maverick52
.223 Rem
Looks like all liberal media outlets are indicating the law will be struck down. The arguments from Barbara Underwood were disastrous. I can’t see how this doesn’t go our way.
NYSRPA v. Bruen, NY 2A Case Supreme Court case and decision
- Thread starter ManualF150
- Start date
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
If one is god fearing time to send a prayer upstairs .....
Phazer
.338 Win Mag
Things can always get worse.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
The real losers may be people who already have full carry.
In NY right now, once you get an unrestricted, you actually have a greater ability to carry than permit holders in very permissive states.
I have both a NY unrestricted and an AZ permit, I can actually legally carry in more places in NY than I can AZ.
In NY a "no guns" sign on a private business is a suggestion. "what they don't know won't hurt them" is the order of the day.
NY is likely to change that.
In AZ (and most states where carry is common) a business can post a legally binding sign that makes it a crime in their establishment.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
But, with shall issue, you could force them to follow the 6 month statute.
Right now they just have to give you an answer in 6 months. If you insist, then the answer is "no".
If any "no" needs to be legally justified, then you can sue at 6 months and a day and demand an answer.
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
"The Truth About Guns" Discussion of Today's Second Amendment Argument
The 40-minute long discussion included our own David Kopel, Joseph Greenlee (Firearms Policy Coalition), Cody Wisniewski (Mountain States Legal Foundation),...
reason.com
27 mark on is very interesting...
This is how it should be. If my sign says no guns and it's private property you shouldn't be allowed on it if you are carrying. Public property is another story all together.
Take a look at the cases where Kavanaugh and Barrett sided with the libtards - it is a substantial number.
Another of Trump's errors after having shitbag advisors and not clearing the decks of Obola "leave behind" agents.
gunpoliticsny
6.5 Creedmoor
I bet they wish she was wearing a plastic bag over her head.
Phazer
.338 Win Mag
Would a favorable ruling here have any bearing on national reciprocity? After all, any state permit would become a de facto carry permit.
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
Supreme Court hears arguments on scope of gun rights in major Second Amendment case | full audio
ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
If that were to happen, talk about some petty B.S.. You'd think the state would have as much respect for a legal ruling as it would expect it's citizens to have, but then you have this childish crap. The state should not have the ability to skirt a legal ruling any more than the average citizen. Which makes me wonder why there isn't a branch of law enforcement that enforces court rulings. If states do not respect court rulings, especially rulings that correct the state's laws as being unconstitutional, then there really is no co-equal branch of the judiciary and the state (obviously with New York) has zero regard for civil rights and the Constitution of this country.
ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
I am surprised by this. In Utah, businesses can only ask you to leave, there is no force of law. I can carry in most state buildings, even the state Capitol and in schools with my CCW.
Schools - Utah Carry Laws
DrBleachCocktail
.44 mag
Can anyone answer this question. I know this case is NYS SPECIFIC but what will happen to NYC? Because NYC is still part of NYS. During the oral arguments one of the judges said something in the realms of different counties have different license and it’s a bit confusing why not just have one permit for the state. Something like PA where if you have a license you’re good to carry anywhere in PA where legally allowed. I think going down this slope separating NYC from NYS is creating dangerous precedents where other state can say well in this city we’re not allowing full carry because XYZ thus creating this issue that we are tying to solve in the first place.
Phazer
.338 Win Mag
For those who have taken issue with the Sullivan Act, Alito mentioned it during oral arguments.
[From the transcript]
JUSTICE ALITO: There's a --there's a debate about the --the impetus for the enactment of the Sullivan Law, is there not? There's --there are those who argue, and they cite --they cite support for this interpretation --that a major reason for the enactment of the Sullivan Law was the belief that certain disfavored groups, members of labor unions, Blacks and Italians, were carrying guns and they were dangerous people and they wanted them disarmed.
[From the transcript]
JUSTICE ALITO: There's a --there's a debate about the --the impetus for the enactment of the Sullivan Law, is there not? There's --there are those who argue, and they cite --they cite support for this interpretation --that a major reason for the enactment of the Sullivan Law was the belief that certain disfavored groups, members of labor unions, Blacks and Italians, were carrying guns and they were dangerous people and they wanted them disarmed.
Last edited:
Xae289
.223 Rem
Agreed, but part of the issue is that in NY, it's kind of a non-issue. You really just don't see "no guns" signs in NY, or at least not around my parts. You have way more of them in pro-gun Texas than here. Getting a full carry is very difficult, but there are way fewer restrictions here than in many pro-gun states on what you can do and where you can go while armed. That will probably change if the NYSRPA wins.
That said, I'd gladly trade not being able to go armed to as many places if that means that the right to carry concealed is treated like a right in public instead of as a privilege. I certainly wouldn't call full-carriers losers in that scenario. You'd be trading the convenience of having something so rare that it flies under the radar for real protection of the law. After all, what's to stop the government from arbitrarily downgrading you in the future if the case doesn't go in favor of the second amendment? Maybe a wave of people who were given token "full carry" get them downgraded.
ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
I can see both sides of this. However, do you think it okay that a landlord, should be able to deny tenants their civil rights, because it's their property? And if so, where is the line drawn? Should it be legal for someone to commit murder on their "private property"? Deny entry because of the color of their skin? Why is it okay to discriminate for this but not that? We have to stop thinking of the 2nd amendment as a second class right ourselves if we are going to get anywhere.
Yes as long as it's communicated and in writing at lease time. Leases have restrictions all the time.... no smoking, no pets, etc. Just because you have a right to do something doesn't mean you have a right to do that thing on other peoples property. You have a right to put up signs under the 1A, but not in my yard. Now if it wasn't part of the lease agreement, that's too damn bad for the land owner for not setting use terms.
No, murdering someone isn't a property right. You can't legally murder me if I put up a sign in your front lawn. You aren't depriving me of my 1A rights by not allowing me to post whatever signage in your yard that I want to. The same logic applies to the 2A.
Yes. If I don't want you on my property, that's my business as to why. It's my property, not yours. Not welcome means not welcome.
I think it's fine for a private property owner to discriminate for any reason they see fit, including both reasons you provided.
It's not a second class right, you just don't have a right to exercise your rights on other peoples property if they say no. Your rights are protected from the government, not private entities. You can go onto public property or your own and exercise your rights until the cows come home. If you disagree, I'm coming to your house to erect the biggest pro Joe Biden sign ever and there's nothing you can do about it because I have a 1A right to free speech.
Last edited:
JaguarJaguarGolf
6.5 Creedmoor
Can I vote by mail from an apartment I rent from you?
Can I write a letter to my Congressman? To an Editor?
Can I pray to my God?
Can you share even one example of that? Those are ridiculous items. The first two lines aren't even related to the use of the property. Your mailbox is technically US govt. property so a landowner can't regulate their usage.
For the last item, it depends. Is it restricted in the lease form participating in that activity on the property?
Last edited:
Ehhhhhh, we had control of both houses (2016) and NOTHING was done in regard to a National Reciprocity Law, ie, same as Drivers License... They wasted time bickering over bullshit!
Interesting arguments today, but I see much deflection and tip toeing around the real issue. The application of scrutiny to the 2A!
Why did nobody present the constraints applied to those wishing to exercise their 2A Right, to that of Voting? Huh? Why not!? Why do they skip over this all the time!
If the Right, or here "Permission" is granted to a citizen via scrutinizing the Right, placing encumbrance and difficulty upon him/her to exercise that right, deemed only permissible with proper cause...
Then it isn't a fucking RIGHT!
Simple...
Try applying all that bullshit to Voting! Let's go! Let's see how that works out...
I have hopes for everyone, ultimately I'll be leaving soon (NY), so my investment is low in this. Yet again, I hold bated breath with the SCOTUS because I don't see them kicking Big Time NY in the teeth to straighten them out! They already gave a pass to NYC because despite their decades of violating residents rights, they promised to change! Fucking bunch of bullshit!
ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
Well okay then. As long as you are consistent in that and are okay with being on both ends of that sentiment, I can respect that. But like I said, I can see both sides of the argument and I just don't think that it's that cut and dry. I completely agree with property owners ability to be discriminating and have control over their domain....I also don't think people ascend to a position where they can deprive or ignore other peoples natural rights because they happen to be standing on private property. I think a lot of it has to do with intentions. I also think that certain biases are unfortunately more socially acceptable than others and while you may be equally okay with denial because of guns or skin tone, courts and or public opinion, may not and I don't necessarily think that is okay.
Acer-m14
.950 JDJ
spat
.700 Nitro Express
It's actually pretty common in states that adopted CCW early.
There are very specific requirements for it to be legally binding though. Some random no guns sign doesn't cut it.
In AZ they actually have to provide secure storage for you if they want to prohibit carry. So for it to matter they need some lockers for you to store it in or something, along with very specific signage.
TX I know has a similar arrangement, they have a very specific sign. IIRC they call it a 30.06 sign because that is the section of law it was defined in.
Post a different sign, or the wrong size and it might as well not be there.
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
So I take it you support doing away with the Filibuster?
Rejects Cornyn Concealed Carry... - S.649: A bill to ensure that all individuals who...
Senate Vote 100 - On the Amendment S.Amdt. 719 to S. 649 (Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of2013). Amendment Rejected, by a margin of 3 votes. See how your representative voted.
projects.propublica.org
Senate Vote 100 - Rejects Cornyn Concealed Carry Reciprocity Proposal
| Bill: | S.649 - A bill to ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed i... |
| Description: | To allow reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms. |
| Result: | Amendment Rejected by a margin of 3 votes (60 percent majority needed to pass) |
| Date: | April 17, 2013 at 5:06 p.m. EDT (vote source) |
| R | D | I | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | 44 | 13 | 0 | 57 | 13 44 |
| No | 1 | 40 | 2 | 43 | 40 1 2 |
| Other* | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Phazer
.338 Win Mag
Majority of court appears dubious of New York gun-control law, but justices mull narrow ruling - SCOTUSblog
This article was updated on Nov. 3 at 5:15 p.m. When Wednesday’s oral argument in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen drew to a close after roughly two hours of debate, it seemed likely that New York’s 108-year-old handgun-licensing law is in jeopardy. But the justices’ eventua
Underwood’s response – that an applicant’s claims “are examined by a licensing officer,” who can presumably consider an applicant’s entire situation – prompted Kavanaugh to voice another concern. If the official who determines whether to issue the license has discretion in making that decision, Kavanaugh suggested, “that seems inconsistent with an objective constitutional right.”
Roberts made a related point in his questioning of Fletcher. He told Fletcher that, with other constitutional rights, the Constitution “gives you that right, and if someone’s going to take it away from you, they have to justify it.” Why, Roberts asked, should citizens need to prove that they are entitled to – or have a special need to – exercise their constitutional right to carry guns outside the home for self-defense?
Bustedknees
.308 Win
I like being special with an unrestricted carry, now I'll be like everyone else . 
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
It has been a long time that we in NY have had any hope over revoking these anti-gun laws .. We have a glimmer ...
Phazer
.338 Win Mag
I'm still trying to figure out how NYS will contort permitting schemes if SCOTUS finds the current law to be unconstitutional. Never underestimate an opponent that "knows," to the very core of their existence ,that they are right in their belief when their philosophy is challenged.
You can bet that they'll quickly pass California-like firearms restrictions by instituting an approved firearms list and limiting the number of firearms that can be purchased in some unit time. unSAFE Act II will close any loopholes left in the initial unSAFE Act. At that point, after having made a major recent ruling, SCOTUS will be loathe to take on another 2A case for a long, long, time. So, our victory could be greatly diminished when the only firearms we are permitted to carry are revolvers after all semiautomatic firearms are banned.