SASI

    I’m reporting on the saltwater fishing license proposal meeting, which took place, last night (9/18/23). In attendance were reps from SASI, NCFGA, NYS DEC’s Marine Division, LIBBA, CCA, MRAC and the NYS Sportsmen’s Association.
    We were advised that the federal government is about to impose a federal, $15, annually, saltwater fishing license, to be foisted upon any coastal state which doesn’t have a fee-based, saltwater fishing license. The only coastal states which do not have a fee-based saltwater license are Maryland, New Jersey and New York.
    The federal law, creating the federal, saltwater license, is part of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as it was re-authorized. in 2006. It was what some would call a hidden, time bomb.
    The federal funds, which NY’s saltwater sportfishing receives, as a result of the Dingell-Johnson Act (including the Wallop-Breaux Amendment) will be lost, if the feds impose their way. D-J/W-B fund distribution is nationally apportioned, among all 50 states, based on each state’s number of fee-based freshwater fishing license holders and the land area of the state, for freshwater fishing support and on each state’s number of fishing license holders, for saltwater fishing support.
    The way the amended, federal law is worded, NY, as well as MD and NJ, would not qualify for any federal money, for saltwater support, since we do not have a fee-based, saltwater fishing license. We would, also, loose 100% of the Dingle-Johnson/Wallop-Breaux monies we currently receive, for saltwater activities. That would cost each of those states tens of millions of dollars, each year, in monies currently received, to support saltwater fishing activities, such as jetty construction, dredging, boat launch ramp construction/maintenance/operation, saltwater fishing access points, beach erosion management, fishing piers/docks, artificial reef construction, etc.
    In the past, SASI, NCFGA and LIBBA have vehemently opposed, then defeated, a fee-based, saltwater fishing license, mostly because the funds were not scheduled to be dedicated to recreational saltwater fishing but being placed in the NYS Environmental Fund, the monies from which could and, routinely, are grabbed, by the commercial fishing industry, for their projects, as well as NYS’ general environmental projects, which would leave little to nothing, for the recreational, saltwater anglers or their activities.
    The way the current NY saltwater license proposal is structured, 100% of the monies could only be spent for recreational, saltwater fishing activity enhancement and improvement of recreational marine fishing abilities and marine regulation enforcement.
    At the moment, there are only 9 Environmental Conservation Officers (ECOs), in the Marine Division. Those 9 are responsible for enforcing recreational and commercial fishing regulations, along the coasts and within the saltwater/brackish areas of Manhattan, Bronx, Staten Island, City Island, Brooklyn, Queens, Block Island, Gardiner’s Island, plus all of the remainder of Nassau and Suffolk Counties. Among the uses, to which the new license income would be applied, are 5 more ECOs, for the Marine Division.
    The rest of the money would go to creating and maintaining new fishing piers/docks, launch ramps, artificial reefs, improved beach-fishing and access, etc., for the exclusive use of the recreational, saltwater anglers and could not be transferred, to any other state use, under any circumstances.
    According to the federal count, NYS has approximately 1,052,000 saltwater anglers. At an annual saltwater license fee of $10 ($5 less than the feds would charge us and from which they would give us nothing, on top of which we would loose all of the D-J/W-B funding), that saltwater fishing license would bring ±$10,000,000, annually, to be available to improve NYS’ saltwater, recreational fishing. That would be in addition to retaining all of the tens of millions we would continue to receive, through the Dingle-Johnson/Wallop-Breax funds.
    Among the features we believe should be implemented, if we adopt a NY saltwater fishing license are:
    1) saltwater license reciprocity, among at least NY, NJ, CT, RI and MA, all of which share saltwater fishing access areas,
    2) a combined fresh-saltwater fishing license, at a cost below that of the two combined,
    3) rolling the saltwater license into all existing lifetime freshwater licenses, without cost,
    4) rolling the saltwater license into all existing lifetime sportsman’s licenses, without cost,
    5) removing the licensing exemption, for those who fish only from party or charter boats,
    6) a senior (over 65) lifetime, fresh-saltwater fishing license, at no more than $35 and
    7) all hunting and fishing licenses should be converted, to a calendar year basis.

    Yes, there’s still a lot to be worked out and we will try to keep everyone posted, as we learn what is and isn’t going to happen.

    The attached PDF is from the NYS DEC's Marine Division, providing more details.

Folks:

    We'll be providing another free firearms-related educational event, for females only, on Saturday, October 7th, at Old Bethpage R&P Club, in West Babylon. Details, registration forms and driving directions are in the attached PDF. The class is limited, to 39 and, historically, fills early.

Gary

    If you’ve been following what’s happening, in the courts, as respects 2nd Amendment legislation, in NYS, you can’t help but be confused. Several federal courts have issued very pro-2A decisions, only to have them placed on hold, by the 2nd Circuit Court.
    Now, that the 2nd Circuit Court has placed every one of those federal courts’ decisions on hold, without explanation, Gun Owners of America (GOA) has moved to have the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS), review those apparently arbitrary holds. GOA was the driving force, behind the Antonyuk suit, which resulted in essentially dismantling NY’s clearly unconstitutional Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA). The appeal was assigned to Justice Sotomayor, a notoriously anti-2A justice but she is bound, as a SCOTUS Justice, by the prior SCOTUS’ decisions, in Heller 1, Heller 2, McDonald and, most recently, Bruen.
    She gave NYS a very short time, in which to make its case for not overruling the 2nd Circuit Court’s holds. NYS presented its case, on January 3rd, after which GOA replied, with its response to NY’s presentation.
    On January 11th, the SCOTUS issued a ruling, on the appeal of the stay of execution and, in doing so, declined to overrule the 2nd Circuit Court’s stay.
    On the surface, that might appear to be an anti-2A ruling. In fact, I see it as the exact opposite. SCOTUS wants it to go through the legal system so that, when it gets back to SCOTUS, they can destroy the CCIA, plus the anti-2A groups and anti-2A thinking processes, completely. By then, all of the arguments, which the anti crowd can dream up, will have been made and SCOTUS will have an unfettered hand, to apply the Bruen decision, plus its thoughts on the actions of NYS, in trying to get around the Bruen decision.
    You should read, very carefully, the first 3 sentences, in paragraph 3 of their ruling. They read as follows: “The New York law, at issue, in this application, presents novel and serious questions, under both the First and the Second Amendments. The District Court found, in a thorough opinion, that the applicants were likely to succeed, on a number of their claims and it issued a preliminary injunction, as to twelve provisions of the challenged law. With one exception, the Second Circuit issued a stay of the injunction, in full and, in doing so, did not provide any explanation for its ruling.” (Emphasis added)
    NYS, in its arrogance, is doing, for us, what we could never have accomplished, on our own, by totally disrespecting the SCOTUS and, in the process, committing legal suicide. We could not have made a better case than NYS is making, against itself and the anti-2A concept. NYS and any other jurisdiction, attempting to circumvent the Bruen decision, will pay for it, in spades, with the new Antonyuk decision. I expect the SCOTUS' ruling, in Antonyuk, to make the Bruen decision look like a footnote to a mild slap.

Gary

As most of your have, by now, heard, the GOA v Bruen suit was not successful, in obtaining its requested injunction, once Mr. Antonyuk changed his testimony, to claim that he had no problems, with any portion of the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA).

While the judge explained that he could not issue the injunction, because of the change in Mr. Antonyuk's testimony, he also explained, in detail, how, where and why the CCIA was, clearly, unconstitutional and that, had Mr. Antonyuk not changed his testimony, the injunction would have been issued.

Immediately, on the heals of the federal court's inability to issue the injunction, because of Mr. Antonyuk's changed testimony, NYSRPA filed a new suit, addressing many of the same issues as raised in the failed suit but, this time, with plaintiffs with confirmed "legal standing" (legalese, for vested interest).

The main problem, as I see it, with the new NYSRPA suit, is that it astonishingly avoids any complaint about the semi-auto rifle license and the age barrier presented along with it.

A copy of that new suit is attached, for your review.

Gary

NY's Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) is a punitive attempt, by the Democrat governor and Democrat-controlled state legislature, to circumvent the Supreme Court's decision in NYSRPA v Bruen, the explanation of both of which can be read, above.

As of this writing, three lawsuits have, already, been filed, against multiple of NYS' apparently unConstitutional firearms "control" laws, based on the Bruen decision, which NYS seems intent to violate, in every way it thinks possible or imaginable.

A copy of each of the lawsuits is attached, for your reading but in summary, they are as follows:

1) Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. v James (2:22-cv-04075) (to have NY’s “assault weapon” ban declared unConstitutional), GOA v Bruen (1:22-cv-00734-GTS-CFH) (to obtain an injunction, preventing implementation of NY’s so-called Concealed Carry Improvement Act, then have it’s terms declared unConstitutional) and 3) Paladino v Bruen (1:22-cv-00541) (to void NY’s so-called Concealed Carry Improvement Act as violations of the 1st, 2nd, 5th  and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution.

Gary