NYSRPA v Bruen #2

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.


NYSRPA v Bruen #2 complaint.pdf (2.9MB)
Comments are closed