\n
<\/h3>\nConclusion from Ruling:<\/h3>\n
As they did with regard to a Temporary Restraining Order, the State Defendants have requested that any Preliminary Injunction that is issued by the Court be (1) either limited in scope to Plaintiffs or the Northern District of New York, and (2) stayed for three business days pending appeal.\u00a0 (Dkt. No. 48, at 115-16.)<\/p>\n
After carefully considering the matter, the Court denies this request for the reasons stated by Plaintiffs in their reply papers and during oral argument, and for the reasons stated recently by U.S. District Judge John L. Sinatra in Hardaway v. Nigrelli<\/em>.\u00a0\u00a0 (Dkt. No. 69, at 54 [Plfs.\u2019 Reply Memo. of Law]; Dkt. No. 71, at 107-08 [Prelim. Inj. Tr.].)\u00a0 See also Hardaway v. Nigerelli<\/em>, 22-CV-0771, 2022 WL 16646220, at *18-19 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 3, 2022).\u00a0 To those reasons, the Court adds the fact that five of the nine Defendants in this action have not even opposed Plaintiffs\u2019 motion to preliminarily enjoin the below-enjoined provisions of this patently unconstitutional law. See, supra,<\/em> Part I of this Decision.\u00a0 Although the Court has not considered that de facto<\/em> consent in evaluating the merits of Plaintiffs\u2019 claims,140 the Court does find it relevant in evaluating any possible injury to the public that would be caused by this Preliminary Injunction if, on appeal, this Court\u2019s Decision were to be held to be in error.<\/p>\n For all of these reasons, the Court denies the State Defendants\u2019 request for a limitation and stay.<\/p>\n ACCORDINGLY<\/strong>, it is<\/p>\n ORDERED<\/strong> that Defendant Hochul is DISMISSED<\/strong> from this action as a party; and it is further<\/p>\n ORDERED<\/strong> that Plaintiffs\u2019 motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 6) is GRANTED in part and DENIED<\/strong> in part<\/strong> in accordance with this Decision; and it is further<\/p>\n ORDERED<\/strong> that Defendants, as well as their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys (and any other persons who are in active concert or participation with them) are PRELIMINARILY ENJOINED<\/strong> from enforcing the following provisions of the Concealed Carry Improvement Act, 2022 N.Y. Sess. Laws ch. 371 (\u201cCCIA\u201d):<\/p>\n (1) the following provisions contained in Section 1 of the CCIA:<\/p>\n (a) the provision requiring \u201cgood moral character\u201d;<\/p>\n (b) the provision requiring the \u201cnames and contact information for the applicant\u2019s current spouse, or domestic partner, any other adults residing in the applicant’s home, including any adult children of the applicant, and whether or not there are minors residing, full time or part time, in the applicant\u2019s home\u201d;<\/p>\n (c) the provision requiring \u201ca list of former and current social media accounts of the applicant from the past three years\u201d; and<\/p>\n (d) the provision contained in Section 1 of the CCIA requiring \u201csuch other information required by review of the licensing application that is reasonably necessary and related to the review of the licensing application\u201d;<\/p>\n (2) the following \u201csensitive locations\u201d provision contained in Section 4 of the CCIA:<\/p>\n (a) \u201cany location providing . . . behavioral health, or chemical dependance care or services\u201d (except to places to which the public or a substantial group of persons have not been granted access) as contained in Paragraph \u201c2(b)\u201d;<\/p>\n (b) \u201cany place of worship or religious observation\u201d as contained in Paragraph \u201c2(c)\u201d;<\/p>\n (c) \u201cpublic parks, and zoos\u201d as contained in Paragraph \u201c2(d)\u201d;<\/p>\n (d) \u201cairports\u201d to the extent the license holder is complying with federal regulations, and \u201cbuses\u201d as contained in Paragraph \u201c2(n)\u201d;<\/p>\n (e) \u201cany establishment issued a license for on-premise consumption pursuant to article four, four-A, five, or six of the alcoholic beverage control law where alcohol is consumed\u201d as contained in Paragraph \u201c2(o)\u201d;<\/p>\n (f) \u201ctheaters,\u201d \u201cconference centers,\u201d and \u201cbanquet halls\u201d as contained in Paragraph \u201c2(p)\u201d; and<\/p>\n (g) \u201cany gathering of individuals to collectively express their constitutional rights to protest or assemble\u201d as contained in Paragraph \u201c2(s)\u201d; and<\/p>\n (3) the \u201crestricted locations\u201d provision contained in Section 5 of theCCIA; and it is further<\/p>\n ORDERED<\/strong> that Plaintiffs are EXCUSED<\/strong> from giving security; and it is further<\/p>\n ORDERED<\/strong> that the State Defendants\u2019 request for a limitation in the scope of this Preliminary Injunction and for a stay of it pending appeal (Dkt. No. 48, at 115-16) is DENIED<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Dated: November 7, 2022
\nSyracuse, New York<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.gunowners.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/Suddaby-Signature.png\")