GlockModel29
.40 S&W
Are you a CCW holder and if so.....was it restricted prior to Bruen?
Temporary Restaining Order Issued For Concealed Carry Improvement Act (merged thread)
- Thread starter Glock_USA
- Start date
maverick52
.223 Rem
This is true. But the risk was having your permit revoked. Not the end of the world and could fight it in court. Now it’s a class d felony. That’s a risk few are willing to take. That’s what makes this law so egregious. If the penalty was something like a fine we wouldn’t even be talking about it. But a felony is over the top bullshit.
That question is both irrelevant, as this thread is not about me, and based on a false pretense, as Bruen changed nothing in the law relating to "restrictions" as "restrictions" are not mentioned in the law.
GlockModel29
.40 S&W
I agree with you 100%
GlockModel29
.40 S&W
U pretty much echoed what I said previously regarding revocation....
gun_slinger_boy
.338 Win Mag
This thread is very Tresmondesque
GlockModel29
.40 S&W
I asked you if you are a permit holder to possibly enable myself to get a better perspective of your point of view. Not sure why you don't wanna answer but its not a big deal. You have a great night...
I have presented my argument. There is no relevance in the requested red herring.
GlockModel29
.40 S&W
Like I said....not a big deal. Have a good night.
JunkBoxFull
6.5 Creedmoor
I would be very concerned about Justice Thomas`s words quoted in the article.
amp.cnn.com
Right from the article:
Alito's was an unusually strong statement that also urged the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals, which he said has issued "unreasoned" stays in parallel cases, to act with dispatch.
He may have been inspired to include such language because before the Bruen decision came down, the Supreme Court declined for years to take up a major Second Amendment case. At one point, Thomas lamented that "the Second Amendment is a disfavored right in this court."
Alito and Thomas encourage opponents of gun control laws to keep pressure on the courts | CNN Politics
Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas sent a strong signal Wednesday that they are very carefully watching to ensure federal courts do not thumb their noses at the high court’s landmark decision that expanded gun rights nationwide.
amp.cnn.com
Right from the article:
Alito's was an unusually strong statement that also urged the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals, which he said has issued "unreasoned" stays in parallel cases, to act with dispatch.
He may have been inspired to include such language because before the Bruen decision came down, the Supreme Court declined for years to take up a major Second Amendment case. At one point, Thomas lamented that "the Second Amendment is a disfavored right in this court."
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
SCOTUS is not sitting at home watching Netflix movies ... they are watching all these 2A cases NY , NJ , CA , ILL ... ect ..
like as Mark said .. they cant just say 2nd Circus you are a bunch of jerks and dumb asses .. they have to say the same thing in a polite way ..
like as Mark said .. they cant just say 2nd Circus you are a bunch of jerks and dumb asses .. they have to say the same thing in a polite way ..
misunderestimated
.223 Rem
they should have slapped the hand os NY and said Bruen tells us this is wrong and upheld the stay .and pushed the case along Stating , You have till next week to get this threw the courts
I don't.
ONE day where Rights are infringed is one day too many.
A lot can happen in 30 days. People can, and likely will, be killed because their right to protect themselves was infringed upon by this rogue state .gov.
US RIFLE M1A
.45 acp
This quote is from five years ago.
The history of 21st Century 2A jurisprudence in a nutshell is that both Heller (2008) and McDonlald (2010) were decided 5-4, with Justice Kennedy being the deciding vote.
Justice Scalia had to tone-down his opinion on Heller just for Kennedy to approve it; Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited... and so on. Scalia never would have repeated these qualifiers throughout the Heller decision on his own.
After Sandy Hook (2012) Kennedy went completely soft on supporting the 2A, and the landscape did not change into a reliable majority until all three of Trump's appointees were seated by October 2020. Even in Bruen, which was decided 6-3, SCOTUS experts were debating which way Roberts would go right up until the decision was released.
Noting that the two elder justices are the most conservative on the court, even a stretch of conservative Republican presidents for many years to come will not change the make-up of the court.
The quote above is from a different time, a time when CJ Roberts was the 5th Second Amendment supporter.... the best time for 2A advocates to strike hard against infringements is right now.
Last edited:
maverick52
.223 Rem
despite the bad history I do believe SCOTUS is watching and waiting for the right moment to strike. It’s like when police are watching and investigating a drug dealer. They could move right in but they wait till they have strong enough of a case to put the guy away. I believe that SCOTUS is watching all the cases and watching NY very closely. NYS already has a bad track record with the court going back to the NYC case that was mooted. That really pissed off the judges and wasted their time. I believe if the Second Circuit doesn’t act in line with Bruen “in reasonable time” SCOTUS will grant relief and possibly expand their ruling. I am also very hopeful that the safe act lawsuit will succeed too. SCOTUS is simply watching this play out and then will act when it’s the right time.
This is taken directly from page 13 of the Frey case. This is from the court filing.
69. Carrying a handgun outside of the restrictions imposed by a licensing officer, i.e., a licensee with a “target shooting” restriction possesses his/her handgun while at the grocery store, subjects the licensee to subjects the licensee to criminal prosecution, the revocation of his/her handgun license under the discretionary “good cause” and “moral character” factors of
§ 400.00(1) and the corresponding loss of all handguns.
70. Carrying a handgun outside of the restrictions imposed by a licensing officer subjects the licensee to a misdemeanor conviction and up to 1 year incarceration under Penal Law § 400.00(15).
Problem for me is "or explain its actions". They aren't saying to reverse it or they will. They are saying get it over with or explain why you did what you did.
ManualF150
.308 Win
I've mentioned this on here before... why is it that every time I go on MSM comments sections (especially when they allow a thumbs up or thumbs down), most ANY gun law or restriction there are usually many hundreds (to thousands) of thumbs downs and a very few hundred that have thumbs up? Along with hundreds if not thousands of comments telling the law makers to go pound sand that restrictions on law abiding citizens is not going to stop the crime.
That right there in an of itself shows something relevant and it's a good thing.
Another thing I'll mention... is that no matter how mad folks are at this situation, there is a right way and a wrong way to handle it. I think it shows how stable minded/level headed and professional a majority of gun owners are.
Going "George Floyd" or "1/6" is not going to help the situation and they will GIVE that reason to prohibit us from guns as it would be a threat. We don't want to look like the bad people.
US RIFLE M1A
.45 acp
Reference the recent note from Alito and Thomas.
They included in their very short-and-to-the-point note, TWO cases out of New York that are not on their (SCOTUS) docket. As Mark from the Diner said, there are thousands of cases active at any given time, and the two senior justices mentioned those two cases specifically - even though they are not on the SCOTUS docket.
As far as allowing the 2nd Circuit to 'explain' its decision to stay, the Justices are taunting the court to put up or shut up, knowing they have no reasonable way of justifying their stay in light of Bruen.
JunkBoxFull
6.5 Creedmoor
Well i can`t prove when it was said, i just happened to see it written in this particular article, dated Wed January 11, 2023
that another member here posted the link to. I just never figured words like that from Justice Thomas, no matter when it was said.
The rapist doesn't want to break any laws either, I'm sure. She needs to use common sense.
US RIFLE M1A
.45 acp
CNN used the quote out of context, they did so in order to lessen the impact the recent note from Alito and Thomas has with whomever reads the article. It has no bearing on the case.
The old saying about sausage making, attributed to several sources from Bismarck to Twain, is particularly relevant here. Constitutional law may end up with grandiose, society- and history-changing results., but the ingredients, including a hit-and-run stay from the Second Circuit, is one of many nauseating parts of the process.
Yesterday, SCOTUS reached down to the federal district courts and told them (Suddaby.SInatra and even Bumb) that they got it right. They smacked the 2nd Circuit as much as they could considering how little of their hand the Circuit showed. They told the plaintiffs that this is a process that WILL NOT play out for too much longer.
Legal motions are like that; you ask for something big, and the judge says NO, but that you were right in asking, and that the other side is THISCLOSE to the judge saying YES the next time the question is asked.
It happens all the time, and in law, is considered a victory.
It's not about stopping crime!!
5:01
English Bill of Rights the Stuart Kings
5:04
had not abolished the people's militia
5:07
but had simply taken away uh the
5:10
people's arms
5:11
or the arms of their opponents leaving
5:14
in place only a standing army and a
5:16
select militia dominated by their own
5:19
supporters
JunkBoxFull
6.5 Creedmoor
Makes sense, thank you!
She needs to move to a rape-free zone
GlockModel29
.40 S&W
US RIFLE M1A
.45 acp
When Justice Scalia read this opinion in 2008, there were two Constitutional carry states, Vermont and Alaska.
Today there are 25.
Last week, I drove 2,408 miles cross country, and never once removed my lawfully carried handgun from my hip.
I could have gone another roughly 500 miles (through Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine) doing the same, if I desired to travel that far.
I am not a police officer and thus, HR218 does not apply to me.
The last time anyone did that was probably in the first decade or so of the 20th Century. Until a few years ago, there were at least several states along the way in which I would have had to case my firearm for the trip through several of the states.
Even carry in Illinois was legal, in that we did not stop and leave the vehicle during our trip through that state.
The past few years have been historic in the progress we have made in regards to the Second Amendment.
And a felony conviction affects far more than just your gun rights. Voting rights (in some areas), employment opportunities, finance, housing options....most anything that requires a background check.
But I seldom hear people talk about those aspects of the consequences. Most just seem to be concerned that they will lose access to guns forever. They want to do far more than just disarm us.
This is a reflection of what I said in a previous post. Too many 2A proponents have tunnel vision and view this issue just within the scope of gun rights itself and they continue to try to fight this on one front. This is not just about gun rights, it is about the right to freedom itself. The gun right issue is just the tip of the spear.
FFS how many didn't even bother to vote? Bet it was more than 300K and bet it was some here as well. And don't anyone even bother to go on about the futility of it or how everything is fixed. That is no excuse to stop trying - that is forfeiture - it is just what they want and we feed into it with our own pessimism.
Last edited:
ManualF150
.308 Win
That is why I'm surprised some on here just "go about their day saying they just CCW" and ignore the new law. Especially when they have seen the law and commented on it in the same place where they post their intentions.
I would shut up or not say anything at all especially on the Internet.
As they say it... concealed is concealed. Say it on the Internet... it's not concealed no more in my eyes.
You don't go into a box store and start yelling "I'm CCWing in this private property of a store today!" because FU to the stupid laws... same principle of the matter.
Saltwater60
.950 JDJ
I know some do and do t like videos and yes I’m aware this video was posted previously but I think it’s important for every o e to listen to this and see the positives here. I have been very negative in regard to this process and this video and the supreme courts comments are the most positive things we have heard to date.
the Supreme Court said Suddaby’s decision was thorough indicating they agree with it.
they said that the 2nd acted without basis in this case as they have with other parallel cases. To me this indicates they have not decided other 2a cases properly and the SC has noticed.
The SC is following other NYS 2a cases and said that while permits are ok the way NYS is doing them maybe too costly or take too long. Yeah!
They also said if you don’t get the relief you seek at the 2nd come back and we will act quickly.
They also indicated the denial of the stay is procedural and only out of respect for the 2nd and that they will get this right. Essentially saying you’d better get this right. I personally hope it goes all the way because I’m now confident the SC will take it and act quickly. That’s what we need. We can’t have this drag on for a long time.
To me this is the most positive news we have heard to date.
Here is the video again and it’s very positive news.
the Supreme Court said Suddaby’s decision was thorough indicating they agree with it.
they said that the 2nd acted without basis in this case as they have with other parallel cases. To me this indicates they have not decided other 2a cases properly and the SC has noticed.
The SC is following other NYS 2a cases and said that while permits are ok the way NYS is doing them maybe too costly or take too long. Yeah!
They also said if you don’t get the relief you seek at the 2nd come back and we will act quickly.
They also indicated the denial of the stay is procedural and only out of respect for the 2nd and that they will get this right. Essentially saying you’d better get this right. I personally hope it goes all the way because I’m now confident the SC will take it and act quickly. That’s what we need. We can’t have this drag on for a long time.
To me this is the most positive news we have heard to date.
Here is the video again and it’s very positive news.