Should be set up to be able to challenge that now too. I can only exercise my rights if I live in a certain area? Can I only practice a certain religion if I live within your approved area? Doesn't work that way. Not anymore. It's not a second class right anymore. This should pave the way towards national reciprocity, hopefully.
NYSRPA v. Bruen, NY 2A Case Supreme Court case and decision
- Thread starter ManualF150
- Start date
I'd love to see what the charge would be if someone was "open carrying". You're telling me that a right that was just reaffirmed by the Supreme Court is invalidated if I don't have a piece of cotton fabric covering my gun? Not trying to put you on the spot, just saying.
TEOTWAWKI inc.
.338 Win Mag
National reciprocity, by it's very nature, would make the 2A a second class right.
It should just fall under the equal protection clause. No permission needed.
Point taken...
They are basically saying "we don't want to make these decisions, so here's your instructions - now you do it."
Similar to "go ask your mother".
Stop teasing me.
I saw our unelected leader Kathy gleaming on TV, saying that they are allowed to implement restrictions on sensitive places, and that she will personally be defining those places. She had a shit eating grin on her face.
For a while I have been telling people "be careful what you wish for". There will be a laundry list of places where we can no longer carry. Supermarkets, churches, theaters, restaurants.
Sad to say, but people who had unrestricted permits, such as myself, actually had it pretty good. I think the politicians only paid attention to NYC, and therefore were not even aware that in the rest of the state unrestricted permits were fairly common.
Kathy also tweeted that when others see a gun being carried that it instills fear into them. So when is she giving up her state police security detail?
Lastly, I don't think many of these people even know what this decision even means. I hear talk about AR-15's and all kinds of other nonsense that has nothing to do with "concealed carry". They just lump everything together.
For a while I have been telling people "be careful what you wish for". There will be a laundry list of places where we can no longer carry. Supermarkets, churches, theaters, restaurants.
Sad to say, but people who had unrestricted permits, such as myself, actually had it pretty good. I think the politicians only paid attention to NYC, and therefore were not even aware that in the rest of the state unrestricted permits were fairly common.
Kathy also tweeted that when others see a gun being carried that it instills fear into them. So when is she giving up her state police security detail?
Lastly, I don't think many of these people even know what this decision even means. I hear talk about AR-15's and all kinds of other nonsense that has nothing to do with "concealed carry". They just lump everything together.
If there are the 3 permits like Livingston said. Mine is concealed carry with the hunting and target restrictions. Does this mean the restrictions went away immediately with this ruling?
camper4lyfe
.308 Win
That’s outside of the scope of the ruling
maverick52
.223 Rem
Basically you have a right to carry, but we’ll make impossible for you to carry anywhere. Lol.
nortatoga
.338 Win Mag
Kicking it back to the lower Court is for them to fix their incorrect ruling.
Phazer
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Here you go... the anti-gun Left is probably threatening 2A-friendly, or just principled, law firms.
The gunz-iz-bad crowd wants to make it dangerous for law firms to represent 2A plaintiffs in the future.
So...I guess we need defensive firearms to protect ourselves from the anti-gun Progressives.
www.thegatewaypundit.com
The gunz-iz-bad crowd wants to make it dangerous for law firms to represent 2A plaintiffs in the future.
So...I guess we need defensive firearms to protect ourselves from the anti-gun Progressives.
Law Firm Splits With Lawyers Who Won Major Gun Case At Supreme Court | The Gateway Pundit | by ProTrumpNews Staff
Paul Clement and Erin Murphy, the two lawyers who won the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v.
www.thegatewaypundit.com
Sure, but SCOTUS could always fix it themselves. They'd rather not. They'd rather tell the lower courts what to do so it's not technically them making the changes. "Ask your mother".
nortatoga
.338 Win Mag
No this is Mother telling them to clean up their mess.
nortatoga
.338 Win Mag
Consider, for example, Heller’s discussion of “longstanding” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.” 554 U. S., at 626. Although the historical record yields relatively few 18th- and 19th-century “sensitive places” where weapons were altogether prohibited—e.g., legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses—we are also aware of no disputes regarding the lawfulness of such prohibitions. See D. Kopel & J. Greenlee, The “Sensitive Places” Doctrine, 13 Charleston L. Rev. 205, 229–236, 244– 247 (2018); see also Brief for Independent Institute as Amicus Curiae 11–17. We therefore can assume it settled that these locations were “sensitive places” where arms carrying could be prohibited consistent with the Second Amendment. And courts can use analogies to those historical regulations of “sensitive places” to determine that modern regulations prohibiting the carry of firearms in new and analogous sensitive places are constitutionally permissible. Although we have no occasion to comprehensively define —————— contrary to the dissent’s assertion, there is nothing “roni[c]” about that undertaking. Post, at 30. It is not an invitation to revise that balance through means-end scrutiny. 22 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. v. BRUEN Opinion of the Court “sensitive places” in this case, we do think respondents err in their attempt to characterize New York’s proper-cause requirement as a “sensitive-place” law. In their view, “sensitive places” where the government may lawfully disarm law-abiding citizens include all “places where people typically congregate and where law-enforcement and other public-safety professionals are presumptively available.” Brief for Respondents 34. It is true that people sometimes congregate in “sensitive places,” and it is likewise true that law enforcement professionals are usually presumptively available in those locations. But expanding the category of “sensitive places” simply to all places of public congregation that are not isolated from law enforcement defines the category of “sensitive places” far too broadly. Respondents’ argument would in effect exempt cities from the Second Amendment and would eviscerate the general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense that we discuss in detail below. See Part III–B, infra. Put simply, there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a “sensitive place” simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department.
I'm aware. So the island of Manhattan in whole cannot be a sensitive place, but they can list 900 places on the island that are. Same goes for the rest of the state. Also if you restrict public transit, most people won't be able to carry anyway. How are you going to get to and from your destination? You can carry at x location, but you cant carry on the bus, uber or subway that brings you there. Therefore stripping you of your rights. What a mess this will be.
nortatoga
.338 Win Mag
Do those example's fall under historical sensitive places? Of course the State/City are going to try to make these types of bans and they will end up in Court.
BTW Supermarkets, churches, theaters, restaurants are private add could ban firearms before.
MikeyCNY
6.5 Creedmoor
Then why is she panicking and calling an emergency session of the Legislature?
They could. But it would not be a violation of the law. Now it certainly will be. They'll try to make you a felon for stopping by the store for a dozen eggs on your way home. Unlawful weapons possession in a sensitive place or something to that effect will be added to the penal law no doubt.
JackNeat
.45 acp
flooding the Governors personal army with inquiries directly might bring a Sense of satisfaction to CCW holders and applicants.
Uzi
.308 Win
I'm glad more and more are now coming back to reality after jumping up and down in celebration and coming to the realization that this decision is now going to criminalize more gun owners and existing permit holders that were able to carry in places with no issues of any kind for many years and decades to just start with.
This is now a fantastic opportunity for governor whorechul to make some more fresh laws to say fuck you to every CCW permit holder in the entire state, not just NYC. We would NOT have been targeted for more carry restrictions and laws upstate had this not happened.
But what other new infringements are headed our way? I'm not sure, but it's more than likely not going to be worth trying to restore NYC's gun rights. This poking at the hornets nest was a big fucking mistake. You have criminals running the state, there will never be any restoration of the second amendment. If there is, it's going to backfire just like this is going to.
This is now a fantastic opportunity for governor whorechul to make some more fresh laws to say fuck you to every CCW permit holder in the entire state, not just NYC. We would NOT have been targeted for more carry restrictions and laws upstate had this not happened.
But what other new infringements are headed our way? I'm not sure, but it's more than likely not going to be worth trying to restore NYC's gun rights. This poking at the hornets nest was a big fucking mistake. You have criminals running the state, there will never be any restoration of the second amendment. If there is, it's going to backfire just like this is going to.
JackNeat
.45 acp
Explainer: Oneida County Pistol Licensing Office breaks down SCOTUS ruling
The U.S. Supreme Court today struck down a New York law that placed limits on carrying guns outside the home, saying it was at odds with the second amendment.
JackNeat
.45 acp
He has been suffering massive emotional damage this week.Fuck off hogg boy.....
David Hogg: Supreme Court Overturns New York's Concealed Carry Law - Rebel HQ - Democratic Underground Forums
www.democraticunderground.com
so much fun watching his meltdown on twitter
Phazer
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Isn't this a bit of "I got mine. I don't care if you are allowed to get yours? "
This..
NY has done one thing very well, and thats to cuck gun owners.. so bad so that even with a win cucks will do the work for the state and try and poison the waters
nortatoga
.338 Win Mag
And as far as subways and buses, from Alito in the oral arguments...
JUSTICE ALITO: How is that consistent with the core right to self-defense, which is protected by the Second Amendment? MS. UNDERWOOD: Because the core right Heritage Reporting Corporation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 68 Official - Subject to Final Review to self-defense doesn't -- as -- as this Court said, doesn't allow for all to -- to be armed for all possible confrontations in all places. JUSTICE ALITO: No, it doesn't, but does it mean that there is the right to self-defense for celebrities and state judges and retired police officers but pretty much not for the kind of ordinary people who have a real, felt need to carry a gun to protect themselves? MS. UNDERWOOD: Well, if that ordinary person -- Mr. Nash had a -- a concern about his parking lot, and he got a permit. I think the extra problem in Manhattan is that you -- your hypothetical quite appropriately entailed the subways, entailed public transit, and there are lots of people on the subways even at midnight, as I can say from personal experience, and the particular specter of a lot of armed people in an enclosed space -- JUSTICE ALITO: There are -- there are a lot of armed people on the streets of New York and in the subways late at night right now, aren't there?
JUSTICE ALITO: How is that consistent with the core right to self-defense, which is protected by the Second Amendment? MS. UNDERWOOD: Because the core right Heritage Reporting Corporation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 68 Official - Subject to Final Review to self-defense doesn't -- as -- as this Court said, doesn't allow for all to -- to be armed for all possible confrontations in all places. JUSTICE ALITO: No, it doesn't, but does it mean that there is the right to self-defense for celebrities and state judges and retired police officers but pretty much not for the kind of ordinary people who have a real, felt need to carry a gun to protect themselves? MS. UNDERWOOD: Well, if that ordinary person -- Mr. Nash had a -- a concern about his parking lot, and he got a permit. I think the extra problem in Manhattan is that you -- your hypothetical quite appropriately entailed the subways, entailed public transit, and there are lots of people on the subways even at midnight, as I can say from personal experience, and the particular specter of a lot of armed people in an enclosed space -- JUSTICE ALITO: There are -- there are a lot of armed people on the streets of New York and in the subways late at night right now, aren't there?
spat
.950 JDJ
Because, like your fictional colonel, SCOTUS leaves the details to it's subordinates.
SCOTUS didn't invalidate anything other than the appellate court decision upholding the law.
What SCOTUS did was issue an order to the appellate court to do their job right.
Just like the colonel will never order the privates to clean up the motor pool, he will order the Lt to get it done, and *he* will pass that down to the privates.
Steal2B
.700 Nitro Express
FIFY
nortatoga
.338 Win Mag
spat
.950 JDJ
That would be very difficult to reconcile with the new ruling.
The new ruling would require them to issue you a new permit if you applied, since they have no reason to deny it.
Justifying revoking a permit that you are required to re-issue on demand is pretty shaky ground.
That's like revoking a parade permit after you find out it's an RKBA protest.