Booby trap
Previous Post
Next Post

[California’s] SB 918 is a copycat bill closely following the template of the State of New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) that was railroaded to passage earlier this year following the Supreme Court decision to gut the discretionary issue permit laws of New York and other states, including California. New York’s angry response was to raise a fist against the Supreme Court declaring a minefield tapestry of restricted spaces, a presumption of denial in private spaces, and a demand to give up personal privacy and be judged by the state as to good moral character, raising a number of First Amendment concerns.

New York’s CCIA law barely survived being stifled by a preliminary injunction last week that would have prevented its concealed weapons carry law from taking effect. The law went into effect in New York on September 1, 2022.

The judge in the case stated that he did, in fact, have strong reservations about the constitutionality of the hastily passed New York Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) which turns the landscape of New York into a minefield for a concealed carry permit holder to the point that it is impossible to go from point A to point B without committing a crime.

The denial of the preliminary injunction turns out to be based on one simple thing. The judge determined the bringers of the lawsuit, Ivan Antonyuk, Gun Owners of America, Inc., Gun Owners of America New York, Inc., and Gun Owners Foundation do not have standing because none of them had been factually harmed by the as-yet-to-take-effect law.

The judge created a game of chicken for New York. Basically, the first person that is arrested by New York under the CCIA creates the standing for a new lawsuit that will likely shut down the law like a hammer. New York is surely aware that the decision in the very case that allowed the law to proceed contains specific instructions on what to do if the state tries to enforce it.

Will someone be arrested for crossing through a designated “safe space” when there is no reasonable way not to? Will someone’s existing permit renewal be denied by an arbitrary interpretation of their Facebook page? Will the survivors of someone who died in a “safe space” that could have lived had they been able to defend themselves claim harm? There are as many trap doors for New York as the traps the state has set for people.

—  Dennis Santiago in Opinion: California Should Continue To Reject New York’s Gun Control War Against Ordinary Americans

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. The idea that someone has to be arrested is absurd. The mere possibility of them being arrested means that there is a chilling effect on their rights and therefore they have been harmed.

    Just find someone who wants to carry but is too scared of the legal mine field. There is your harmed party.

    • “Just find someone who wants to carry but is too scared of the legal mine field. There is your harmed party.”

      They haven’t been legally ‘damaged’ yet, most likely.

      Nice idea, but they’ll need to volunteer to be a ‘sacrificial lamb’ (willing to be arrested and declared to be a legally-prohibited person unable to ever get a permit again) to do so…

    • Someone doesn’t have to be arrested, necessarily.

      The crux of the standing issue on this case was that, when the plaintiff was asked if he intended to break the law in question, he replied NO

      If he had said yes, it likely would have stood up.

    • Yep, declaring lack of standing is just one way that a court avoids an issue they don’t want to come down on. Compare how the courts avoided hearing the 2020 election lawsuits.

  2. Hmm. Generally in this type of situation the court will accept that there is a real threat of violation the law, and not require that someone actually violate it, before it would be reviewed. This is precisely to avoid the “game of chicken.”

  3. I can hardly wait for the Supreme Court to give this “law” a toss. NYS each of the DMEONcRATs who voted for it and the wannabe governor, should be fined heavily for CONTEMPT OF THE SUPREME COURT!

    • “I can hardly wait for the Supreme Court to give this “law” a toss.”

      Like that’s going to stop them?

      They’ll just pass another one, worded differently, and go through the process all over again…

      • Nature of the beast but the more they do that the less the laws hold water especially outside of NY. Look at how Maryland and Colorado went post Bruin. I have no doubt NY will have the strictest laws possible but the floor will rise and the ceiling for everyone else will soar.

        • Paid by who? If them personally then yes. If the more typical outcome just less funds for repaving after the winter.

        • Great now how do we go about that with current NY laws that insulate them financially even with a prison sentence involved (see Silver)

        • It is simple and difficult at the same time. First file a Contempt of the Supreme Court Citation in the US District Court. Second, get the NRA and NYSRPA on board. That is going to be the most difficult part. There is an organization called Gun Owners of America NY that has already filed such a case. I recommend joining this organization. At least they are not sitting on their hands.

        • Noted, for the moment focused on NYSRPA for various reasons but I have seen their name come up a few times on the various lawsuit trackers for NY challenges.

        • SAFE NYSRPA has since the Bruen Decision sat on their hands. I am very disenchanted with their current doing nothing so far stance. I have a hunch they are having a problem with a money crunch. Although they are not admitting it. Clearly Hochul and Co. are in Contempt with their “new law” which is designed to make the entire state a “gun free zone”. She just might come to regret this.

  4. What the judge has done amounts to waiting for an accident to happen before putting 4 way stop signs up at a busy intersection. It a gutless legal maneuver also was used to keep obamacare on the books. Instead of throwing potential victims of violent crime under the bus perhaps the judge should volunteer to be arrested for exercising a Constitutional Right.

  5. All they have to do is elect Zelden Gov and give him a conservative state legislature, no one needs to be arrested OR surrender their rights to change these stupid laws in NY… If they are not willing to make the necessary changes then they obviously don’t want it so they get what they ask for and those that disagree can either stfu and live with it OR grow a pair and get the hell out of that shithole, I can actually remember a time about 40/50 years ago when NY was a really great place to visit, it COULD be again.

    • Half of that is possible as is. Short of Escape from NY becoming an unpopular reality downstate the other half is not.

  6. The standing issue is because the fudd plaintiff refused to admit that he would be willing to break the law.

    • Even when a republican is elected governor in ILLANNOY not much changes. Normally a RINO or worse except right now. Darren Bailey is what we need but the bad actor’s in Cook County have pulled out the big gunz against him(& Prickster has deep pockets). I don’t see much good in NY without the feds stepping in…

      • The super majority in Springfield is a big part of that problem. That said it’s not going to change any time soon probably because of the gerrymandering.The last one was just scandalous IMO and quite frankly you don’t hear the people whining about Republicans doing it saying anything about Illinois.

        So glad I’m not in that dive any more.

  7. Unconstitutional all around. But even so, this is yet another reason why I’m glad I’ve never had any social media accounts, ever.

    No Snoopchat.
    No Snoopbook.
    No Instasnoop.
    No Snoopedin.
    No SnipSnoop.
    No nuthin’.

    • Your posting on the internet. That’s all it takes.
      Theyll track your email, sim card, credit card purchases. They know what’s in your bank account and security lock box.
      They video tape you at the convenience store, the doctors office, gas station , bar, bank, or courthouse.
      They know everything you’ve done and everywhere you’ve been.
      Theres no escape.
      Big Brother is Watching

      • Factual datasets (purchases, locations) are one thing. Opinions and rhetoric (social media posts) are quite another. The latter shows a person’s intentions for or against a political issue, and can be subjectively used more easily against an individual by a heavy-handed government.

        No social media.

    • This TTAG site that you just posed your comment on is social media!
      You just think that it’s not, because you THINK that what you post here is anonymous, but nothing is truly anonymous on the Internet. Everything leaves digital breadcrumbs.

      • (sigh)

        Read the article. Has to do with social media accounts (logon passwords, etc) where you post personal photos and such. TTAG is just a comment board; no logon. Apples and oranges.

        I don’t even have logons for any other “comment board” sites.

  8. I’ve got my motion to dismiss pre-written in case I’m popped. – that one is for Illinois, California, Oregon or New York. In those states they don’t honor my home state CCW and they don’t allow me to apply for their state’s CCW.

    In states like New Jersey where I could theoretically apply for their permit, the arguments based on Saenz v Roe don’t apply but the arguments on excessive fees and delays banned in Bruen are still valid. In order to get 50-state-plus-DC carry rights I’d need to apply in 18 jurisdictions. Costs would be well up past $5k even without factoring in travel.

  9. That’s NY for you. And they say registration isn’t for confiscation. Registration is ALWAYS for confiscation! Otherwise they wouldn’t care to know what guns you have or what numbers are on them.

    That’s why you never register or license anything. If you “voluntarily” give up a civil liberty following unconstitutional laws, the courts will treat you accordingly and say that you waived your liberties, and voluntarily accepted into the confiscation process and are now subject to the voluntary government permission process and you’ve lost the civil liberty.

    They pull the same BS with the 1st, 4th and 5th Amendments, and getting you to voluntarily waive your rights.

    yet another reason not to voluntarily comply with unconstitutional laws to begin with…

    Especially those that convert absolute civil liberties (no limits and no government permission) into civil rights (granted only government permission if they feel like it). Next step –> confiscation of the voluntarily registered self-defense tool(s)…..

    #neverRegister #neverLicense any civil liberty tool(s)

    There are no Constitutional Gun Laws in NY, or in any of their cities/municipalities, towns or counties, all are unconstitutional – the 2nd Amendment gave exclusive jurisdiction and domain solely to the people (the 9th and 10th Amendments, removes all confusion that all levels of government were banned from infringing on the 2nd Amendment’s civil liberty protections of “we the people”

    It was always about control, that’s why it’s called “Gun Control”… it has never been about safety.

    Never register or license anything, the only ones breaking the law are the federal, state and local governments creating and enforcing unconstitutional laws.

    The Armed Government Workers [AGW’s] no longer honor their oaths and haven’t for a very long time are upping their taken oath violating to the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights by continually physically violate citizens as often as possible, now they are not just going around the absolute laws of the land, but now also directly increasing the harm that their violence will cause.

    Are cops constitutional? Clearly no, and it’s incidents like this that highlight that fact.

    Police work is often lionized by jurists and scholars who claim to employ “textualist” and “originalist” methods of constitutional interpretation. Yet professional police were unknown to the United States in 1789, and first appeared in America almost a half-century after the Constitution’s ratification. The Framers contemplated law enforcement as the duty of mostly private citizens, along with a few constables and sheriffs who could be called upon when necessary. This article marshals extensive historical and legal evidence to show that modern policing is in many ways inconsistent with the original intent of America’s founding documents. The author argues that the growth of modern policing has substantially empowered the state in a way the Framers would regard as abhorrent to their foremost principles.

    Are Cops Constitutional? By Roger Roots

    We Do Not Want To Be Hunted by DH Gans

    Police typically say that their top mission is to protect “public safety.” That’s the lingo

    weapons registration laws have a history—a consistent history, over the years, officials in New York City and California used registration records to confiscate guns, in violation of their own promises.

Comments are closed.