of the courts nor the plaintiffs. He firmly established the burden of proof on the defendants.
"The Court must first ask whether the conduct in question is covered by the plaint text of the Constitution. If so, the burden shifts to the Government to demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation "
Pages 91-103 pretty much eviscerate every State argument for the "good moral character" clause on the way to nuking that end-run.
The “good moral character” requirement is just a dressed-up version of the State’s improper “special need for self-protection” requirement.
The legal nerds might like his analysis and dismissal starting on page 101 of the “no set of circumstances exists under which the regulation would be valid " defense the state relied heavily on. Total non-starter.

The injunction goes on the either grant or deny an injunction on each part of the law challenged by the plaintiffs. Some make the cut, some don't. He nukes the expensive training requirement but keeps the in-person interview, but tells the plaintiffs (and warns the defendants) if he is presented with certain evidence, he would grant the injunction
Conceivable examples of such evidence might include (1) the need to take time away from work or family to appear before a licensing officer, or (2) any delay experienced in having an appointment scheduled due to the CCIA’s imposition of this requirement on every applicant.
One of the more common bits of historical analysis the judge applied is how prevalent a law was and how much of the country it affected. The good Judge does not consider a law that covered 6% of the US population at the time as persuasive. New York is not getting to cherry pick one-off examples from unusual circumstances in history to create the impression of a general rule to be applied across the entire population.

The comparison of Social Media identities to the pseudonyms used by the Federalists and Anti-Federalists is frankly brilliant.

He helpfully referenced Federal Law with regards to Airports, basically telling the state they cannot interfere with the lawful ability of a carrier to bring a firearm to the airport to travel if they are complying with Federal Regulations in granting the injunction against Airport restrictions. (p151)

In referring to the general restriction on private property and the relevance of the "historical analogue" provided by the State:
Rest assured, none of the six Plaintiffs in this action has alleged that he has been injured by not being able to hunt turkey and deer (with his handgun) inside commercial establishments on privately owned property that is open for business to the public.
He then goes on to do both a First and Second Amendment analysis of Section 5, referring the State's actions as "coercing speech". The entirety of Section 5 is enjoined.

There is probably a lot more buried in the text, but this post is long enough. While a lot of the injunction is necessarily repetitive, Judge Suddaby did an amazing job of sorting through the State-sponsored FUD and applying the letter and spirit of Bruen. A brief follow-up lawsuit addressing the technical standing shortcomings should lock down most of New York's attempt at Massive Resistance 2.0.
 

·
Man of Myth and Legend
Joined
·
19,431 Posts
Is it available? Link? Sounds like I got some good afternoon reading to do, waiting on the polling stations to close and news start reporting.

Nemo
 

·
Man of Myth and Legend
Joined
·
19,431 Posts
  • Helpful
Reactions: Malum Prohibitum

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,588 Posts
Waiting for the legal version of "Did I stutter" to come from Justice Thomas' pen. Fortunate that you can't slow-walk injunction appeals.
 

·
Member Georgia Carry
Joined
·
13,007 Posts
Good on the judge for upholding our Second Amendment Rights.

I'm waiting on the big one: If it is our right to keep and bear arms in public AND if we take the trouble to get a state issued license to boot, then by all moral and legal right EVERY state and U.S. Territory shall recognize that license.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
74,130 Posts
Discussion Starter · #52 ·

·
Man of Myth and Legend
Joined
·
19,431 Posts
Antonyuk is cited several times in there. Detailed and thorough opinion.

Nemo
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
74,130 Posts
Discussion Starter · #54 ·
Antonyuk is cited several times in there. Detailed and thorough opinion.

Nemo
Certainly worth a read for so many reasons that this would be a long post describing them. One point with noting, however, is that outlier regulations are not going to suffice. The regulation needs to be an "American tradition," meaning consistently applied since 1791 throughout America, not, hey, I found some regulation from 1891 in Salem, Massachussetts.

That is a high standard to meet.

I wonder if higher courts will uphold that reasoning.

If so, I wonder what it means for nonviolent felons (an issue that so far seems to be no having any constitutional protection whatsoever, as in Martha Stewart is not even a member of "the people.")
 

·
Member Georgia Carry
Joined
·
13,007 Posts
I'm also looking at the 1,000' Federal School Zone law falling as well. Even if schools have a limited history of banning STUDENTS from carrying at schools, there's no way free American adults can be treated as criminals for coming within 1,000' of a school while peacefully armed, if the historical record is taken seriously.
 
41 - 55 of 55 Posts
Top