From the Second Amendment Foundation . . .
A federal judge in western New York has granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the “private property exclusion” tenet of the state’s new gun control law, calling it unconstitutional.
The case, known as Christian et. al. v. Nigrelli, et. al., was brought by the Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition on behalf of Brett Christian, a private citizen. U.S. District Court Judge John L. Sinatra, Jr. with the U.S. District Court in Buffalo handed down the 27-page ruling.
Noting that the private property exclusion “makes it a felony for a license holder to possess a firearm on all private property, unless the relevant property holders actually permit such possession with a sign or by express consent,” Judge Sinatra noted, “Regulation in this area is permissible only if the government demonstrates that the current enactment is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of sufficiently analogous regulations…New York fails that test.”
Judge Sinatra added, “Property owners indeed have the right to exclude. But the state may not unilaterally exercise that right and, thereby, interfere with the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens who seek to carry for self-defense outside of their own homes.”
SAF Founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb was delighted with the ruling, which was issued late Tuesday afternoon.
“New York’s efforts to dance around the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision have become a painful exercise in legal acrobatics, which it seems obvious the courts can see through,” Gottlieb observed. “This case illustrates the ridiculous lengths to which lawmakers in Albany have tried to go in their efforts to get around the letter and spirit of the high court ruling.”
“Having New York’s unconstitutionally sound law enjoined is a win for the public,” said SAF’s Executive Director Adam Kraut. “New York’s effort to restrict the public’s right to carry arms, through its imposition of outlandish requirements that have no roots in our country’s history and tradition, is a sign of how far its legislature is willing to go when it comes to depriving individuals of their constitutional rights. SAF looks forward to continuing to vindicate the rights of its members and the public.”
Judge Sinatra noted in his decision that Christian “is likely to succeed on the merits of his Second and Fourteenth Amendment claims…New York’s new private property exclusion violates the right of individuals to keep and bear arms for self-defense outside their homes.”
I wonder how much of Suddaby’s ruling was used by Sinatra. Well back to lawful carry again until the 2nd circuit has a Karen attack and we wait for the next case in the queue.
Sinatra references Suddaby’s ruling multiple times. The whole ruling is on courtlistner.
Cool I will need to check it out and see if he built on the arguments.
hochul et al are targeting the gun being in the hands of the law abiding and not the criminal misuse of firearms, bricks, bats, knives, vehicles, etc.
hochul and her demonic Gun Control ilk are making sure when you walk out your door in ny you walk out unarmed and jump right in the victim pool…hochul can go to hell.
The Five Families do not like their “donors” resisting their agent’s pleas for involuntary donations.
Their representatives in Tammany Hall have made that clear.
We get to carry legally in NY again for another week. Then the 2nd circuit will issue a stay on the injunction until they here the case. They will then sit on the case for about a year.
Arms are the only property that is mentioned in the Bill of Rights that citizens have a birth right to.
You don’t have a birth right to land. You will have to buy it on your own. You don’t have a birth right to transportation. You pay for that yourself.
But to do have a birth right to have guns, rocket launchers, flamethrower, etc. that you can use to protect your private property.
“But to do have a birth right to have guns, rocket launchers, flamethrower, etc. that you can use” in a well-regulated militia.
No, it is the “right of the People” to keep and bear arms, not the militia. Read the text. For more on this topic, read Heller.
You are the only person more consistently wrong than Chris. It’s the right of the people, not the Militia. This has been covered numerous times only you and Minor69er keep repeating the lie. The first 10 are individual rights not that of the collective.
It’s all the commas that confuse them. The version of the amendment ratified by the states and certified by the Secretary of State contains but a single comma located at the end of the clause about the security of a free state and the beginning of the clause about the rights of the people not being abridged. No less personage as Eugene Volokh suggests that, should a case ever depend on the actual verbiage and punctuation of the amendment, the certified version would prevail.
BOOM!
The sweet sound of exploding heads!
Got some time and several cases pending for that. We are still in Act 1 but getting towards the end of it
If the 2nd Circuit sits on this case, the plaintiffs will need to petition the Supreme Court for a hearing of the case.
But New Jersey is about to pass a similar ban in the new “carry-killer bill” that’s just like Kathy Hochul’s tyrannical New York carry-killer law.
Our tax dollars at work, here in the state with the highest combined taxes in the United States (NJ).
Between you and Delaware the court cases are going to be wild.