SCOPE NY

GOA-NY #2

09/23/2022 1:30 PM | Anonymous

GOA-NY #2

SCOPE previously wrote that on August 31st, the GOA-NY lawsuit against NY’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) was dismissed by the judge because the plaintiff lacked standing.  Presumably, this was because the plaintiff had not yet violated the law.  However, the judge opinioned that large portions of CCIA were unconstitutional and it was only the defendant’s lack of standing that prevented the judge from ruling major portions of CCIA as unconstitutional.

They’re back!

GOA-NY has filed a new lawsuit that will hopefully cure the lack of standing.  Several plaintiffs declare under oath their intention to violate the CCIA. Below are some of the reasons the plaintiffs should now have standing.  Each plaintiff states several other places they intend to concealed carry in violation of CCIA – but you will get the picture.

In their haste, Kathy Hochul and her cohorts never considered these issues – but they should have since they are everyday issues of everyday people of NY State.  But then again, CCIA was never about everyday issues that New Yorkers face, it was about Hochul making political points with her supporters by spitting on the Supreme Court and the United States Constitution.

Each plaintiff faces a credible threat of prosecution because his specific intentions are now public through this filing and the State Police have made it clear that they intend to enforce the CCIA’s provisions on a “zero tolerance” basis, stating “If you violate this law, you will be arrested.”

The first plaintiff routinely goes on hiking and camping trips throughout NY State and intends to carry his firearm on his upcoming trip to a State Park, where concealed carry is not allowed under CCIA.

The plaintiff intends to carry his firearm within a restaurant that serves alcohol, where concealed carry is not allowed under CCIA.

The plaintiff intends to carry his firearm while attending pro-gun and other rallies where people assemble to exercise constitutional rights and where concealed carry is not allowed under CCIA.

A second plaintiff states that he routinely goes to the movies and states he intends to concealed carry in violation of CCIA.

Plaintiff is a grandfather to 5 grandchildren and states it is his duty to protect his family. He intends to take his grandchildren to a State Park and intends to concealed carry, which is not allowed under CCIA.

CCIA criminalizes his taking of a firearm to the airport, even unloaded, locked, and properly declared in checked baggage, in compliance with federal regulations.  Plaintiff states he will be flying to Tennessee, which allows him to carry there.  He intends to check his firearm in his luggage in accordance with TSA regulations, which requires declaring the firearm, in which case he would be confessing to being in illegal possession of a firearm under the CCIA.

Plaintiff plans to concealed carry at a Gun Show, in violation of CCIA, in a Community Center described as a conference center, banquet hall & wedding venue.  CCIA bans firearms at “conference centers” and “banquet halls,” and the Community Center may not opt out of this ban and expressly allow firearms.  Plaintiff states that “a gun show is, almost by definition, a ‘gathering of individuals to collectively express their constitutional rights to protest or assemble’ ... and, thus, the CCIA appears to entirely ban gun shows.”

 A third plaintiff is a pastor who states that the church maintains a “church security team, consisting of trusted church members who are licensed carry permit holders, and are designated to carry their firearms to provide security and protection to the congregation during worship services.” Under the CCIA, neither the pastor nor his security team may possess firearms on church property. The pastor intends to continue to possess and carry his firearm while on church property, in violation of the CCIA.

The pastor lives in a parsonage that is physically part of the same building as the Church. This parsonage is not only used as his family’s residence, but is also used for church business.  Under the CCIA, the pastor’s home is now a “sensitive location” where he is prohibited from possessing a firearm, including a handgun for self-defense. In order to fully comply with the CCIA, the pastor would have to turn all his firearms over to the government, and he refuses to do so.

The pastor’s church has an addiction recovery ministry, and the pastor travels to homes of people addicted to drugs. CCIA makes it impossible for the Pastor to legally carry while ministering, as it declares all private property a “restricted location” and requires him to get express consent, sometimes of an addict, before entering his or her home while carrying a firearm. But for the CCIA, he would continue carrying his firearm while providing this ministry as he has in the past.

The pastor believes that the CCIA places off limits “any gathering of individuals to collectively express their constitutional rights to ... assemble.”  This would seem to cover a church service. To the extent that this section covers church activities, the Pastor does not intend to comply.”

The Church maintains a church bus and a church van, used to take church members, youth, and members of the public with them when they travel. The CCIA appears to ban firearm possession in their “bus” and the pastor Mann does not intend to comply

Because the pastor’s church plays music before, during, and after worship services, the CCIA separately bans firearms at a “performance venue” or “concert” and additionally a “banquet hall,” as they often break bread together. The CCIA does not appear to include an exemption even for the Lord’s Supper.

A fourth plaintiff is a volunteer firefighter. This usually means that he is going about his normal daily routines when he receives a call to respond and he has no opportunity to go home to disarm and stow his firearm. There are times that, while armed, he has responded to an emergency call at locations that the CCIA now declares to be “sensitive locations” including private property now deemed a “restricted location”.

The Catskills Park surrounds the fourth plaintiff’s town and he has often responded to calls for assistance in that park. There is no exception for him to carry there or even drive to there with a firearm during an emergency call, and he would be liable for a felony if he, as a first responder, responded to an emergency situation while armed.

The plaintiff responds to house and structure fires, and renders aid. Plaintiff states it would be “absurd” to have to ask a family to provide him with their ‘express consent’ to carry his firearm prior to entering their home to put out a fire or to provide lifesaving medical care.

Plaintiff intends to continue carrying his firearm as a firefighter, which will put him in violation of the CCIA as he responds to calls.

Plaintiff also runs a small hotel/bed and breakfast.  His now “restricted location” would have to post signage to allow guests to carry, because “person-by-person ‘express consent’” is impractical to give to each visitor. CCIA requires him to engage in compelled speech to continue to provide services to those who bring their firearms to his hotel.  If he refuses to be compelled to speak, he will lose the business of gun owners who lawfully travel with their firearms.  If he posts a sign allowing concealed carry, he will lose business from customers that do not share that view.   The CCIA politicizes his business against his will and, no matter which option he chooses, he will lose business.”

Plaintiff cannot leave with a firearm without entering the Catskills Park surrounding his town, even if the firearm is unloaded, locked and stored in a trunk because there is no exception for travel in the park.

A fifth plaintiff has accounts on some “social media” platforms, of which his Facebook profile is set to “friends only.” He would have to add a sheriff or investigator or perhaps even his licensing official as a “friend” so that they could view his Facebook posts. He refuses to comply with this requirement, or to divulge any social media accounts to the state.  Plaintiff states that, if he were “forced to produce all his speech,” he would “self-censor for fear of retribution”, unwilling to express his true feelings, especially on contentious issues involving political speech.

Plaintiff objects to the in-person interview requirement, because it would violate his “Fifth Amendment rights to remain silent and against self-incrimination.”

Plaintiff’s sheriff does not have an appointment available submit his application until October of 2023, more than 13 months from today, in violation of Bruen, which anticipates challenges to permitting regimes which require “lengthy wait times” to obtain a permit. The Sheriff’s current 13 months delay greatly exceeds the time the Sheriff has to process an application under NYS statute.  The Sheriff’s delay in accepting license applications also violates New York Penal Law 400(4-b), which requires that applications for licenses shall be accepted for processing by the licensing officer at the time of presentment and that, except upon written notice to the applicant specifically stating the reasons for any delay, in each case the licensing officer shall act upon any application for a license pursuant to this section within six months of the date of presentment.

Plaintiff will not complete sixteen hours of classroom instruction, plus two hours of live-fire training, as it is unnecessary and expensive.  Plaintiff objects to the requirement that he has to pay to learn about “suicide prevention,” as he is not suicidal and such subject matter has no bearing on his being a responsible gun owner.

A sixth plaintiff is a property owner and enjoys the right to determine who and under what circumstances, people visit his property. The CCIA infringes on this right, as it declares his home a restricted location.

The CCIA requires that he post “clear and conspicuous signage indicating that the carrying of firearms ... is permitted” or otherwise provide his “express consent” to someone wanting to carry a firearm in his home or on his property. Plaintiff states that it is impossible to provide express consent to each and every visitor that stops by unless he is present on his front lawn 24 hours a day, as a delivery driver, or some other visitor may come to his home while he is unavailable.

Plaintiff states that the CCIA could prevent one of his neighbors from coming to his aid, at his home, unless he previously gave them “express consent” to carry a firearm on his property and that perhaps that person “would be forced to mill around in the dark, searching for ‘conspicuous signage’ authorizing him to help.”

Plaintiff is left with the option of posting “conspicuous signage.” But he cannot safely comply with that requirement because many New Yorkers are vehemently anti-gun and posting a sign in favor of gun rights can open him and his family to criticism, harassment and even possible hostile action (such as vandalism or a physical confrontation) by those who disagree with his political views.

Plaintiff will not post a sign that labels his home as being the likely location of a gun owner which would raise the risk that his home would be targeted by burglars, thieves, home invaders, or other violent criminals.

Elected officials are supposed to use good judgment and act soberly when passing laws.  When you vote in November, remember all the sober judgment used in passing CCIA.

A 2nd Amendment Defense Organization, defending the rights of New York State gun owners to keep and bear arms!

PO Box 165
East Aurora, NY 14052

SCOPE is a 501(c)4 non-profit organization.

{ Site Design & Development By Motorhead Digital }

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software