1LtCAP 4,259 Posted November 7, 2022 12 minutes ago, DAHL said: It should be noted that the cancel carry bill idea is not dead. It will be re-introduced for a vote within a few months or sooner. The question becomes how soon can it be challenged and struck down in the courts? i'm figuring they pulled it due to the mid terms. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DirtyDigz 1,793 Posted November 7, 2022 NY's CCIA Bill has been mostly enjoined, and a stay of the action pending appeal denied! https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nynd.134829/gov.uscourts.nynd.134829.78.0_1.pdf The "vampire clause" is enjoined (that's the "restricted locations" provision contained in section 5 part). 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Krdshrk 3,872 Posted November 7, 2022 4 minutes ago, DirtyDigz said: NY's CCIA Bill has been mostly enjoined, and a stay of the action pending appeal denied! https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nynd.134829/gov.uscourts.nynd.134829.78.0_1.pdf The "vampire clause" is enjoined (that's the "restricted locations" provision contained in section 5 part). In layman's terms? Court says "No" to Hochul and the bill is unconstitutional? 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ATFspymen 15 Posted November 7, 2022 Does it say anything about the private property clause or anything about adding force of law no gun signs? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DirtyDigz 1,793 Posted November 7, 2022 6 minutes ago, Krdshrk said: In layman's terms? Court says "No" to Hochul and the bill is unconstitutional? A judge has ordered that large portions of the CCIA cannot be enforced pending resolution of the court case, and has denied staying that order. Big parts of the CCIA cannot be enforced for the forseeable future, until the case is decided. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Xtors 327 Posted November 7, 2022 Summary from ARFCOM: This may be easier to read from today's opinion: ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Defendant Hochul is DISMISSED from this action as a party; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for a Preliminary Injunction (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 PRELIMINARILY ENJOINED from enforcing the following provisions of the Concealed Carry Improvement Act, 2022 N.Y. Sess. Laws ch. 371 (“CCIA”): (1) the following provisions contained in Section 1 of the CCIA: (a) the provision requiring “good moral character”; (b) the provision 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”; (c) the provision requiring “a list of former and current social media accounts of the applicant from the past three years”; and (d) the provision contained in Section 1 of the CCIA requiring “such other information required by review of the licensing application that is reasonably necessary and related to the review of the licensing application”; (2) the following “sensitive locations” provision contained in Section 4 of the CCIA: (a) “any location providing . . . behavioral health, or chemical dependance care or services” (except to places to which the public or a substantial group of persons have not been granted access) as contained in Paragraph “2(b)”; (b) “any place of worship or religious observation” as contained in Paragraph “2(c)”; (c) “public parks, and zoos” as contained in Paragraph “2(d)”; (d) “airports” to the extent the license holder is complying with federal regulations, and “buses” as contained in Paragraph “2(n)”; (e) “any establishment issued a license for on-premise consumption pursuant to article four, four-A, five, or six of the alcoholic beverage control law where alcohol is consumed” as contained in Paragraph “2(o)”; (f) “theaters,” “conference centers,” and “banquet halls” as contained in Paragraph “2(p)”; and (g) “any gathering of individuals to collectively express their constitutional rights to protest or assemble” as contained in Paragraph “2(s)”; and (3) the “restricted locations” provision contained in Section 5 of the CCIA; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs are EXCUSED from giving security; and it is further ORDERED that the State Defendants’ request for a limitation in the scope of this Preliminary Injunction and for a stay of it pending appeal (Dkt. No. 48, at 115-16) is DENIED. 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Walkinguf61 40 Posted November 7, 2022 1 hour ago, ATFspymen said: Does it say anything about the private property clause or anything about adding force of law no gun signs? The original CCIA did not give “no gun “ signs the force of law. It banned guns unless there was a sign allowing guns. That was struck down by the injunction 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Displaced Texan 11,653 Posted November 8, 2022 NY got their testicles stepped on, and NJ is now regrouping…. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marlintag 223 Posted November 8, 2022 On 11/7/2022 at 8:34 PM, Displaced Texan said: NY got their testicles stepped on, and NJ is now regrouping…. 1 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Displaced Texan 11,653 Posted November 8, 2022 We much not rest on these recent victories. We ALL must press on with the fight, and never let up. There are many more unconstitutional gun laws that need to be overturned. Stay in the fight. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Walkinguf61 40 Posted November 8, 2022 5 hours ago, DirtyDigz said: A judge has ordered that large portions of the CCIA cannot be enforced pending resolution of the court case, and has denied staying that order. Big parts of the CCIA cannot be enforced for the forseeable future, until the case is decided. It basically means it’s a done deal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
M1152 713 Posted November 8, 2022 1 hour ago, marlintag said: The Judges slap was so loud I heard it here. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
45Doll 5,848 Posted November 8, 2022 Speaking of New York, do you remember this? Hochul endorsed by National Rifle Association (wnypapers.com) 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tunaman 538 Posted November 8, 2022 She is a flip-floppin piece of shit just like the rest of the Democrats. They only tell you what you want to hear when they want something. I hope and pray that they ALL get voted out...forever. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
YankeeSC 1,204 Posted November 9, 2022 13 hours ago, Tunaman said: I hope and pray that they ALL get voted out Well that didn't age well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RadioGunner 218 Posted November 9, 2022 5 minutes ago, YankeeSC said: Well that didn't age well. Especially since they aren’t up for election until next year. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fring Spield 1 Posted November 9, 2022 I thought the Federal District Court already tried to enjoin parts of the CCIA a few weeks ago, but the 2nd Circuit Appeals Court reversed their decision? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Walkinguf61 40 Posted November 10, 2022 3 hours ago, Fring Spield said: I thought the Federal District Court already tried to enjoin parts of the CCIA a few weeks ago, but the 2nd Circuit Appeals Court reversed their decision? That was preliminary decision before this decision. — sounds crazy I know. It was decision made before the hearing was “ over” and they knew there was at least another week before the main decision on the hearing was supposed to be made Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Batt52 14 Posted November 10, 2022 Looks like A4769 is heading back to the Assembly Judiciary Committee on Monday, November 14 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DAHL 58 Posted November 10, 2022 On 10/13/2022 at 9:43 PM, Displaced Texan said: Funny how that works, isn’t it? And no accountability from the NJ senate or Murphy. Sounds like another screwing of the good citizens of NJ. If this law passes, there is always the possibility of getting a partial or permanent injunction on the more egregious parts of the law. It has yet to be passed and I cannot believe that ALL Democrats will support the total carry ban in its current version. In counties where the Democrats win by small margins and the firearms ID card holders are are many, they make think twice about supporting the current version of this proposed law. I also know of one Democratic legislator where someone in his family put in for a carry permit. Is this the only example? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marlintag 223 Posted November 10, 2022 On 11/10/2022 at 8:56 AM, Batt52 said: Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
124gr9mm 857 Posted November 10, 2022 1 hour ago, marlintag said: Not even 24 hours after the midterms...how surprising! They have no choice but to look at it again. Based on the recent decision in NY the NJ bill/law would have been DOA as it stood... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grima Squeakersen 473 Posted November 12, 2022 ***DELETED*** Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tunaman 538 Posted November 12, 2022 53 minutes ago, samiam said: Judge must have a damned good magnifying glass... I have to beg to differ... I believe the set of balls they have is quite huge, as defying the Constitution takes BALLS! 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grima Squeakersen 473 Posted November 12, 2022 ***DELETED*** Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
b47356 21 Posted November 13, 2022 On 11/10/2022 at 11:04 AM, 124gr9mm said: They have no choice but to look at it again. Based on the recent decision in NY the NJ bill/law would have been DOA as it stood... Please explain how a ruling in the northern district of NY has any bearing on what the NJ legislature does. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RadioGunner 218 Posted November 13, 2022 2 hours ago, b47356 said: Please explain how a ruling in the northern district of NY has any bearing on what the NJ legislature does. It is not binding to the third circuit but it is a good indicator of what will happen in the courts here. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
silverado427 10,555 Posted November 13, 2022 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites