https://spectrumlocalnews.com/...-of-new-york-gun-law

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...407e99a4729938d1f3f0

Let the wailing and teeth gnashing begin!

But... But... It's for the children!

Edited 10/08/2022

There is more written information available on the web regarding this court case now, several days later.
The liberal rag newspapers from the big cities in New York are losing their minds. They also say only several parts of the CCIA (Concealed Carry Improvement Act) were declared unconstitutional.
The newspapers in the conservative area's of the state are more truthful. These conservative portions of the state IS the whole state, minus the seven or so big cities.
Most of the CCIA was declared unconstitutional.
I wanted to read the actual "official" court decision, and with some difficulty, located and downloaded the .pdf and I have it here if anyone is interested.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/bpp6...010_06_2022.pdf?dl=0

Judge Glenn Suddaby was appointed to the Northern District of New York (Federal District Court) by President George W. Bush in 2007.
If you are interested, here is his information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_T._Suddaby

This message has been edited. Last edited by: cee_Kamp,

WOW… Social media history???? I had not heard that. I suppose anything out there is essentially public record (exactly why I have ZERO social media presence) but damn. They just gotta keep poking the bear. The one that would concern me is listing others in the household. My wife has chronic back pain and has a medical card for MJ. I suspect that would prevent my having a CC permit and maybe even exclude me from owning a gun.

More details on this great news:

https://www.syracuse.com/crime...dge-in-syracuse.html

Key parts of NY’s new gun law blocked by federal judge in Syracuse

Updated: Oct. 06, 2022, 1:42 p.m.
Published: Oct. 06, 2022, 12:06 p.m.

by Anne Hayes | ahayes@syracuse.com

Syracuse, N.Y. -- A federal judge in Syracuse has blocked enforcement of several parts of New York’s broad new gun law.

On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Glenn Suddaby ruled that several provisions of the state’s new gun law are unconstitutional and cannot be enforced.

He delayed the implementation of his decision for three business days, to allow the state to seek an appeals court’s ruling. Suddaby’s temporary restraining order is in effect until at least an Oct. 20 motion briefing in his court.

Suddaby blocked provisions of the law that outlined new requirements for background checks for gun permits, including the disclosure of all of an applicant’s social media accounts. He also blocked the bans on guns in some public and private properties.

His decision Thursday granted a temporary restraining order against six provisions listed in the law.

Suddaby took issue with the state’s new background check requirements. Four of the six provisions struck down related to tough requirements for an application or renewal of a license for concealed carry.

He rejected the provision that an applicant must have evidence to demonstrate they have “good moral character,” an attempt by the state to block guns from people with bad intent. Suddaby reversed the burden of proof, ruling that it’s up to the licensing agency to prove the applicant does not have good moral character.

Suddaby also ruled that the state cannot require applicants to have an in-person meeting with the licensing officer, disclose the names and contact information of all adults residing in their home or provide a list of all current and former social media accounts from the past three years.

Suddaby also reduced the new law’s broad bans on guns in public and private spaces.

He ruled that presumptive gun bans can only be enforced in government administrative buildings, polling places, public areas restricted to general access for special events through permits, or any public or private educational facilities.

The wording in his decision clarifies that while guns will remain banned from any place of worship or religious observations, individuals who are tasked with security are permitted to carry firearms.

New York’s law also required gun owners to have explicit permission to carry guns on private property. Suddaby has previously revealed he disagreed with the constitutionality of this presumptive ban.

“The State of New York is now making a decision for private property owners that they are perfectly able to make for themselves,” Suddaby wrote in his decision.

That provision was all but completely rejected by his decision. Suddaby ruled guns should be presumed to be permitted in public spaces unless an explicit ban is issued by that private property owner. The owner of a house or business can ban guns.

The only exception to this ruling is privately owned fenced-in farmland or fenced-in hunting grounds.

He has previously ruled that parts of the law were unconstitutional, but he couldn’t take action because the lawsuit filed against the law was flawed.

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.

The sweeping law was hastily passed following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn a provision of New York’s law requiring a license to carry concealed weapons in public places. Suddaby relied heavily on that case in his decision.

In the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, the Supreme Court ruled that a provision in New York’s previous law -- requiring applicants for an unrestricted concealed-carry license to demonstrate a “special need” for self-defense -- prevented law-abiding citizens from exercising their Second Amendment right to bear arms in public for self-defense.

he law overturned by the Supreme Court was established in 1913 as an amendment to the Sullivan Law following the establishment of a similar law in Massachusetts, according to a briefing from the New York State Attorney General’s Office.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer stated that the court’s decision severely burdened the States’ ability to curb gun violence.

The new law -- recognized as the strictest in the nation -- went into effect on Sept. 1.

The law’s passage made New York the first state to criminalize the carry of handguns on all private property without explicit permission. The law also required new training requirements and the disclosure of social media accounts for new applicants.

So many parts of that bill are intended to ban carry through restriction.

My guess is the gun grabbers in NY decided to toss as much crap on the wall as they could and see what sticks.

They knew plenty of this was unconstitutional, and who knew if it was going to be fully challenged in any time soon.

Imagine the plan is that if any of it stands it will be used by leftist state governments...

Hopefully none of it will fly...

Glad to see this process beginning.

Hochul's mistake (if I'm right) lay in descending into the spiteful and absurd. The higher this gets appealed, the more jurisdictions will find themselves getting cut off from trying to pull this crap. A more subtle approach would've been much harder to challenge than Hochul's absurd grandstanding.

You mean I've been posting all those pictures of my butt hole on my Twitter for nothing!

quote:

Originally posted by cas:
You mean I've been posting all those pictures of my butt hole on my Twitter for nothing!

Depends on who's following you on Twidder..

First post updated with new information.

quote:

Originally posted by cas:
You mean I've been posting all those pictures of my butt hole on my Twitter for nothing!

Yep. Shoulda started an Onlyfans instead and got paid.