Hey, everybody, let’s start today out with another victory. Back on December 18, I told you that the Second Amendment foundation had assisted some individuals with suing the, the Courtland Housing Authority in New York. Because what they did with your lease is if you chose to live in their, their housing, then you had to give up your second amendment. That’s right. They banned the second Amendment on their property.

I don’t remember seeing that anywhere in the Constitution. Nope. And neither did the second amendment foundation. So they brought a suit, and it has turned out thus far to produce something good. Before I jump into it, I want to thank the sponsor of the video, and that is Tristar trading. I love this shirt, the Ragland T, the old baseball styled shirts, and of course, the theme of 2024, in addition to solidarity, is disobey links down below.

I love this shirt. Tons of new items. Look at their website. I think you’ll find some stuff you’ll like. Thank you for supporting the channel. All right, so back to this lawsuit. Well, yesterday we got a temporary restraining order, and Judge Sudabi, you may have heard his name before up in the second circuit, he had some cool things to say. Here’s the beginning of his decision. So you can just see the heading, and let’s get to the relevant background.

It says, generally liberally construed. Plaintiff’s original complaint alleged that Cortland Housing Authority, a New York state public housing authority that receives federal funding and houses tenants, categorically bans the housing authority tenants, including the three individual plaintiffs who live in the Galatia apartments, from possessing firearms and other weapons on CHA premises by requiring them, as a condition of receiving the benefit of CHA public housing, to enter into a standing residential lease agreement, which provides that the tenant shall be obligated not to display, use, or possess, or allow members of the tenant’s household or guests to display, use, or possess any firearms, operable or inoperable, or other weapons, as defined by the laws and the courts of the state of New York, anywhere on the property of Cha generally.

Based on these factual allegations, plaintiffs’complaint asserted two claims against the defendants. One, a claim by all plaintiffs against all defendants that the defendant’s firearm ban, facially and, as applied to the plaintiffs, violates their right to keep and bear arms in their homes under the Second Amendment as incorporated against the states through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment and two, a claim by the individual plaintiffs against all defendants that the defendant’s firearm ban, facially and as applied to plaintiffs, violates their right not to be impermissibly discriminated against based on their status as elderly, disabled, and financially disadvantaged individuals who make their homes in public housing facilities under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Generally. As relief for these claims, the original complaint sought injunctive relief, declaratory relief, damages, and attorneys fees. The amended complaint generally liberally construed. The plaintiff’s amended complaint alleges facts similar to those alleged in their original complaint. In addition, the plaintiff’s amended complaint elaborates on the two public benefits received by CHA tenants from the defendants and the reservation by those tenants of their constitutional rights upon receiving those benefits and two, elaborates on the approval by two other federal courts of stipulated settlement of similar firearms bans and three, asserts new factual allegations regarding defendants censorship of plaintiff Hunter’s First Amendment speech on the CHA Facebook page.

Generally, based on these factual allegations, the plaintiff’s amended complaint asserts four claims against the defendants. One, a claim by all plaintiffs against all defendants that the defendant’s firearm ban facially and as applied to the plaintiffs, violates their right to keep and bear arms in their homes under the Second Amendment as incorporated against the states through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment two, the claim by a plaintiff hunter against all defendants that defendant’s censorship of his protected speech on the CHA Facebook page violates his right of free speech under the First Amendment as incorporated through the 14th Amendment three, a claim by plaintiff Hunter against all defendants that the defendant’s deletion of his disagreement with the firearms ban on their CHA Facebook page violates his right to petition the Government for redress of grievances under the First Amendment as incorporated through the 14th Amendment.

And finally four, a claim by the individual plaintiffs against all defendants that the defendant’s firearm ban facially and as applied to the plaintiffs, violates their right not to be impermissibly discriminated against based on their status as elderly, disabled, and financially disadvantaged individuals who make their homes in public housing facilities under the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. So in reading this decision, I think it was 29 pages long, if I remember right, last night I fell asleep reading it and had to wake up again and reread it.

The judge, Judge Sudebe, he’s been a friend of the Second Amendment in all the challenges in the seconds thus far. He said this, which was pretty cool. After carefully considering the matter, the court finds that the plaintiffs have demonstrated a substantial likelihood on the merits of their first claim for the reasons stated by them in their memorandum of law. To those reasons, the court adds four points which are intended to supplement and not supplant the plaintiff’s reasons.

First, as a threshold manner, the court has trouble accepting the defense counsel’s argument that public housing was assuredly not something that the founding fathers could have contemplated at the time of the drafting of the Constitution or the time of the drafting of the Second Amendment, because it just did not exist. Second, in any event, the court is dutifully mindful of the Second Circuit’s directive that courts must be particularly attuned to the reality that the issues we face today are different than those faced in the founding era, the antebellum era, and reconstruction.

Thus, the lack of a distinctly similar historical regulation, though again no doubt relevant, may not be reliably dispositive in second amendment challenges to laws addressing modern concerns. That’s the Antonyuk case. We’re waiting to hear on that as well. In a second, the court is also mindful of the Supreme Court’s similar directive that the constitution must apply, and that’s the bruin decision. As a result, the court will faithfully trace the analytical inquiry proposed by defendants.

Third, defendants’justification also teeters precariously on their assertion that the firearms ban is not categorical in nature, given that tenants may supposedly possess rifles, shotguns, and crossbows on ChA property without breaching the lease. Even if the court were persuaded by this assertion, the Supreme Court in Heller specifically rejected it as a ground for finding such firearm regulation constitutional. Fourth, and finally, the court does not understand plaintiffs to be arguing that they may, under the Second Amendment, bear a firearm in self defense in the common areas of Cha property.

Rather, the court understands plaintiffs to be arguing that merely that they may, under the Second Amendment, securely transport their firearms to and from their home throughout the common areas of CHa property in compliance with New York state law. So let’s jump right into the judge’s decision, says ordered the plaintiff’s consolidated motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction is granted. And it is further ordered that the defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those acting in concert with them are temporarily enjoined from taking any action to enforce or otherwise requiring any person or entity to comply with the firearms ban as set forth in tenant obligations in Article nine, section P Papa, of defendant’s standard residential lease agreement, pending final resolution of this action, except to the extent that it prohibits the display, use, or possession of firearms in common areas, grounds, or parking areas of the property of Cha in violation of New York state law.

And it is further ordered that the plaintiffs are excused from giving security. So, Jared, what does that mean in plain English. The judge said the housing authority cannot enforce any sanctions against anybody who keeps a firearm in their apartment for their own personal safety. Allah Heller, the rest of the area where he said, except for these common areas, that’s being challenged in the second, those are one of the one, two, three.

I think it’s five cases against Kathy Hoekle that the second circuit is. We’re waiting for them to come back with a decision. I’m thinking in the springtime, March, April, we’ll get that. And Kathy Oakle is going to get her teeth kicked in for violating the second amendment. So another win against the unconstitutional tyrant emperor wannabe Kathy Hochel in New York and her housing authority that runs under the government’s purview.

So congratulations to those who are part of the case. Congratulations to second Amendment foundation, y’all. I always say support those who support you in the description of every one of my videos is a link where you can support and join the Second Amendment foundation. Do it. They do phenomenal things and they are deserving of our support. They have a ton of cases. Now. Last I talked to Adam and Lauren, I think it was 50, I could be wrong, 54, 57, something like that.

That’s a lot of cases going at the same time. And of course, the membership, we are the ones who are funding that. So give them a little extra when you can and subscribe to this channel if you want to stay in the know. With victories like this one, twist each other again, you know what to do. Carry a gun. It’s your right. Because when you need it, cops ain’t going to be around.

Enough said. See you on the next one. Take care. Our close. .

See more of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News on their Public Channel and the MPN Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News channel.