That would be very difficult to reconcile with the new ruling.I would assume the more immediate ramification is the likelihood of losing your permit altogether.
Stockholm syndrome is a coping mechanism to a captive or abusive situation. People develop positive feelings toward their captors or abusers over time. This condition applies to situations including child abuse, coach-athlete abuse, relationship abuse and sex trafficking.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
I mentioned something similar to this the other day. The whole "may be revoked at any time" thats printed on the back of the permits is pretty much out the window now, isn't it?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.
the bigger they are, the harder they fall. Already California and New Jersey are adjusting things to comply.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.
And at what point does the Lt say "nah, hard pass bro?"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.
I don’t think they are going to apply it equally across the board. ThIf that is what was said, then it opens the door to adding background checks, fingerprinting, ID requirements, and any other of the various restrictions that have been placed on pistol permits, to voter registration requirements and voting requirements.
in fact, it opens the door to adding all of that to EVERY Right.
"I'm sorry, Mr Smith, but to plead the 5th you need to pass a background check, which you obviously can't do since we just arrested you."
"I'm sorry, Mrs. Doe, but you need to show your permit to attend this church gathering."
I'm pretty sure that is not a slippery slope they are going to enjoy.
The court did uphold the shall issue permits system. And yes, some rights you do need to permit to exercise . A protest march needs a parade permit in many areas of the country ( a denial of that permit would be unconstitutional in many cases) for example for both right of assembly and free speech.the Court said the 2nd is no different then the 1st ..
so do you need a permit to speak ?
a permit to go to a church .. ?
a permit for free press ?
do you have to pay for them too and get trained .. to use your 1st ?
Respectfully disagree.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.
Feel free to open carry in NYC and let me know how that goes for you. I’m not trying to put you in the spot either I don’t think open carrying in most of NYS would go so well these days. I never said it was illegal just they don’t really want you to do it and the ruling had nothing to do with open carrying. From what I saw it didn’t even mention it and yes I’m aware it’s not illegal in NYS to open carry, but I’d say there’s a descent chance these days some crazy liberal would say he threatened me with that gun. I don’t want to deal with that.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.
the bigger they are, the harder they fall. Already California and New Jersey are adjusting things to comply.
Respectfully disagree.
Rights surely would have continued to erode under these tyrant's directions without any legal pushback ,ending with their eventual goal of total disarmament.
Could it become a focal point for additional restrictions and immediate new infringements ? , Sure , but that is what the courts are there for.
They will get smacked down eventually.
I have no intention of doing it, I was just pointing out how ridiculous it is that you have these natural rights, but they hinge on wether or not you have a piece of t-shirt covering a certain area or not. Either you can do it or you can't. Hochul has been saying that people get uneasy when they see someone carrying a gun, so she's clearly not talking about concealed carrying. Did the decision specifically say you have the right to carry *concealed* or did it just say you have the right to carry a gun outside of the home?Feel free to open carry in NYC and let me know how that goes for you. I’m not trying to put you in the spot either I don’t think open carrying in most of NYS would go so well these days. I never said it was illegal just they don’t really want you to do it and the ruling had nothing to do with open carrying. From what I saw it didn’t even mention it and yes I’m aware it’s not illegal in NYS to open carry, but I’d say there’s a descent chance these days some crazy liberal would say he threatened me with that gun. I don’t want to deal with that.
He can say that.And at what point does the Lt say "nah, hard pass bro?"
The decision said you have a right to carry.I have no intention of doing it, I was just pointing out how ridiculous it is that you have these natural rights, but they hinge on wether or not you have a piece of t-shirt covering a certain area or not. Either you can do it or you can't. Hochul has been saying that people get uneasy when they see someone carrying a gun, so she's clearly not talking about concealed carrying. Did the decision specifically say you have the right to carry *concealed* or did it just say you have the right to carry a gun outside of the home?
That was good.
How is this decision not the second half of this line?He can relieve the Lt of command and tell everyone they are no longer subject to the Lt's orders.
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.www.wktv.com
Who is calling them Monday morning?
I am just not confident that the county will react in a timely manner. Btw, I work for the county in LE.Everyone
No, the Lt is supposed to follow the orders. 99.99% of the time they do immediately.How is this decision not the second half of this line?
This seems incredibly inefficient to the point of being unbelievable.
"Sir, the US has been attacked. We have a limited window for retaliation. Here are the strike options."
"Execute option C immediately."
"Yes sir, let me just check it out with a few if your subordinates first to make sure they are good with it, and if they wish to follow your orders, we will do it at once!"
Once the 2nd circuit finishes their part of this the sportsman's restriction no longer exists.What about us Westchester residents who possess the Sportsperson's restriction? Do I finally get my full carry?
Who is calling them Monday morning?
Also, in your example it would go more like this:How is this decision not the second half of this line?
This seems incredibly inefficient to the point of being unbelievable.
"Sir, the US has been attacked. We have a limited window for retaliation. Here are the strike options."
"Execute option C immediately."
"Yes sir, let me just check it out with a few if your subordinates first to make sure they are good with it, and if they wish to follow your orders, we will do it at once!"