Celt
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Invthe NY civil rights law it says "cannot" be infringed rather than "shall" not. But im 100% on board with your posts.
NYSRPA v. Bruen, NY 2A Case Supreme Court case and decision
- Thread starter ManualF150
- Start date
Legislation | NY State Senate
Jul 02, 2021 · CIVIL RIGHTS LAW Laws 1909, Chap. 14. AN ACT relating to civil rights, constituting chapter six of the consolidated laws. Became a law, February 17, 1909, with the approval of the
NYS Open Legislation | NYSenate.gov
You can see that the NYS Civil Rights law was enacted in 1909, Two years later the State enacted the Sullivan Act (law) The legislature pass's laws and can pass new laws. But they could not change it if it were in the State Constitution there is the difference. I have never said I don't believe our rights were not being violated.
A clear case of a State violating someone's rights is Hawaii, The RTKABA is word for word that of the USA Bill of Right 2A! George Youngs case should have never gotten past State Court in Hawaii.
Last edited:
spat
.700 Nitro Express
There was a time when most of the states allowed slavery too.Good you mention McDonald before that case the States follow their own State constitutions, some of these State do not have RTKABA's and also some that did gave the legislature the power over concealed weapons.
Gun Control | Pros, Cons, Debate, Arguments, Firearms, Laws, Safety, Gun Rights, & Death | Britannica
Should More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted?gun-control.procon.org
There was a time 49 states required a license to conceal carry..
The History of Concealed Carry in the United States
Despite a long history as a gun culture concealed carry in America is a new phenomenon. In the past two decades this trend has expanded greatly.www.usacarry.com
Folk's might not be so mad if they did their own research...
Doesn't mean it was right.
Doesn't mean it wasn't a massive violation of people's rights.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
The real problem with the 2A (and all state versions) is a lack of teeth.
What's the penalty for a government official who violates it ?
If it's anything less than a lengthy prison sentence, then RKBA supporters are playing an endless game of whack a mole.
Imagine if the penalty for stealing was just that you had to give the stuff back.
*everyone* participating in a violation of the RKBA, from the clerk who drafts the law, to the legislator who votes for it, to the officer who enforces it, should be locked up.
"just following orders" cannot be allowed to be a defense just like "ignorance is no excuse"
kev74
20×102mm Vulcan
What a bunch of doomers!
I choose to be optimistic until the supremes hand down their decision at the end of the term, at which point my happiness will have lasted longer than any disappointment.
Nation wide 'shall issue' is on the way. And the good people in shit holes like NYC, and other liberal onclaives will finally be able to protect themselves, in spite of the commie politicians best efforts.
I choose to be optimistic until the supremes hand down their decision at the end of the term, at which point my happiness will have lasted longer than any disappointment.
Nation wide 'shall issue' is on the way. And the good people in shit holes like NYC, and other liberal onclaives will finally be able to protect themselves, in spite of the commie politicians best efforts.
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
so if its shall issue .. then you go to the PP office .. i need a PP .. ok sir .. can you pass a 4473 ... yes .. here is your PP .. thank you ..
IF SCOTUS rules in favor of the plaintiffs in this case, I’m thinking it would put a stop to “may issue” BS in those remaining states. And I would think it would benefit those people in the 5 boroughs.
But I think unless SCOTUS explicitly tosses out the 5 boroughs scheme, then NYS will still have separate permits. That is, that upstate permits will NOT be valid in NY city.
Hopefully they put a stop to that BS and make it one law for the entire state. Somehow, I don’t see that happening though. But, who knows for certain?
But I think unless SCOTUS explicitly tosses out the 5 boroughs scheme, then NYS will still have separate permits. That is, that upstate permits will NOT be valid in NY city.
Hopefully they put a stop to that BS and make it one law for the entire state. Somehow, I don’t see that happening though. But, who knows for certain?
MothMan
.338 Win Mag
My upstate permit is not valid in the shitty now.
Locked and Loaded: Supreme Court is ready for a showdown on the Second Amendment
The high court has been carefully waiting for just the right case to address states and cities that have sought to limit gun rights.
thehill.com
Phazer
.450/400 Nitro Ex
"Home Rule" enjoyed by some cities is a whole other issue.
camper4lyfe
.308 Win
Is there a date set as to when this is going to be heard?
Bob
6.5 Creedmoor
November 3rd.
35 minutes for NYSRPA to make their case, 20 minutes for NYS, and 15 minutes for the Solicitor General.
Docket for 20-843
www.supremecourt.gov
BerettaGuy
.308 Win
WE should have a watch party.
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
BerettaGuy
.308 Win
Phazer
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Solicitor General? WTF?
SCOTUS: General, what is the United States federal government's compelling interest in this case?
S.G.: Umm....We hate guns. Guns are bad. No guns for anybody.
I would hope that this just takes away 15 minutes from NYS time as the BOR's applied to the Federal Government " Shall Not Be Infringed" that they have no say here!!!!!!
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
Supreme Court Told To Reject New York's Concealed Carry Law And Lies!!! NYSRPA v. Bruen
Oct 21, 2021Armed Scholar
193K subscribers
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
but in NYS .. a teenager can go play 3 gun and shoot a pistol on a approved range without a PP .. but a old guy CAN NOT do the same ..
NYSRP and NRA .. should have added that little bit in there argument too .. Age Discrimination on a RIGHT ..
NYSRP and NRA .. should have added that little bit in there argument too .. Age Discrimination on a RIGHT ..
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
i would love it more if he did a live cam stream and not just a audio pod cast .. i want to see the looks on there faces too ..
A lengthy read but we shall see what the future holds...
www.cnn.com
Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett could rework the road map for the Second Amendment in courts
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday in a case that could broaden gun rights nationwide and transform how the Second Amendment is interpreted in the United States.
www.cnn.com
camper4lyfe
.308 Win
Well that article isn't biased. /sarcasmA lengthy read but we shall see what the future holds...
Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett could rework the road map for the Second Amendment in courts
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday in a case that could broaden gun rights nationwide and transform how the Second Amendment is interpreted in the United States.
Phazer
.450/400 Nitro Ex
A lengthy read but we shall see what the future holds...
Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett could rework the road map for the Second Amendment in courts
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday in a case that could broaden gun rights nationwide and transform how the Second Amendment is interpreted in the United States.
Kavanaugh and Barrett, in their previous roles, rejected an approach grounded in balancing an individual's right to bear arms against the government's interest in passing the law at issue. Instead, they said judges should focus on the text, history and tradition -- the intent of the founders -- in weighing a gun restriction.
Ummm...isn't there something about the U.S. Constitution to be considered here? I don't see anything in the 2A that mentions that the right of the people to keep and bear arms "shall be balanced against the government's interests."
"There is no good reason why gun laws in 21st century America should be tied to or limited by how 18 and 19th century America responded to the threat of muskets in a very different nation," said Jonathan Lowy, chief counsel of the Brady Campaign.
So...I guess "There is no good reason why free speech laws in 21st century America should be tied to or limited by how 18 and 19th century America responded to the threat of moveable type printing presses in a very different nation."
Thanks, you unAmerican moron.
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
Uninformed and Compliant
.450/400 Nitro Ex
"Modern semi-automatics are within scope of 2A?"
If a slave rebellion took place today, exactly WHAT arms would the government and soldiers be using to crush that rebellion?
Why would you, who supposedly hates slavery, DOOM the slaves to using flintlocks against soldiers and slave hunters who HAVE semi-auto weapons? FULL auto weapons?
When they cannot answer, their hand is revealed. Because the fact that the slaves should have the same, or better, arms, IS THE POINT.
If a slave rebellion took place today, exactly WHAT arms would the government and soldiers be using to crush that rebellion?
Why would you, who supposedly hates slavery, DOOM the slaves to using flintlocks against soldiers and slave hunters who HAVE semi-auto weapons? FULL auto weapons?
When they cannot answer, their hand is revealed. Because the fact that the slaves should have the same, or better, arms, IS THE POINT.
Last edited:
BerettaGuy
.308 Win
The week has arrived. Case to be heard on Wednesday.
Here is the Question the SCOTUS is being asked.
QUESTION PRESENTED:
New York prohibits its ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying a handgun outside the home without a license, and it denies licenses to every citizen who fails to convince the state that he or she has “proper cause” to carry a firearm. In District of Columbia v. Heller, this Court held that the Second Amendment protects “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” 554 U.S. 570, 592 (2008), and in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Court held that this right “is fully applicable to the States,” 561 U.S. 742, 750 (2010). For more than a decade since then, numerous courts of appeals have squarely divided on this critical question: whether the Second Amendment allows the government to deprive ordinary law-abiding citizens of the right to possess and carry a handgun outside the home. This circuit split is open and acknowledged, and it is squarely presented by this petition, in which the Second Circuit affirmed the constitutionality of a New York regime that prohibits law-abiding individuals from carrying a handgun unless they first demonstrate some form of “proper cause” that distinguishes them from the body of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment. The time has come for this Court to resolve this critical constitutional impasse and reaffirm the citizens’ fundamental right to carry a handgun for self-defense.
I am still not sure if this is the proper question. I would have written it differently.
New York prohibits its ordinary law-abiding citizens from purchasing, owning, touching, possessing, or borrowing a handgun inside the home or carrying outside the home without a license, and it denies licenses to every citizen who fails to convince the state that he or she has “proper cause” to carry a firearm.
The time has come for this Court to resolve this critical constitutional impasse and reaffirm the citizens’ fundamental right to purchase, own, touch, possess, or borrow a handgun without permission from the state in the form of a license.
Knowing that they will only rule on the question, I am not very optimistic for any sweeping changes. I hope I am wrong.
Here is the Question the SCOTUS is being asked.
QUESTION PRESENTED:
New York prohibits its ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying a handgun outside the home without a license, and it denies licenses to every citizen who fails to convince the state that he or she has “proper cause” to carry a firearm. In District of Columbia v. Heller, this Court held that the Second Amendment protects “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” 554 U.S. 570, 592 (2008), and in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Court held that this right “is fully applicable to the States,” 561 U.S. 742, 750 (2010). For more than a decade since then, numerous courts of appeals have squarely divided on this critical question: whether the Second Amendment allows the government to deprive ordinary law-abiding citizens of the right to possess and carry a handgun outside the home. This circuit split is open and acknowledged, and it is squarely presented by this petition, in which the Second Circuit affirmed the constitutionality of a New York regime that prohibits law-abiding individuals from carrying a handgun unless they first demonstrate some form of “proper cause” that distinguishes them from the body of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment. The time has come for this Court to resolve this critical constitutional impasse and reaffirm the citizens’ fundamental right to carry a handgun for self-defense.
I am still not sure if this is the proper question. I would have written it differently.
New York prohibits its ordinary law-abiding citizens from purchasing, owning, touching, possessing, or borrowing a handgun inside the home or carrying outside the home without a license, and it denies licenses to every citizen who fails to convince the state that he or she has “proper cause” to carry a firearm.
The time has come for this Court to resolve this critical constitutional impasse and reaffirm the citizens’ fundamental right to purchase, own, touch, possess, or borrow a handgun without permission from the state in the form of a license.
Knowing that they will only rule on the question, I am not very optimistic for any sweeping changes. I hope I am wrong.