Tbf I also called a last min audible and said today for Thomas's birthday.
So actually no I wasn't wrong.. persay
NYSRPA v. Bruen, NY 2A Case Supreme Court case and decision
- Thread starter ManualF150
- Start date
Tbf I also called a last min audible and said today for Thomas's birthday.
So actually no I wasn't wrong.. persay
Now the question...
What will NY State do to hinder on a different level??
What will NY State do to hinder on a different level??
Live reading and analysis from a Lawyer (Fudd Buster)
NYS will ignore it...just like all DemonRat states do with all SCROTUM rulings they don't like.
They won't even try and go the 10th Amendment route because the 2nd clearly says that no one can "infringe" it - not fUSA.Gov or NYS.
But "they" do, and they always will.
Nazis gotta Nazi.
Maoists gotta Mao.
Whatever.
They won't even try and go the 10th Amendment route because the 2nd clearly says that no one can "infringe" it - not fUSA.Gov or NYS.
But "they" do, and they always will.
Nazis gotta Nazi.
Maoists gotta Mao.
Whatever.
Last edited:
subsonic
.44 mag
Unless the state jumps in and requires a reapplication that is not necessary. Judges can remove restrictions like any other amendment. Plenty of upstate counties issue hunting and target and then remove restrictions later if you ask. So they can and should remove them now based on this opinion and do it promptly. But antigun judges may drag their heels, and worst case scenario legislature could try to take away judges ability to grant amendments and require an enhanced application and BG check for carry. That would be a major change to the permit scheme as it exists but we can't put anything past the current regime.
If you have a restricted permit now figure out what you need to do and contact your judge ASAP to get it removed. If you don't have a permit then you should be able to apply for unrestricted now. But that process is only going to get worse--guaranteed.
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
The justices’ 6-3 decision is expected to ultimately allow more people to legally carry guns on the streets of the nation’s largest cities – including New York, Los Angeles and Boston – and elsewhere. About a quarter of the U.S. population lives in states expected to be affected by the ruling, the high court’s first major gun decision in more than a decade
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority that the Constitution protects “an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.”
In their decision, the justices struck down a New York law requiring people to demonstrate a particular need for carrying a gun in order to get a license to carry one in public. The justices said the requirement violates the Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms.”
www.thegatewaypundit.com
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority that the Constitution protects “an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.”
In their decision, the justices struck down a New York law requiring people to demonstrate a particular need for carrying a gun in order to get a license to carry one in public. The justices said the requirement violates the Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms.”
BREAKING: Supreme Court Decides on New York Gun Rights Case - Strikes Down Strict Concealed Carry Law | The Gateway Pundit | by Joe Hoft
BREAKING: The Supreme court just decided on the case between gun owners and New York State. The Gateway Pundit reported moments ago that the Supreme Court would likely rule on numerous cases within the next few days. We were right.
www.thegatewaypundit.com
maverick52
.223 Rem
Hochul is calling an emergency legislative session. It will get worse before it gets better
Anyone having issues with going to https://licensing.nypdonline.org/? Time to apply again. But the website keeps crashing on me.
Saltwater60
.950 JDJ
MaKe it $4,000 to get one.
subsonic
.44 mag
This ruling has a much bigger impact on a no-issue state like NJ. For friendlier upstate counties it's only likely to prompt the state to make our lives worse.
Of course it does, prambo nailed it above.
zorro
.357 mag
Require;
a psychologist report
require XXXXXX hours of training
require XXXXX hours of live fire training
require personal liability insurance
CCW permit $extreme cost
Off the top of my head
So not preventing it, just making life impossible, extremely costly and extremely time consuming to obtain
maverick52
.223 Rem
The question is - will that hold up in lower courts
Also: Only allowed 1 bullet purchase per year.
gunpoliticsny
6.5 Creedmoor
The proper cause, or "MAY" issue requirement is now deemed a violation of the Constitutional 2nd Amendment. The wording and ruling can place extension upon other restrictions... It will be interesting for sure!
Quote from ruling:
A pretty broad statement...
Another Quote:
So... Let's see where this goes! The COMMON USE guideline and multiple notation will undoubtedly lead to those challenging high capacity magazine restrictions a possible WIN as well...
Oh how the snowflakes are melting! Get ready for the flood of years!
Quote from ruling:
A pretty broad statement...
Another Quote:
So... Let's see where this goes! The COMMON USE guideline and multiple notation will undoubtedly lead to those challenging high capacity magazine restrictions a possible WIN as well...
Oh how the snowflakes are melting! Get ready for the flood of years!
mca90guitar
.357 mag
So what does this change? Sounds like we still have to go through the normal NY BS to get the permit. Only thing that changes is we don't have to explain why we should have restrictions removed?
Well, great ideas but they fail...
See:
"The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion). The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special
need. The Second Amendment right to carry arms in public for self-defense is no different. New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with
ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public. Pp. 62–63."
So...IMO, Requiring citizens to attend to NEEDS required by the government in order to exercise a RIGHT is here noted as being a violation of the Constitution! Period!
They could place requirements upon the firearms themselves, especially if not in "common use"...
Besides, let's all rejoice for a while before worrying about what's next! They (NYS) have undoubtedly been planning for this since they presented their miserable arguments and the feedback then was they failed! This isn't coming as a surprise to NY or the other States (MAY) issuing handgun carry licenses...
maverick52
.223 Rem
I think based on the opinion out NYS license will grant state wide access.
Saltwater60
.950 JDJ
Kathy is already crying about it and may call a special legislative section. It’s a victory, but I could see this spurring on the microstamping law to proceed.
Last edited:
RDN
.357 mag
Next, time to overturn NY ban on AR-15 and the like laws.
Strike down NY SAFE act!!!
Strike down NY SAFE act!!!
4WHLDRFTN
6.5 Creedmoor
Not so fast…
That about sums it up....
That_FNG
6.5 Creedmoor
This is awesome! Now nys can’t deny minorities and LGBTQ people from exercising their rights! To think that for over 100 years NYS could deny minorities and LGBTQ people who meet all the requirements, passed all the interviews, passed all the background checks and provided all the references from being able to exercise their rights simply because of their race, gender, sexual affiliation, political affiliation, religious views etc is shameful. It’s good to see common sense gun control reform being implemented against racist sexist laws.
There did I use one sides verbiage and wording against them ?
There did I use one sides verbiage and wording against them ?
camper4lyfe
.308 Win
At minimum, it removes the "proper cause" requirement that NYC and other states have for their permits. It also rejects the 2-step approach when ruling on 2nd amendment cases. Beyond that, the devil is in the details of the decision, details that I'm not smart enough to understand on my own.
kev74
20×102mm Vulcan
So... If the permit issuing official is no longer going to review applications for "proper cause", do they still get to review amendments?
Egret-II
.40 S&W
I'm watching the breaking news about the court ruling in favor of the Second Amendment. And the fucking news people look one if their family members just died. I have a question. I have a target restriction on my permit. Do I have to ask for the restriction to be removed. Or can I just carry with the restricted one? After all, the court said it's unconstitutional to restrict permits. Therefore, that restriction means nothing. And, What would happen now if you get stopped in NYC legally carrying a gun with a target permit?
It changes a lot...
MAY issue... To SHALL ISSUE!
MAY = Maybe if you're a good boy and we want to bestow the privilege upon you.
SHALL = The Govt cannot deny you UNLESS they can demonstrate a compelling reason WHY!