Debate: If The Safe Act Was Gone, What Would Happen?
- Thread starter DrBleachCocktail
- Start date
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
That bill hasn’t passed yet sir. And if it does, it’ll be because of law enforcement.
spat
.950 JDJ
NY would ignore the order from SCOTUS while the legislature quickly drafted a replacement that would probably be even more draconian. Then 10 years later when the replacement was overturned by SCOTUS they would rinse and repeat.
spat
.950 JDJ
I believe you are correct that SAFE just modified existing law, but SCOTUS doesn't rule on acts, they rule on the law as it exists.
They can't really repeal SAFE, they can only rule that the law as it exists after SAFE is unconstitutional.
So they would rule that certain portions of PL265 are null and void. That would not cause the law to revert to the pre SAFE version.
They probably wouldn't even void the law, they would rule that some parts are unconstitutional and hand it back to the 2nd circus to decide what that means.
nortatoga
.338 Win Mag
spat
.950 JDJ
The discussion in this thread seems to misunderstand how SCOTUS works.
They do not repeal acts.
They look at the law as it exists when the case is brought before them and identify defects with it and order corrections.
They would never say "The SAFE act is repealed" They would just list what's wrong with PL265 as it sits now.
Specifically they only rule on whatever is brought before them. So if the suit is about magazine capacity, they would strike down all bans, but nothing else.
That would nullify bans in many states passed under different acts by different legislatures, but leave other parts of those same acts intact.
It's very unlikely that their ruling would line up exactly to undo a specific legislative act completely.
Which act did Heller repeal ? Or McDonald ?
They didn't, they just said "you can't do what you're doing".
They do not repeal acts.
They look at the law as it exists when the case is brought before them and identify defects with it and order corrections.
They would never say "The SAFE act is repealed" They would just list what's wrong with PL265 as it sits now.
Specifically they only rule on whatever is brought before them. So if the suit is about magazine capacity, they would strike down all bans, but nothing else.
That would nullify bans in many states passed under different acts by different legislatures, but leave other parts of those same acts intact.
It's very unlikely that their ruling would line up exactly to undo a specific legislative act completely.
Which act did Heller repeal ? Or McDonald ?
They didn't, they just said "you can't do what you're doing".
technicalgadget
.223 Rem
I agree with this. The law can’t tell you what you can do, it can only tell you what you can’t.
A whole helluva lot of unneutered AR15s would be sold, and much happiness on ranges across the land. Other than that, nothing really. If unSAFE act goes, do you get standard capacity mags back? If so many much sales of magazines would occur also.
There would be zero affect on crime rates. If any correlatuon exists between gun legislation and gun crime it is that there is slightly less of the latter when there is also less of the former. Going statistics from the FBI and ATF gun laws don't do much of anything ton the crime rate in either direction, the rate of occurrence is steady. The big difference is that in states with liberal (in the classic sense ofntge term) gun laws is that there is a higher rate of failed attempts on the part of criminals.
Bad guys are always going to do what they do, but in the face of a well armed citizenry the will be less successful in their endeavors.
This is all verifiable if one looks at the data.
There would be zero affect on crime rates. If any correlatuon exists between gun legislation and gun crime it is that there is slightly less of the latter when there is also less of the former. Going statistics from the FBI and ATF gun laws don't do much of anything ton the crime rate in either direction, the rate of occurrence is steady. The big difference is that in states with liberal (in the classic sense ofntge term) gun laws is that there is a higher rate of failed attempts on the part of criminals.
Bad guys are always going to do what they do, but in the face of a well armed citizenry the will be less successful in their endeavors.
This is all verifiable if one looks at the data.
1911= recreational nostalgia
AK vs AR = have both
AR vs Mini = Mini who? For how much again?!
Glock vs everything else = Glocks are great so is a lot of everything else.
308 vs 6.5 = cheap surplus plinking vs LR sinper fantasies.
.45 vs 9mm = 15 9mms trump 7 .45s
10mm vs .357 Mag = automatic vs revolver
Jmac00
.475 A&M Magnum
In November of 2021, I WILL REPEAL the Safe act. By leaving New Yorkistan
Not sure if it was mentioned. But it isnt the Safe Act that prevents you from carrying in NYC
Last edited:
@thewheels
.308 Win
All this fantasizing over trashing unsafe through the courts and we can't even get Sullivan overturned. That trash is fetid and has been rotting our liberties for far longer.
Please may I have a permission slip to purchase a handgun?
Please may I have a permission slip to purchase a handgun?
No one ever goes after the Sullivan act (well ok Jim does in his cases but they are usually lesser cases and he tosses them in there as a long shot attempt)
Until recently were The Firing Pin LLC who plans to sue the state and go after the Sullivan act, the handgun licensing specifically
@thewheels
.308 Win
Really? They're actually targeting Sullivan? Had not seen that. Good for them. They asking for donations yet?
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
Would still like to know on what grounds Firing Pin is going to challenge the Sullivan Act as a plaintiff.
The amendment process. Since in NY you cant own (bear) a handgun unless you not only have a handgun license, but that handgun is registered on that license. With the permit offices being shut down that prevents someone from being able to obtain that gun not only due applying for the license but even those who have the license but need to file an amendment
***edit*** that is my speculation
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
And how does that directly harm The Firing Pin to the point where the Act needs to be reformed or repealed?
Recall that you have to have something that harms you in order to have legit grounds to sue.
Could harm their sales or even the owner himself could have "tried to purchase a handgun of his own" or employees or they are filing a larger lawsuit and taking in the Sullivan act as along with it..
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
Other than maybe your second hypothetical I don't buy it - and I don't think the owner would in that instance file suit as the business itself but rather as an individual. And I don't think he could file on behalf of his employees, either.
Not to say I want Sullivan to stand. I just doubt any court in NY would overturn Sullivan on the basis of its economic impact on businesses, and I don't see where anyone involved here yet to date has standing to challenge it (in this case) on constitutional grounds.
BTW- how could a holder of an FFL continue to hold an FFL if he gets denied for a handgun for whatever reason?
But that's my speculation, they havent announced and wont do so how they plan to go after the Sullivan act because well it's not a smart tactic to do that..
And who's saying anything about being denied a handgun? Who was denied a handgun?
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
You did.
"Could harm their sales or even the owner himself could have "tried to purchase a handgun of his own" or employees or they are filing a larger lawsuit and taking in the Sullivan act as along with it.. "
Though I suppose it could be viewed as "legally purchased but can't obtain." I'm just picking on ya. I would love to see that Act get the snot kicked out of it but this doesn't look like the case to do it.
You did.
"Could harm their sales or even the owner himself could have "tried to purchase a handgun of his own" or employees or they are filing a larger lawsuit and taking in the Sullivan act as along with it.. "
Though I suppose it could be viewed as "legally purchased but can't obtain." I'm just picking on ya. I would love to see that Act get the snot kicked out of it but this doesn't look like the case to do it.
Yea he could have tried to purchase a firearm but cant take actual possession of it because the offices is closed and so he cant file an amendment??? How that denied??
How many people on here talk about buying a handgun and have been waiting months before being able to take it home because of the amendment process in their area, does that mean they were denied? No it means they are waiting for their amendment, how do you file an amendment if the offices are completely shut down?
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
All I'm saying is we need better plaintiffs.
And just as a sidenote, I guarantee you one of the first things the state will use to defend the Act in any given case would be "no one is stopping you from buying a rifle or shotgun." Well, now they *are* stopping you from buying anything at all since all the shops are closed per order of the state.
And just as a sidenote, I guarantee you one of the first things the state will use to defend the Act in any given case would be "no one is stopping you from buying a rifle or shotgun." Well, now they *are* stopping you from buying anything at all since all the shops are closed per order of the state.
And if they do that then the same argument can be used from DC to get rid of their almost outright handgun ban
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
Depends. I don't know offhand what DC's policy is on long guns. I had in mind the poor gal in NJ who was stabbed to death in her front yard by her ex while she was still waiting on her NJ firearms ID - so she couldn't purchase *anything* to defend herself with.