NY city leaders don't have to fall into the trap the NRA is laying for them...
- Thread starter livingston
- Start date
Modean
.223 Rem
Oh heaven forbid that SCOTUS should protect the rights of citizens by actually upholding the Constitution. The horror!
kev74
20×102mm Vulcan
I like reading articles where the left is scared and defensive instead of belligerent and on the offense.
Jmac00
.475 A&M Magnum
De Blasio is going to go into melt down
Suck my...
Ooops, take that back. I just saw where the writer is from.
Ooops, take that back. I just saw where the writer is from.
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
NYSRPA VS NYC .. where the F did they come up with its the NRA LMFAO ..
Hillbilly77
6.5 Creedmoor
The article says that the NYSRPA is "the New York affiliate of the National Rifle Association".
A quick glimpse at the NYSRPA website says they are, "the official NRA-affiliated State Association in New York".
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
just a Affiliate LOL .. now how many $$$$ did the NRA chip in ?? i bet a big fat ZERO ..
ProgSpear
.338 Win Mag
From the blatant lies and propaganda this Fargin icehole bastich corksoaker used to support a constitutionally correct law change, it’s vey clear they’re hoping this will firewall SCOTUS from taking up any other pending 2A cases. Seriously, the gravity of deciding certain fundamental rights warrants waiting 10, 12, 15, or even 20 years for just the right case.
I’m looking forward to SCOTUS striking it down, and hopefully May Issue, Sullivan, and UnSafe with it if they rule in favor of requiring strict scrutiny.
But,... I am increasingly concerned about Roberts.
But,... I am increasingly concerned about Roberts.
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
Wait until NYC 5 round limit for long guns is challenged-lol
Bigfoot
.475 A&M Magnum
From the article,
"It’s true that allowing New York City residents to transport guns outside the city would entail certain public safety risks,"
The quote above has me thinking, WTF... How? ... I would like to know "how" it would entail certain public safety risks.
When I transport my guns outside of my town, or county. how does that entail certain public safety risks?
What's the difference?
Am I missing something? ... Because from where I am sitting, that makes no sense to me what so ever.
The author can't be referring to the criminal element because they don't give two shits about breaking laws anyways.
So he must be talking about the law abiding gun owners with legally owned guns.
This Saturday I'm going from my home in Genesee county (with a couple of guns) to Wyoming county to do some target shooting with a friend... How exactly does that entail certain public safety risks? What's the difference for the NYC legal gun owner?
Either the author is a moron, or I am completely missing something here.
"It’s true that allowing New York City residents to transport guns outside the city would entail certain public safety risks,"
The quote above has me thinking, WTF... How? ... I would like to know "how" it would entail certain public safety risks.
When I transport my guns outside of my town, or county. how does that entail certain public safety risks?
What's the difference?
Am I missing something? ... Because from where I am sitting, that makes no sense to me what so ever.
The author can't be referring to the criminal element because they don't give two shits about breaking laws anyways.
So he must be talking about the law abiding gun owners with legally owned guns.
This Saturday I'm going from my home in Genesee county (with a couple of guns) to Wyoming county to do some target shooting with a friend... How exactly does that entail certain public safety risks? What's the difference for the NYC legal gun owner?
Either the author is a moron, or I am completely missing something here.
Last edited:
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
It’s funny. NYC alllows then to transport the guns around the city to gun ranges IN the city but not to a gun range OUTSIDE the city for the safety of the city.
Mr. terzmo
.308 Win
when was 2nd amendment confined to the "HOME" I can't read where the right to bear arms is limited to a persons home. America is our Home anyways.
Paxal
.223 Rem
It’s always the NRA.
Bigfoot
.475 A&M Magnum
The way the NRA has been doing things as of late, (bump stocks, red flag laws)
I'm surprised that the gun grabbers aren't donating to the NRA.
It's not like the NRA has been doing our side any favors lately... LOL ... FACEPALM.
Bigfoot
.475 A&M Magnum
Here is another gem from the article,
"our communities simply cannot withstand newfound constitutional protections for violent “good guys with a gun."
There is a time and place for violence,,, and a "good guy with a gun" would be one of those times.
WTF is wrong with this guy? --- That's like saying "violent law abiding citizen"
Once again, the author makes no damn sense.
"our communities simply cannot withstand newfound constitutional protections for violent “good guys with a gun."
There is a time and place for violence,,, and a "good guy with a gun" would be one of those times.
WTF is wrong with this guy? --- That's like saying "violent law abiding citizen"
Once again, the author makes no damn sense.
Last edited:
Bigfoot
.475 A&M Magnum
Because they keep bring them back!
Phazer
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Law enforcement officials have discretion to deny carry licenses to applicants with a history of violence.
Ummm...no. In NYC, NYS, as well as all "may issue" jurisdictions, law enforcement has the discretion to deny permits to applicants for any arbitrary reason that must then be challenged, at great personal expense, by the applicant. Even then, permitting is hardly guaranteed.
Anti-gun authors are willfully ignorant about the topics about which they write.
C3D
.308 Win
Interesting take by this guy. If you read his profile, his views were formed by the LIRR massacre. Never mind the fact that an armed citizen with a gun could have stopped Colin Ferguson’s rampage.
But as a legal argument the concept of NYPD changing the rule now won’t work. The legal explanation is by dropping the regulation, the NYPD would cause the plaintiff to lose “standing” to bring the suit since they can no longer be harmed and the challenge is void for mootness.
However there is a doctrine that prevents the exact maneuver this guy is advocating, namely, to prevent a government entity from taking away standing from those who sue it. That is called “conduct capable of repetition”. Essentially, since the City can drop and re-adopt the regulation at will simply through an administrative act by the Police Commissioner, it needs to be decided to ensure that the harm does not happen again. Otherwise the City could continually adopt the reg and drop it when challenged, then reinstate it.
But as a legal argument the concept of NYPD changing the rule now won’t work. The legal explanation is by dropping the regulation, the NYPD would cause the plaintiff to lose “standing” to bring the suit since they can no longer be harmed and the challenge is void for mootness.
However there is a doctrine that prevents the exact maneuver this guy is advocating, namely, to prevent a government entity from taking away standing from those who sue it. That is called “conduct capable of repetition”. Essentially, since the City can drop and re-adopt the regulation at will simply through an administrative act by the Police Commissioner, it needs to be decided to ensure that the harm does not happen again. Otherwise the City could continually adopt the reg and drop it when challenged, then reinstate it.
There’s no turning back now. They’re going to rule on it, they’re going to rule in our favor on it, and they’re going to use this case to upend a lot of bullshit infringements that previous courts have ignored.
@thewheels
.308 Win
fify
Different Drummer
.44 mag
What the article suggests is exactly what Nassau County did in the Napolitano case. Dragged the guy through months of litigation and legal costs and then capitulating at the final moment prior to an inevitable defeat.
Something needs to be done to prevent this tactic.
Something needs to be done to prevent this tactic.
RBean
.40 S&W
My take is that if the Supreme Court (at least some of the Justices) did not intend to overturn this law, they never would have taken the case. So I think we win. The question is by how much. NYC can't control activities out side the city. That is beyond their jurisdiction. They use the unlimited discretion of the Police Commissioner as the Pistol Permit Officer to control his subjects. If you don't follow his ultra vires regulation, he revokes your pistol license. So I think the whole discretion/may issue subject will be before the Court.
Same thing as my Nassau County cases. They decided that if they suspend or revoke your permit, you can't possess long guns. No authority under the law to do this. They say that by accepting a permit you agree to abide by all their BS regs in their pistol license handbook, which includes the long gun prohibition. Its like Alice in Wonderland.
Same thing as my Nassau County cases. They decided that if they suspend or revoke your permit, you can't possess long guns. No authority under the law to do this. They say that by accepting a permit you agree to abide by all their BS regs in their pistol license handbook, which includes the long gun prohibition. Its like Alice in Wonderland.
My club president is one of the plaintiffs in this case. I overheard him talking about it at our last USPSA match. I’m fairly certain I heard him telling someone else that the attorneys said there’s no stopping it now that Scotus has accepted the case.
RBean
.40 S&W
He says "Law enforcement officials have discretion to deny carry licenses to applicants with a history of violence." Yes they do, and they consider breathing to be violence. So if you have ever, do now or ever will breath, you don't get a license. We all know that no body get a carry license unless they are "very rich", politically connected are a friend of the Commissioner of Police.
The tactic worked in Napolitano re the Preliminary Injunction, but the case will continue because it is a "repeatable violation." Same with the NYSRPA case.
The tactic worked in Napolitano re the Preliminary Injunction, but the case will continue because it is a "repeatable violation." Same with the NYSRPA case.