NY's Vindictive Plans for carry - special session next week to respond to SCOTUS's ruling. (Merged)

Cavalry

Cavalry

.308 Win
Messages
4,838
Reaction score
8,488
Location
Behind Enemy Lines
They are quite the bunch of sore losers, not that they even lost that much.

Thus far I have heard the handwringers plans to;

-completely ignore any rulings, the Supreme Court is void
-limit guns in public places (public transportation specifically) and I am sure anything else they can think of
-limit guns in businesses (à la Texas except reverse) business would need to 'opt-in' to allow carry with a sign instead of opting out.
-making the permitting scheme even more exhaustive and prohibitive.
-buffer zones of specific venues (XXX feet from schools, churches, daycares, barber shops, carwashes, whatever, etc, etc, etc

I think her quote of legislating us back to only having muskets should be enough of a worry.
 
meketrefe

meketrefe

.450/400 Nitro Ex
Messages
12,806
Reaction score
16,330
Location
Dexter, ME
Cavalry said:
They are quite the bunch of sore losers, not that they even lost that much.

Thus far I have heard the handwringers plans to;

-completely ignore any rulings, the Supreme Court is void
-limit guns in public places (public transportation specifically) and I am sure anything else they can think of
-limit guns in businesses (à la Texas except reverse) business would need to 'opt-in' to allow carry with a sign instead of opting out.
-making the permitting scheme even more exhaustive and prohibitive.
-buffer zones of specific venues (XXX feet from schools, churches, daycares, barber shops, carwashes, whatever, etc, etc, etc

I think her quote of legislating us back to only having muskets should be enough of a worry.
Click to expand...

If they ignore the Supreme court people might start to ignore them too, right?
Who can demand respect if they do not show any?
 
Last edited:
Saltwater60

Saltwater60

.950 JDJ
Messages
34,490
Reaction score
38,940
Location
Western NY
Funny Clarence Thomas already preempted this morons plans. She can piss off and I hope Thomas puts her in her place. Nearly all of what was mentioned was already talked about by Thomas and eluded to being unconstitutional. Good lucky Kathy.
amp.cnn.com

Second Amendment: What the Supreme Court’s new gun rights ruling means | CNN Politics

Justice Clarence Thomas opened the floodgates for all sorts of gun safety laws to be challenged in federal court.
amp.cnn.com amp.cnn.com
 
Last edited:
libertysnake

libertysnake

.338 Win Mag
Messages
8,824
Reaction score
16,349
Location
New York
Cavalry said:
They are quite the bunch of sore losers, not that they even lost that much.

Thus far I have heard the handwringers plans to;

-completely ignore any rulings, the Supreme Court is void
-limit guns in public places (public transportation specifically) and I am sure anything else they can think of
-limit guns in businesses (à la Texas except reverse) business would need to 'opt-in' to allow carry with a sign instead of opting out.
-making the permitting scheme even more exhaustive and prohibitive.
-buffer zones of specific venues (XXX feet from schools, churches, daycares, barber shops, carwashes, whatever, etc, etc, etc

I think her quote of legislating us back to only having muskets should be enough of a worry.
Click to expand...

If they ignore the rulings of the union, then they're saying they're willing to throw out the rule of law. They'll already overstepping it since the constitution is the ultimate rule of law, but with something being explicitly stated like this by the highest court makes it clear even from a "good process" perspective.

If they do not respect the constitution, and want to go contrary to the will of the people, then they are no longer representatives of the people. They are, in that moment, oppressors and should be treated as such. They are enslavers, and those who enforce such a will are just as culpable in their unjust acts.
 
spat

spat

.700 Nitro Express
Messages
29,138
Reaction score
61,316
Location
Formerly Geneseo, NY. Now free in AZ
Cavalry said:
They are quite the bunch of sore losers, not that they even lost that much.

Thus far I have heard the handwringers plans to;

-completely ignore any rulings, the Supreme Court is void
-limit guns in public places (public transportation specifically) and I am sure anything else they can think of
-limit guns in businesses (à la Texas except reverse) business would need to 'opt-in' to allow carry with a sign instead of opting out.
-making the permitting scheme even more exhaustive and prohibitive.
-buffer zones of specific venues (XXX feet from schools, churches, daycares, barber shops, carwashes, whatever, etc, etc, etc

I think her quote of legislating us back to only having muskets should be enough of a worry.
Click to expand...
If she can ignore SCOTUS, then we can ignore her.

If she wants to pretend the only document that gives her rule any legitimacy doesn't exist, that's all on her. Without it she's just another gang banging thug.
 
T

Truebeliever

6.5 Creedmoor
Messages
2,490
Reaction score
1,622
Location
Nys
Thank God Thomas made a guideline for “ sensitive areas “. That must opted in for businesses to allow CCW isn’t going to fly especially since it wasn’t around before theSCOTUS decision . A B- slap on such a law might even hurt more so they might not try it.
 
Drinkthekoolaid

Drinkthekoolaid

.475 A&M Magnum
U.S. Military
Messages
15,984
Reaction score
28,238
Location
Unfortunately, NY
Listen to Beaver face now.

She's every bit as painful as FUAC. maybe even more so.

I think she's going to try to have laws changed to put weight and force of law behind "no gun" signs on private property and she's going to expand the restricted/banned places for legal owners to carry.

She's yammering on about preventing people from carrying in public because someone might look at your girlfriend wrong and make you angry and escalate to shooting. Wtf???

Then she rambled on about needing to make NY safe for the anticipated great migration of women fleeing to NY for reproductive freedom. What the actual F?!

That's the justification you are going to use to restrict my rights as a responsible sound minded lawful citizen?!


Go right to hell KH. leave me the hell alone.
 
Grimscale

Grimscale

.338 Win Mag
Messages
7,640
Reaction score
14,845
Location
Rochester
meketrefe said:
If they ignore the Supreme court people might start to ignore them too, right?
Click to expand...
Already am, but this would just add further fuel to the fire.

Deplorable Me said:
Time to protest at her house. That is a tactic approved by democrats.
Click to expand...

Ever notice how they are permitted to remain hidden, but us plebs must declare our location and what we are carrying at every moment?

I wonder what would happen the next time she decides to inflict her crazy on Western New York and is met with boiling tar and feathers. Hypothetically, of course.
 
Phazer

Phazer

.450/400 Nitro Ex
Messages
9,724
Reaction score
20,603
Location
Province of Westchester
libertysnake said:
If they do not respect the constitution, and want to go contrary to the will of the people, then they are no longer representatives of the people. They are, in that moment, oppressors and should be treated as such. They are enslavers, and those who enforce such a will are just as culpable in their unjust acts.
Click to expand...
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
 
maverick52

maverick52

.223 Rem
Messages
1,114
Reaction score
2,197
Location
Knowhere
Drinkthekoolaid said:
Listen to Beaver face now.

She's every bit as painful as FUAC. maybe even more so.

I think she's going to try to have laws changed to put weight and force of law behind "no gun" signs on private property and she's going to expand the restricted/banned places for legal owners to carry.

She's yammering on about preventing people from carrying in public because someone might look at your girlfriend wrong and make you angry and escalate to shooting. Wtf???

Then she rambled on about needing to make NY safe for the anticipated great migration of women fleeing to NY for reproductive freedom. What the actual F?!

That's the justification you are going to use to restrict my rights as a responsible sound minded lawful citizen?!


Go right to hell KH. leave me the hell alone.
Click to expand...
She’s a paranoid wacko. It’s hard to believe we have an unelected wackjob ruling the state by fiat and she’s got a headwind lead in the pollls. This whole state is rotten to the core.
 
N

nobody

22lr
Messages
16
Reaction score
30
Location
NY
They are going to have a difficult time defending any such antics, the court gave clear guidance. Intermediate scrutiny is out, strict scrutiny is in.


A public official who egregiously defies the law risks voiding their qualified immunity, opening themselves to massive personal liabilities, criminal proceedings against them, loss of professional licenses, the ability hold public office, the ability to carry a firearm, etc.


"Sensitive places" where carry of weapons is prohibited has been long established by the judiciary...

Court houses, airports, etc where everyone must pass through a security screening checkpoint AND a persistent and obligated police presence is provided for everyone's protection, pass the test.

Where there is no security screening checkpoint to exclude weapons AND there is no persistent police presence obligated to provide for your security, your personal/property security is your own responsibility. Thus the 2nd remains in full effect.

If they do not upgrade subways and anywhere else to equivalent standards, then they will fail the established "sensitive place" allowance under strict scrutiny. In 99.9999% of the Countryside, the police have no obligation to provide for your personal/property security, thus the 2nd is in full effect. Where there are controls on the presence of all weapons and police are obligated to provide security, there is a reasonable restraint of the 2nd.


Inversion of the 2nd with regard to private property also fails the "sensitive place" test and would easily be demonstrated to be an unreasonable seizure upon private property.


The notion of making the permitting process oppressively onerous would also fail strict scrutiny, and violates numerous civil rights laws. Strict scrutiny allows petitioners to cite permitting standards that are in effect nationwide rather than just priorities in NY. 43 states, a preponderance are shall issue and have less gun crime than NY.


Of course, all of this will have to be fought for and won in the courts. The Supreme Court just gave cause and the leverage to do so with the strict scrutiny analysis. Laws that are already on the books are presumed to be just and lawful, so it requires actual effort to undo those that are not. That is how our system works.
 
tirwin1

tirwin1

.475 A&M Magnum
Messages
16,005
Reaction score
44,152
Location
rochester
Phazer said:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Click to expand...
I wrote a few weeks ago that a number of the issues mentioned in the declaration of independence apply to our time as well.
 
FRB

FRB

6.5 Creedmoor
Messages
2,352
Reaction score
4,992
Location
WNY
Hochul is as evil as they come. Seen it face to face several years ago as I spoke to her, I had to walk away fast. This is NY right now:

"When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn." - Proverbs 29:2
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top