On Thursday 2022-10-20, federal judge John L. Sinatra, Jr. issued a TRO against the state of New York in regards to parts of the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCI).

As part of the CCI NY state attempted to make so many different places within the state “sensitive places” that it would become nearly impossible for a CC holder to travel or go anyplace where they were not in violation of the law. Since the law states that violation of a sensitive place is a felony a person exercising their constitutional guaranteed right to keep and bear arms could become a prohibited person.

The courts have ruled numerous times that exercising your rights does not rise to the level of allowing the cops to have a “reasonable suspicion” that a crime is happening. I.e. the cops can’t arrest you for protesting in a public square or trespass you for filming when you enter a government building (exceptions for certain secured buildings).

In Hardaway, Jr v Nigrelli (First Deputy Superintendent NY State Police) the judge found that NY’s ban on firearms in churches (et all) is unconstitutional. He goes on to say that most of the CCI is unconstitutional but because Hardaway is only challenging the restriction in churches that is all the TRO covers.

They way this works is that the plaintiffs go to a judge and request an injunction. The court then schedules a hearing. The parties are allowed to file different pleadings. Often times the party that expects to loss will request delays. Thus it could take months or even years before the case is actually heard by the judge.

The plaintiffs can request a temporary restraining order (injunction). The TRO remains in effect until the case is heard. This can force the parties to move more rapidly to the actual hearing.

In order for the judge to grant a TRO the judge must believe that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of the case. In other words, the judge believes that the plaintiffs will win. In some cases the judge will grant parts of the request and deny other parts.

We saw this in the Antonyuk v. Hochul (Governor of the State of New York). This is the GOA case where they are suing the state of New York over the complete CCI.

Plaintiffs thus seek emergency injunctive relief, in the form of a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction, halting enforcement and further implementation of this patently unconstitutional statute, until a decision on the merits can be reached.

In the second case the judge issued a TRO which blocked part of the CCI but allowed other parts to remain. He then held the TRO for 3 business days to allow the state to appeal the TRO, which they did. The appellate court blocked (held) the TRO. The judge is still likely to find the CCI unconstitutional when the case is finally heard but in the meantime the CCI stays in effect.

Except for the part about banning guns in churches. Hardaway, Jr v. Nigrelli has a TRO which does block that part of the CCI.

Another win for us.
Hardaway v. Nigrelli Decision and Order
GOA: COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (v CCI)