From the Second Amendment Foundation . . .
A defendant in the Second Amendment Foundation’s challenge of New York’s gun control law has filed a brief with the federal appeals court supporting the plaintiffs’ application for a preliminary injunction, a move which SAF’s Alan Gottlieb welcomed as a pleasant surprise. The case is known as Hardaway, Jr. v. Nigrelli.
Gottlieb, who is SAF founder and executive vice president, said the brief filed by Niagara County, New York District Attorney Brian D. Seaman reinforces plaintiffs’ assertion that the gun control law, which prohibits concealed carry in broadly-defined “sensitive places” including places of worship, is unconstitutional.
Seaman’s brief states he supports the application for a preliminary injunction “for the purpose of furthering a judicial determination as to the constitutionality of New York Penal Law,” adding, “Therefore, the Court should affirm the Decision and Order of the district court granting the Plaintiffs-Appellees’ application for a preliminary injunction.”
SAF is joined in the lawsuit by the Firearms Policy Coalition and citizens Larry A. Boyd and Jimmie Hardaway, Jr., for whom the lawsuit is named. Defendants, in their official capacities, include Seaman, Erie County District Attorney John J. Flynn and New York State Police Supt. Steven A. Nigrelli.
Federal District Judge John L. Sinatra granted the preliminary injunction and the state appealed to the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
“While this is certainly an unusual development,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, “we welcome the concurrence of District Attorney Seaman in our effort to secure the preliminary injunction. We believe New York’s gun control scheme is wholly unconstitutional. The New York Legislature needs to go back to the drawing board and try again, and this time, craft a law that complies with the Supreme Court’s guidelines in the Bruen ruling, rather than attempt to dance around that decision.”
“The New York Legislature needs to go back to the drawing board and try again”
No, what the New York Legislators need to do is accept the 2A as written and stop
But the representatives of the five families in Tammany Hall are getting very insistent that the laws are to their advantage.
Thankfully they will have a untenable situation and will have to settle for abusing whatever lesser restrictions replace the current set that either pass constitutional muster or haven’t been injunctioned yet.
IN a constitutional Republic.. the USA….. the public servants have specific duties to perform, all else ABSOLUTLEY DENIED.
New York state is a constitutional REPUBLIC………
If no permission is granted for NY public servants to act upon the possession of firearms by lawful citizens, should they do so, they are committing a crime.
One for the Good Guys! Seems someone in the Leftist NYC “province” has his head on straight. Now for the rest of them. I know. It is a hopeless cause.
Its a tactic.
See the part… “for the purpose of furthering a judicial determination as to the constitutionality of New York Penal Law”
this lawsuit was bought about banning carry in ‘places of worship’ and that’s what the injunction will affect. The rest of their bans will remain in place. The tactic is to keep the rest in place, and to keep this one from going to SCOTUS right now. At SCOTUS they know their whole thing would be gutted. They are trying to make this take as long as possible to buy time hoping the courts justices makeup will change by Biden nominating new left wing judges. Biden has had a commission studying how to do this since 2021 and wants to increase it from 9 to 13 justices and pack the court with his nominees. Its going to be something he will wait to do, if he can do it, towards the end of his current term – if he can remember to do it.
NOT. The law suit ONLY challenged the carry in places of worship provision. Moreover, the case is venued in western NY, hardly a den of democrats. Finally, DA Seaman’s brief EXPRESSLY argues (in a well written brief by the way) that the provision is unconstitutional. Apparently the other DA thinks so as well. In fact, the only party appealing the grant of a preliminary injunction is the Superintendent of the State Police Nigrelli (successor to Bruen).
.40 cal, It’s a staert in the right direction.
“increase it from 9 to 13 justices and pack the court“
Text and tradition holds that each federal circuit court of appeals should be overseen by a Supreme Court Justice.
The court should be expanded, the number of judicial circuits has increased to 13.
“Each of the thirteen federal circuit courts is assigned one Supreme Court Justice who then considers certain appeals (e.g., emergency requests and other matters) from his or her assigned circuit while other aspects of the case are still pending. The Chief Justice of the United States is responsible, under 28 U.S.C. 42, for allotting circuit justices “in vacation.”
The number of justices is set by Congress, and there’s actually been more than nine justices in the past.
MINOR MIner49er So your excuse for expanding the court so you can get favorable decisions is based on “tradition”? Nice try.
We have done just fine with 9 Justices for how many years now?
When were there ever more than nine justices?
Miner, I see that you continue in your practice of selectively noting facts. You failed to mention a couple key points that kind of fail to bolster your argument. In the early days, justices were personally responsible to manage the district courts, and they had to travel. This was a time when the extensive amount of travel needed was neither safe nor easy, so Congress set up a system that assigned 2 justices to one of the 3 districts, thus a total of 6 justices, none of which had to traverse the entire country as it was then. Later, as states were added, legislation changed the numbers of district courts, and of justices, and also the makeup of the federal court system by adding federal appellate courts. The justices no longer have to travel in person to manage the system. We no longer need a larger number, except for the political reason of packing the court.
I see your single citation, and raise you one:
Walter, there were 10 justices from 1863 to 1866. Prior, the number fluctuated from 5-9. In 1866, the number was reduced to 7. In 1869, it was increased to 9, where it has remained.
The only place I can see carrying a gunm in a sensitive place is next to my testicles with a striker fired handgunm.
Spring is in the air and a lot of young wemon are starting to wear daisy dukes and skinny little halter tops. That’s a bad combination. when you’ve got a gunm located in said sensitive area.
The normal physiological response could pull the trigger.
“The normal physiological response could pull the trigger.”
(Screams of agony)… 🙁
The phrase “shooting blanks” could probably be worked into the conversation somewhere here…
This is nothing more than a delaying tactic in order to Not get a Court ruling. Liberal Democrats have historically used the Court system to enact rules and regulations. They either couldn’t get through legislation or didn’t want to put their name and vote to. In fear of losing single issue voters in the next election. In agreeing that the Legislature should look at the law again, only allows the law to stay in place. While they delay looking into it for as long as possible. If ever in hopes the sway of the Court will return to their point of view some time in the future.
Won’t matter the hearing with Suddaby on Antonyuk for virtually all of CCIA and Hardaway, Christian, Gazzola, Spencer for assorted aspects of it an other NY issues is set for March 20th and then it goes to the 2nd circuit for an actual hearing assuming NY appeals the decision.
The only “sensitive places” where I could likely accept firearm bans would be inside of toxic chemical manufacturing facilities, nuclear facilities, bio-hazard laboratories, prisons, and courts-of-law–and a seriously armed and trained security force must be in place 24/7 at all of those locations to secure them.
Cracks Hut is one of the top Cracks Software websites where you can download Cracks Software from all over the world for free there is no need for any kind of Subscription required.