Second Amendment Win In New York
BY Herschel Smith
2 years, 1 month ago
Friend of TCJ Stephen Stamboulieh got himself a win in New York.
DECISION AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION that Defendant Hochul is DISMISSED from this action as a party. Plaintiffs’ motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. [6]) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part in accordance with this Decision. 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. Plaintiffs are EXCUSED from giving security. 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. Signed by U.S. District Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 11/7/2022. (sal)
But it’s not just his win – it’s a win for liberty. We encourage everyone to dismantle tyranny everywhere they find it, and in whatever station of life they find themselves, in Stephen’s case, the field of law.
Congratulations to Stephen, one of the premier 2A legal advocates in the country. We like to celebrate wins, and especially wins by friends!
On November 7, 2022 at 10:36 pm, William Sullivan said:
I don’t understand which portion was “denied in part”. And I don’t understand the part about plaintiffs being excused from giving security. Can someone clarify?
On November 8, 2022 at 11:50 am, xtphreak said:
1) you’ll have to find and read the original Motion for the Injunction and compare the requested actions with the terms of the injunction granted.
Seems obvious there’s something the Judge didn’t agree to include in the injunction.
OK, I found and read the Motion.
The only thing I don’t see discussed in the injunction text above, is the expanded training.
2) “…A defendant may obtain security for costs where there are reasonable concerns the plaintiff may not be able to pay the costs of the proceedings if the defendant prevails. The court may order the plaintiff to give such security as the court thinks fit and in such manner as the court directs.[1] Security for costs can provide reassurance to a defendant that some of the litigation costs can be recouped if the proceedings are successfully opposed. …”
https://www.millsoakley.com.au/thinking/security-for-costs-no-excuse-for-not-filing-a-defence/
Disclaimer:
Not a lawyer.
Didn’t play one on TV.
Didn’t stay in a Holiday Inn Express any time recently.
Just an engineer with moderate Google-Fu.
On November 8, 2022 at 1:32 pm, William Sullivan said:
xtphreak: Thank you.
On November 8, 2022 at 2:18 pm, xtphreak said:
this is why I’m not a lawyer.
missed some items in my cursory review.
https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2022/11/08/whats-left-standing-after-judge-guts-ny-carry-laws-n64117
explains what was not included in the injunction in detail.
hope this helps.
On November 9, 2022 at 7:23 pm, X said:
It’s a PARTIAL and TEMPORARY “win” at best. The partial injunction is in place only until the conclusion of the trial. Even with the injunction in place, the judge let stand the 18-hour training course costing several hundred dollars to get a carry permit OR a semi-auto rifle permit. Still in place is the mandatory HIPAA waiver, the requirement that you disclose ALL physical OR mental problems and ALL treatments, including verbal counseling. Still in place is the requirement that you meet in person with the licensing officer, who is typically a county judge normally hearing felony trials. Still in place is the requirement that you obtain four to eight references depending on the circumstances. Still in place is the inability for anyone to carry in New York City without a separate city permit. Still in place is the requirement that you register all ammo purchases with the state.
What people who do not live in New York fail to understand is that most of these conditions are required not simply to carry in public, but merely to POSSESS a handgun on one’s own property.
The Second Amendment remains subject to serious and unconstitutional infringement by the State.