Antonyuk and Gun Owners of America vs Bruen

[clandestine]

Another Judge kicking the can. He is a coward.

Judges need to stand up and do the right thing. I guess they all can't be like Saint Benitez.

 

[swinokur]

Or Clarence Thomas


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[swinokur]

Justice Thomas clipped their wings


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[HaveBlue]

Well this is embarrassing, lol. 1 of the State Defendants (City of Syracuse) didn't get their brief in by 9/28 ahead of yesterday's hearing. But they sure did come in behind and whine that they're busy and 'Cuz Covid'...

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nynd.134829/gov.uscourts.nynd.134829.20.0_1.pdf

OMG How can that entire office be anti-science anti-vaxxers??? I thought NY was smart?

 

[swinokur]

It’s full of liberals.

Their problem is they THINK they’re smarter than everyone else.

Reality tells a different story


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[krucam]

Feeling good on this one and it’s great seeing Defendants choking…

 

[LoneWolf123]

Syracuse federal judge remains skeptical of NY gun law as he considers whether to quash it

U.S. District Judge Glenn Suddaby has already said he finds parts of the state's new gun-control law unconstitutional.

www.syracuse.com

In the short term not looking great in my opinion.

 

[W2D]

I don’t think Suddaby was ‘skeptical’ on the unconstitutionality. His motion dismiss was clear that he thought it was absolutely unconstitutional. This Syracuse article was spinning it.


Sent from my iBunker using Tapatalk Pro

 

[press1280]

Unlike past cases where the law had been in place for years, this is a brand new law so the judge should have no problem putting the brakes on it.
It should be automatically suspect given the way it was rammed through with no debate and other than the good cause getting removed, is vastly different than the previous law.

 

[Allen65]

Unlike past cases where the law had been in place for years, this is a brand new law so the judge should have no problem putting the brakes on it.
It should be automatically suspect given the way it was rammed through with no debate and other than the good cause getting removed, is vastly different than the previous law.

We won't know for sure what he's thinking until we get actual rulings on the TRO, PI, and the final ruling on merits. He may very well be taking his time writing the TRO opinion because he knows it'll be picked apart by very high-paid lawyers on appeal, and he wants to make sure his reasoning is solid so there's no reasonable basis to overturn him..

 

[Mister F]

Sounds like a TRO was granted and stayed for 3 days then takes effect if the 2CA doesn’t block it.

I didn’t know TROs were subject to interlocutory appeals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lazarus]

Sounds like a TRO was granted and stayed for 3 days then takes effect if the 2CA doesn’t block it.

I didn’t know TROs were subject to interlocutory appeals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They usually are to allow a chance to appeal. 3 days is fairly short though.

 

[LoneWolf123]

It’s been a long day so I’ll get on tomorrow to give a summary but here’s the link.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nynd.134829/gov.uscourts.nynd.134829.27.0_1.pdf

Take away. Both sides have victories and losses with the TRO.

 

[jc1240]

summary:

 

[clandestine]

More kicking the can.

 

[Bob A]

Pretty strong from the judge, favoring the Plaintiffs.

The Court finds that the State Defendants’ exercise of their right to seek
an immediate review by the Second Circuit is appropriate.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. No. 6) is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part in accordance with this Decision; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendants, as well as their officers, agents, servants, employees, and
attorneys (and any other persons who are in active concert or participation with them) are
TEMPORARILY RESTRAINED from enforcing the following provisions of the Concealed
Carry Improvement Act, 2022 N.Y. Sess. Laws ch. 371 (“CCIA”):
(1) the provisions contained in Section 1 of the CCIA requiring “good
moral character” EXCEPT to the extent it is construed to mean that a license
shall be issued or renewed except for an applicant who has been found, by a
preponderance of the evidence based on his or her conduct, to not have “good
moral character,” which is defined as “having the essential character,
temperament and judgment necessary . . . to use [the weapon entrusted to the
applicant] only in a manner that does not endanger oneself or others, other than
in self-defense”;
(2) the provision contained in Section 1 of the CCIA requiring that the
applicant “meet in person with the licensing officer for an interview”;
(3) the provision contained in Section 1 of the CCIA requiring the “names
and contact information for the applicant’s current spouse, or domestic partner,
any other adults residing in the applicant's home, including any adult children of
the applicant, and whether or not there are minors residing, full time or part time,
in the applicant’s home”;
(4) the provision contained in Section 1 of the CCIA requiring “a list of
former and current social media accounts of the applicant from the past three
years”; and
(5) the “sensitive locations” provision contained in Section 4 of the CCIA
EXCEPT with regard to the following sensitive locations (where the restrictions
remain):
(a) “any place owned or under the control of federal, state or local
government, for the purpose of government administration, including
courts” (as contained in paragraph “2(a)” of Section 4);
(b) “any location being used as a polling place” (as contained in
paragraph “2(q)” of Section 4);
(c) “any public sidewalk or other public area restricted from
general public access for a limited time or special event that has been
issued a permit for such time or event by a governmental entity, or subject
to specific, heightened law enforcement protection, or has otherwise had
such access restricted by a governmental entity, provided such location is
identified as such by clear and conspicuous signage” (as contained in
paragraph “2(r)” of Section 4);
(d) “any place of worship or religious observation” (as contained in
paragraph “2(c)” of Section 4), EXCEPT for those persons who have
been tasked with the duty to keep the peace at the place of worship or
religious observation;
(e) “nursery schools” and “preschools” (as contained in paragraph
“2(f)” of Section 4);
(f) “any building or grounds, owned or leased, of any educational
institutions, colleges and universities, licensed private career schools,
school districts, public schools, private schools licensed under article one
hundred one of the education law, charter schools, non-public schools,
board of cooperative educational services, special act schools, preschool
special education programs, private residential or non-residential schools
for the education of students with disabilities, and any state-operated or
state-supported schools” (as contained in paragraph “2(m)” of Section 4);
(g) “any gathering of individuals to collectively express their
constitutional rights to protest or assemble” (as contained in paragraph
“2(s)” of Section 4); and
(6) the “restricted locations” provision contained in Section 5 of the CCIA
EXCEPT for fenced-in farmland owned by another or fenced-in hunting groundTop
owned by another (where the restriction stands); and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiffs are EXCUSED from giving security; and it is further
ORDERED that this Temporary Restraining Order shall REMAIN IN EFFECT
pending a hearing and ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction (Dkt. No. 6); and
it is further
ORDERED that this Temporary Restraining Order is STAYED for THREE (3)
BUSINESS DAYS, from the date of this Decision, to allow Defendants to seek emergency relief
in the Second Circuit; and it is further
ORDERED that counsel for Plaintiffs shall promptly and personally serve this Decision
and Temporary Restraining Order on Defendant Soares (who has not yet appeared through
counsel in this action).



He gave the State and its henchmen three days to try to overturn this restraining order in a higher court; after that, the order is in effect until October 20, when they're back in court to discuss the situation.

 

[krucam]

NY has filed their Appeal to the 2nd Circuit.

Notice of Appeal – #28 in Antonyuk v. Hochul (N.D.N.Y., 1:22-cv-00986) – CourtListener.com

NOTICE OF APPEAL as to [27] Order,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Decision and Temporary Restraing Order by Kevin P. Bruen, Judge Matthew J. Doran, Kathleen Hochul. Filing fee $ 505, receipt number ANYNDC-6060619. (Thompson, James)

www.courtlistener.com

 

[csanc123]

NY has filed their Appeal to the 2nd Circuit.

Notice of Appeal – #28 in Antonyuk v. Hochul (N.D.N.Y., 1:22-cv-00986) – CourtListener.com

NOTICE OF APPEAL as to [27] Order,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Decision and Temporary Restraing Order by Kevin P. Bruen, Judge Matthew J. Doran, Kathleen Hochul. Filing fee $ 505, receipt number ANYNDC-6060619. (Thompson, James)

www.courtlistener.com

Any thoughts/opinions on what the appeals court will do?

 

[Bertfish]

If they're smart and don't want a SCOTUS beat down they'll accept the TRO and proceed carefully

Any thoughts/opinions on what the appeals court I'll do?

 

[Inigoes]

Any thoughts/opinions on what the appeals court I'll do?

The CA should maintain the status quo.

Since this is a brand new law, the CA should let the TRO stand until a final decision is rendered by the lower court.