gunpoliticsny
6.5 Creedmoor
The NYC City Council is expected to pass a resolution calling for the state legislature to enact a new restrictive carry law.
I don’t really see that being allowed to happen. There are people that love less than 50’ from schools and government buildings in my area. That would effectively eliminate their right to any firearm ever. I thought they had this issue years ago when they passed the no guns on school grounds law and had to modify it.The Supreme Court has set up years of arbitrary laws and lawsuits against them by failing to articulate a clear level of scrutiny for RKBA cases. The NYSRPA decision is the huge disappointment I feared.
Example: NY passes a law that no carrying within 500 feet of a school, government building, medical facility, or polling place. Good luck being able to walk around Manhattan without violating that 50 times a day.
The SCOTUS ruling specifically outlined the level of scrutiny that courts must use when hearing 2A cases.The Supreme Court has set up years of arbitrary laws and lawsuits against them by failing to articulate a clear level of scrutiny for RKBA cases. The NYSRPA decision is the huge disappointment I feared.
Example: NY passes a law that no carrying within 500 feet of a school, government building, medical facility, or polling place. Good luck being able to walk around Manhattan without violating that 50 times a day.
The SCOTUS ruling specifically outlined the level of scrutiny that courts must use when hearing 2A cases.
Now they've gone and done it. The criminals are shitting in their pants.The NYC City Council Committee on Public Safety and Committee on State and Federal Legislation will hold a joint oversight hearing on "access to firearms: city and state efforts to curb gun violence" at 10:00am today.
State? How about a chainsaw and tugboat? Tow em to Europe and beach em.Oh if only we could make NY City the 51st state!
Do they care, though?The SCOTUS decision has ruled that they can’t declare Manhattan a gun free zone. They spoke about attempting to make the subway a “ sensitive area” but it looks like it won’t pass muster. They already specifically allow CCW with a permit now and the language of the court makes it hard to do such a law.
The fact that any of these laws use utterly arbitrary things like "500 feet" is clear support of your view. I'm hearing they want to do 1000 feet within public transport. Why 1000 feet, why not 100 feet, why not 10 feet, or 50000 miles? It's arbitrary, used obviously to circumvent the intention of the scotus ruling. There isn't even a fallacious argument that can pretend a foot distance limit on carrying a gun near a school would ever make one shred of impact on anything at all. I get not allowing guns in a court house. But, say, within 500 feet of a court house what is the point of any of this?I stand by my comment that the SCOTUS has given us no clear standard of review.
It is a distance around a building rooted in history? I’d say no so it’s not allowed. I get the buildings property or the entrance, but not a distance around the building. Also how the hell would anyone know what 1000 feet is? You’re correct it’s 100% arbitrary.The fact that any of these laws use utterly arbitrary things like "500 feet" is clear support of your view. I'm hearing they want to do 1000 feet within public transport. Why 1000 feet, why not 100 feet, why not 10 feet, or 50000 miles? It's arbitrary, used obviously to circumvent the intention of the scotus ruling. There isn't even a fallacious argument that can pretend a foot distance limit on carrying a gun near a school would ever make one shred of impact on anything at all. I get not allowing guns in a court house. But, say, within 500 feet of a court house what is the point of any of this?
A very reasonable definition of a sensitive place should be: all ingress is controlled by armed security with pat downs or metal detectors. This would mean an airport, court house is sensitive--you don't need a gun for self defense in the security section of an airport because you have a reasonable belief that anybody with one has already been stopped from entering the area. But this would preclude them considering public transport, malls, etc. as sensitive because there is no means to control who in the area has what.
According to them, the criminals are the only ones supposed to be armed. Law abiding citizens are supposed to get shot and be on the evening news for less than 1 minute then forgotten about. Then more news about beaverface writing up more gun laws that prohibit law abiding citizens for protecting themselves against thugs.As the court exclaimed when NY protested this very thing during arguments in the case... The SCOTUS reply was that then by NY's efforts, ONLY the criminal would then be armed! Where then is the law abiding citizens ability to defend themselves?
They tried this in Chicago. They got smacked down by the courts.The fact that any of these laws use utterly arbitrary things like "500 feet" is clear support of your view. I'm hearing they want to do 1000 feet within public transport. Why 1000 feet, why not 100 feet, why not 10 feet, or 50000 miles? It's arbitrary, used obviously to circumvent the intention of the scotus ruling. There isn't even a fallacious argument that can pretend a foot distance limit on carrying a gun near a school would ever make one shred of impact on anything at all. I get not allowing guns in a court house. But, say, within 500 feet of a court house what is the point of any of this?
A very reasonable definition of a sensitive place should be: all ingress is controlled by armed security with pat downs or metal detectors. This would mean an airport, court house is sensitive--you don't need a gun for self defense in the security section of an airport because you have a reasonable belief that anybody with one has already been stopped from entering the area. But this would preclude them considering public transport, malls, etc. as sensitive because there is no means to control who in the area has what.
Apparently by "wild wild west" he means the same as the 43 states that were already doing things this way.So Mayor Adams said it was going to be "Wild, Wild West" in NY.... so it's been a couple days, and I haven't seen anything different, or am I missing something?
he doesn't. He just hasn't figured out how to force those 43 States to follow NYC firearm rules.Not sure why he thinks the residents of those 43 states are civilized enough to handle firearms and NYC residents aren’t.
I think maybe a whole other country. Then we can cut off the water, food, wall it off and sanction the leadership.Oh if only we could make NY City the 51st state!
Don’t beach em. Sink em.State? How about a chainsaw and tugboat? Tow em to Europe and beach em.