We are the children of the “right now” age. I am old. I remember my mother going to the Grayhound bus depot and paying them to deliver two huge boxes to her hometown in the midwest. This was the only way to get a package that big that far in a reasonable amount of time.

Reasonable amount of time? About a week or so. At which point my grandparents would go to the bus depot to get pick up the packages.

When I was a child working on motorcycles I would create a parts list and then once a month we would go into the big city and I could purchase parts at the motorcycle dealership(s).

We would dig through our Scholastic book pamphlet and pick out the books we wanted. Three or four weeks later our books would arrive. We’d look though the Sear’s catalog and place an order. A few weeks later it would arrive.

The other day I needed replacement “Plackers”. I spent less than two minutes online to locate what I wanted, purchased more for much less than I could locally and they were delivered as soon as we had cleared our driveway.

Everything today happens quickly. I can send an email around the world in less time than it takes to print that same letter. I can have a response back before I close my email program.

My introduction to The Internet was when I noticed that if we dropped UUCP messages in one node in Michigan it would show up in California with a timestamp only seconds different than the arrival time.

We are spoiled. Everything should be moving as fast as online shopping and online communications.

Not everything is fast

Court cases are SLOW.

We are going to track one case that is moving very fast, by court standards.

District Court

On Feb 1, 2018 a complaint was filed against George P. Beach, III and Richard J. McNally, Jr. asking for injunctive relief. (complaint not available through PACER/RECAP).

The state was notified of the case, added lawyers to argue the case and the asked for a delay. Judge Brenda K Sannes agreed on Feb 9th, 2018 to the extension to file. She set the date for filing as 3/26/2018.

On March 26, 2018, the last day they could file, the state responded with a motion to dismiss. No documents are available but the title suggests they are arguing that there is no actual claim for relief(?).

On the 29th of March, the judge orders that all the schedule is gong to be reset but doesn’t say what the new dates are.

On April 3rd the court resets the deadlines to file a response to motion to dismiss for May 7th and the response to the response set for may 14th.

On May 7th the response is filed and the response to the response is filed on May 14th.

These people sound like high school students waiting till the last minute to turn things in. For the plaintiffs(good guys) they want to give the state as little time as possible. The state delays for other reasons, which could be to just drag out the case.

On May 16th the last bit of briefing, and amended complaint, was received by the court.

On December 17th the Court, Federal District Judge Brenda K Sannes of the Northern District Court of New York GRANTED the motion to dismiss finding against the plaintiffs.

On January 15, 2019 the plaintiffs filed notice of intent to appeal to the Second Circuit

This means that the case took over eleven months to get a decision dismissing the case.

It is important to note that this year long wait was the shortest possible outcome. The case didn’t even go to trail.

The steps are file the complaint, the defendants try and get the case dismissed, the plaintiffs file for a preliminary injunction, the brief and argue that, then they provide more briefs and argue for the actual injunction.

This judge heard the argument to dismiss, went away and thought about it for a few months and then issued her opinion.

The plaintiffs decided to move forward.

Second Circuit Court of Appeals

On January 30, 2019 the court placed the case on the “Court’s Expedited Calendar” with a brief due date of March 6, 2019 with a response by April 10th, 2019.

This was quickly extended to March 30th and April 24th.

On March 20th the good guys filed their brief along with a joint appendix. The joint appendix seems to be everything that was submitted to the district court.

On April 24th, again the last day possible, the state files their reply.

On April 30th the state requested that the court delay until the Supreme Court had issued their opinion in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc. et al. v. City of New York, New York, et al.. This is the case where the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the case after NYC and NYS did all in there power to moot the case, successfully.

On July 1, 2020 the case was scheduled on the Expedited Calendar for argument on Aug 17th, 2020.

On Aug 17, 2020 the case was heard on on the 26th the Second Circuit Court affirmed the district court’s ruling, dismissing the case once again.

On Dec 28th, 2020 the good guys informed the Second Circuit Court that they were seeking certiorari with the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court granted certiorari on April 26, 2021. This was 2 years and 2 months from the date the case was first filed in the district court.

We are still looking at just getting the option to argue the case. The case was dismissed before any arguments on the merits were heard. It does not look like the Second Circuit Court looked at the merits either. Everything to this point has been in regards to having a claim(standing?)

After granting cert. the parties file their briefs as do the amicus curiae, friend of the court. Amicus curiae are just people that want to be heard on the case.

In September of 2021 the Supreme court started to process the case record by requesting the record on appeal. Since everything from the district court was sent up to the appeals court this is everything filed to date.

On August 16, 2021 the Supreme Court set the date for oral arguments for early November.

The case was finally heard on November 3rd.

Finally on June 23, 2022 the case came to an end when the case was Reversed and Remanded.

Justice Thomas writing the opinion in NYSR&PA v. Bruen starting the fall of gun control in the United States.

1,603 days from the start of the case till the final judgement of the court or 4 years and 4.5 months Wow.

But the battle isn’t over!

State of New York, Legislature

By July 1st, just 8 days after the Bruen decision the State of New York filed a bill 12053-04-2, what would become the CCIA, and had it signed into law by Governor Hochul.

Antonyuk I

On July 11, 2022 Ivan Antonyuk et all filed suit against Bruen in the Northern District of New York. For the next month and a half the parties submit their briefs. On Aug 23, 2022 the case was heard before Judge Suddaby.

On August 31st the judge dismissed the case without prejudice. This means that the plaintiffs(good guys) can refile in the same matter once the correct whatever was wrong in the courts eyes.

Antonyuk II

September 20, 2022 the case is back before Judge Suddaby. This time the case moves forward.

On September 22 the plaintiffs requested a TRO for an injunction blocking at least parts of the CCIA.

The a hearing was held on the 29th and 30th for the TRO.

On Oct 6th the TRO was granted in part and denied in part but stayed for 3 days in order to let the state appeal.

While the TRO appeal was being processed at the Second Circuit Court, the case proceeded at the district court level with preparations and briefings for a preliminary injunction.

The Circuit Court granted the appeal and stayed the TRO pending the outcome of that appeal. This is a sneaky way to stop the TRO from going into effect. As long as the Circuit court hasn’t heard the case nor issued their opinion the CCIA remains in effect. All the Second Circuit court has to do to keep the stay in place is nothing.

On October 25th arguments on the motion for preliminary injunction were heard with the Court issuing its decision on Nov 7th. The motion for a preliminary injunction was granted in part and denied in part. There was no stay on this.

The motion to dismiss was likewise dealt with in November. On the 17th some of the defendants were dismissed and parts of other challenges were dismissed but the suit still remains.

The case was appealed to the Second Circuit court which stayed the preliminary injunction until the Second Circuit court hears the appeal. This is in early December.

Supreme Court

The stay was appealed by the plaintiffs(good guys) to the Supreme Court. On the 21st of December, by early January the Supreme Court had denied the appeal but issued a concurring opinion telling the Second Circuit Court to hear the appeal on a timely basis.

Second Circuit Court of Appeals

On March 20th, 2023 the case was heard before the Second Circuit court. This case was heard at the same time as 4 other cases. At the end of oral arguments the three judge panel thanked the parties. We are now waiting for a response.

Conclusion

In February of 2018 some citizens of New York started a battle to be able to get a permit to carry and to be able to carry for “all lawful purposes”. After four plus years the Supreme Court ruled in their favor.

Now, almost a year after that Supreme Court decision those citizens of New York are still trying to get the right to bear arms for all lawful purposes in the state of New York.

Even if Antonyuk II does become a win for the second amendment it may or may not gut the CCIA. This is a long running battle with many moving parts.

We are winning. We are persistence predators. We will take back our right to keep and bear arms, one step at a time.