BerettaGuy
.308 Win
Biden Admin is going to be allowed to participate in the NYSPRA Supreme Court case.
NYSRPA v. Bruen, NY 2A Case Supreme Court case and decision
- Thread starter ManualF150
- Start date
Phazer
.338 Win Mag
Thank you for revealing your true colors.
I have no further use for your opinions.
Cheers.
FrankenCub
.338 Win Mag
Back to my previous post...
Post in thread 'NYSRPA v. Bruen, NY 2A Case in SCOTUS (merged thread)' NYSRPA v. Bruen, NY 2A Case in SCOTUS (merged thread)
BerettaGuy
.308 Win
But it could backfire. I would play the tape of Biden, Get a shotgun.
FrankenCub
.338 Win Mag
I wouldn't bet my money on it. After all, the "peers" said a shotgun, nothing about handguns.
DrBleachCocktail
.44 mag
If the Supreme Court let’s Biden influence their decision, that just shows how legitimate the government is.
IrishMick
.357 mag
Seems like the Federal Government is a little out of their lane. The case is basically a citizen vs NYS over an over reaching state law. How is the federal executive branch involved? If they want more oppressive gun laws the legislature should be trying to pass them.
Acer-m14
.950 JDJ
So then all NY gun owners should be allowed to participate too ...
who in the hell on the bench allowed this ...
Concealed carry per se was not illegal from 1603 to 1825 in England. It was the use of a concealed weapon to kill another human being that entailed the death penalty without the possibility of clemency. American states, in the early 1800s, went one step further in not only making concealed carry a crime but in banning the carrying, and often the mere possession, of concealable weapons, particularly handguns, regardless of whether or not they were possessed in the home or in public.
I've only run across one court of appeals opinion from the 19th-century in which a woman had been prosecuted for concealed carry. As I recall, it was from Texas during the reconstruction period. The court held that since the handgun was in her carriage, although covered by a coat, her case was an exception.
By the time the English Bill of Rights was adopted, trial by one's peers had become engrained in English law. "Commoners" were tried by commoners. Lords were tried in the House of Lords. This was a disincentive for someone to harm a person not in his social class.
It was not until the 20th-century did England abolish that class-based definition of who were one's peers.
Here is a link to the oral argument and transcript of the District of Columbia. v. Heller. @SenTedCruz sent Paul Clement to torpedo Dick Heller on behalf of the #NRA.
Now Texas Senator Cruz said he thought that was a good idea at the time.
It was Clement who pointed out that concealed carry is not a right (Robertson v. Baldwin) and Clement argued for intermediate scrutiny so as not to imperil any Federal gun law, or laws prohibiting concealed carry.
Clement will be arguing on behalf of the NYSRPA.
This amuses me no end.
District of Columbia v. Heller oral argument
Now Texas Senator Cruz said he thought that was a good idea at the time.
It was Clement who pointed out that concealed carry is not a right (Robertson v. Baldwin) and Clement argued for intermediate scrutiny so as not to imperil any Federal gun law, or laws prohibiting concealed carry.
Clement will be arguing on behalf of the NYSRPA.
This amuses me no end.
District of Columbia v. Heller oral argument
My opposition to concealed carry has been well known since before I filed my lawsuit against California's Open Carry bans, ten years ago.
If my contempt for cowards, criminals, and the morally depraved comes as a "revelation" to you then you need to start paying attention.
FrankenCub
.338 Win Mag
Even the shithole of Binghamton NY has many groups of thugs around that wouldn't think twice about gang assaulting someone open carrying. I'm sure bigger cities have much more.
They do it for cell phones, you think they'll not eye your gun?
You might want to give some thought to what you are going to say before you say it because when you don't you say dumb things like that.
pshift
.338 Win Mag
You can't argue with crazy. Imagine open-carry around NYC. The thugs will not have to guess what you have. They will just surround you and try to take it. Trust me. They will make sure that it appears that you are threatening them, rather than the other way around.
I'm for whatever is reasonable and responsible. All gun owners (concealed or open carry) have a responsibility to the law-abiding non-gun owners out there as well to keep them safe. They will thank you for it in the end.
I'm for whatever is reasonable and responsible. All gun owners (concealed or open carry) have a responsibility to the law-abiding non-gun owners out there as well to keep them safe. They will thank you for it in the end.
Concealed carriers invariably say they are afraid to Open Carry because someone might take their gun away from them.
This shows two things. The first is that concealed carriers speak before they think. The second is that if you are a coward then you shouldn't oughta be carrying a gun.
This shows two things. The first is that concealed carriers speak before they think. The second is that if you are a coward then you shouldn't oughta be carrying a gun.
How can your opposition to concealed carry be well known when nobody even knows who you are?
My California Open Carry lawsuit is the oldest right to carry lawsuit still standing. If this is the first time you have heard about it then that is your problem, not mine.
I would ask who you are and what your claim to fame is but like all concealed carriers and concealed carrier wannabes you are nobody and have accomplished nothing.
Not really. It would remain the problem of the one trying justify a perceived ubiquitous knowledge of lawsuit nobody had every heard of by someone nobody had ever heard of.
Forty years ago, there was no shortage of cowards and depraved degenerates but back then they knew what they were and didn't pretend to be anything other than what they were.
It seems that today's generation either does not know what they are or they simply don't care.
It seems that today's generation either does not know what they are or they simply don't care.
I think you'll get little argument that I am a degenerate on here.
What's that got to do with anything?
Huh? Funny. Just thought you were another Deplorable... so when did that become a bad thing?I think you'll get little argument that I am a degenerate on here.
What's that got to do with anything?
FrankenCub
.338 Win Mag
Let's say you are in a bad spot, for work. 4 or 6 thugs see you're carrying and run up to you. You going to shoot them all before they beat you senseless and forcefully take your gun? Even if your head is on a swivel you can still end up in that situation.
I dont know about CA, but in NY we have a duty to retreat before a shooting is justifiable.
I dont care if OC is allowed, but I want the choice of CC when it's smartest.
You might want to brush up on your New York case law regarding the duty to retreat. The "duty to retreat" under New York law is not an absolute duty and in the scenario you described, there would be no opportunity to retreat.*
There is no duty to retreat under California law unless one is committing a violent felony, such as kidnapping. Not only is there not a duty to retreat, but we also have the right to pursue our attacker.
Unfortunately, the California courts have created the right of criminals to use deadly force. Although the murderer, kidnapper, rapist, arsonist, and robber has a duty to retreat, if he is unable to retreat or surrender and is threatened with serious bodily injury then California law recognizes his "right" to use deadly force in self-defense.
*The last time I researched New York case law on the duty to retreat was when the Kachalsky court of appeals opinion was published. If the current duty to retreat is as you described then of what use is a loaded, concealed handgun you are prevented under New York law from using?
And if the duty to retreat is as you describe then it makes the NYSRPA v. Bruen lawsuit an even greater farce because the plaintiffs do not challenge New York's duty to retreat. They seek a license to carry a concealed handgun they cannot use in self-defense.
FrankenCub
.338 Win Mag
It has nothing to do with a fear of it happening, it's a strong possibility that it can. I deliver food to some very sketchy areas, shootings/shots fired every week. Sometimes days in a row. I'd rather those fuckin scumbags not know I'm carrying. I could easily cut those areas out of my deliveries, but that will effect my pay in the end.
That has nothing to do with cowardice.
Pretty big ego sitting on your shoulders. Got that tough guy mentality thinking OC makes you king of the block.
FrankenCub
.338 Win Mag
In that scenario you may not even have a chance to unholster by time you are smashed in the back of your head, duty to retreat or not. CC they don't know you're armed and most likely pay little attention to you. I prefer to have an unknown advantage, not advertise one in some of these shitholes.
What you call "ego" is self-respect and an unwillingness to do evil. Either your parents failed to teach you this, which is their fault, or you have chosen to reject it, which is your fault.
Memo to concealed carriers and concealed carry wannabes:
Demonstrating that you should not be allowed anywhere near any firearm or weapon is not the same thing as proving that you have a right to carry a concealed weapon that is protected by the Second Amendment.
Demonstrating that you should not be allowed anywhere near any firearm or weapon is not the same thing as proving that you have a right to carry a concealed weapon that is protected by the Second Amendment.
FrankenCub
.338 Win Mag
If you had any self respect you'd not be trying to belittle those who support CC. It's not your decision how others carry in different situations or when it's smarter to CC. And when was unwillingness to do evil ever brought up, other that pointing out the scum in society?
Acer-m14
.950 JDJ
but it sounds like some CC like to tread on my right to OC because of where they live ..