Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
We are talking about how it will affect NY where we live.
SCOTUS w/ Gorsuch on 4/13: Peruta v CA "good cause"
- Thread starter VietnamEraVet
- Start date
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Some of my coworkers pay for parking too. Not my fault if they're bad at math.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
I'm talking about the guy that will not carry concealed against the law. Not parking.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Same thing, risk vs reward. One has higher risks and lower odds is all. Anyone who tries to stand behind NY law on principle alone does not have my respect.
There are places right now that have no weapons signs up. They are largely ignored or the places are not shopped by gun owners. I can see places up here in the north country not caring one way or another and others going out of business.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
To be clear, I'm not against an open carry victory. I'm just looking into the future of what that victory would get us.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Of course there are. Why? Because guns aren't in their faces. It isn't on their minds. Now open carry in their store and put it in their minds.
They are ignored now because the sign means nothing. What happens when it does mean something?
So the whole case started from CA outlawing open carry and then making it impossible to get a CC license. The initial ruling from the federal panel was you cannot do both, you either make open carry legal or you go shall issue. The 9th then reversed itself and said screw the people. If there is a victory in the SCotUS I bet it will read like this; You either become shall issue or you become open carry. The next fight will be signs having the force of law, there will have to be a legal standard for the signs, how they are displayed and where. Seeing how the SAFE act has so many flaws and they had that on the shelf for years before they passed it in the middle of the night, they won't get the sign law right the first time either.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Anti-gun courts aren't going to consider a business that puts up a lawful sign discrimination. It'll be many years if it made it all the way to SCOTUS and even then that is a crapshoot. It isn't happening in Texas now.
They will have to check their balance sheet and see which makes more sense for them. A potential law suit and economic boycott or accept the fact there are guns in the store.
My experience with people I know who are anti gun, - and there are a lot of them I deal with, - they are basically scared shitless of firearms. Mostly, it is due to ignorance from never having even touched one, and rarely ever even seeing one that wasn't worn on a cop's hip.
I think that if the courts end up allowing open carry as the right, that anti's in the anti gun states like NY will basically flip out at the sight of people going about their daily lives while openly armed.
And when enough of them flip out over it, the states will be asking us to PLEASE conceal carry instead. I think it will be interesting to see it happen.
I think that if the courts end up allowing open carry as the right, that anti's in the anti gun states like NY will basically flip out at the sight of people going about their daily lives while openly armed.
And when enough of them flip out over it, the states will be asking us to PLEASE conceal carry instead. I think it will be interesting to see it happen.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
What law suit if Cuomo passes a law similar to Texas's law making signs have the force of law. They aren't going to sue the business. They'd have to sue the state. We all know how that goes. Ask the divorce lawyers and the NYSRPA.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
I disagree for the reasons I posted above regarding Cuomo's choices. NY going Shall Issue is laughable. (Not at you. In general.)
That'll create more guns in the street and the open carry problem will still not go away. Those that want to do so will still do so.
Shall issue and Constituional Carry States Have converted because their legislators realize the Consitution is very clear and their constituents have also made clear their intent/desires! Creating "MORE" has no basis in effect to this issue. Shall we create lax standards to allow "MORE" voting? How about "MORE" speech? "MORE" is an issue for those who want "CONTROL" as it is a derivative. Again no basis there...
The issue as to DISCRIMINATION comes on the "Strict" or "Medium" scrutiny applied by the courts, conveniently "Medium" is always the litmus for the 2nd whereas "Strict" seems applied to all others... Can't interpret these so called "RIGHTS" that way. Either it's STRICT because it is a RIGHT, or if not, then they're not (Rights)! If Strict was the Rule, then Open/Concealed is not even a discussion, you carry as you dare, or care. For the matter, I don't care either way, I don't think it's smart to Open carry as it defeats the purpose of carrying at all. But that's just me. I do agree though the CA has ignored previous guidance by SCOTUS and will be interesting to see if they continue to pounce on municipalities ignoring their rulings (see MA - Stun Gun).
What's been brought up in the past and has resonated in my mind since, is that the previous administration, and municipalities that have ignored SCOTUS, exposed the very fact that if they choose, the other Two Branches of our Gov't can IGNORE SCOTUS because it has no enforcement, no teeth. So see, even if SCOTUS bends and rules in favor of the 2nd, it'll just ignite State Soverignty Rights arguments and they'll fight and ignore and do what they want forever. They'll plead cases out before they see the inside of a courtroom and dismiss others to preserve the line like they do now. Carefully picking their fights... You aren't going to win a 2A fight when the other issue was 5lbs of pot in the trunk. Sorry...
But anyways, Good Cause... Well, until I need to have a valid reason to Vote, or exhibit a NEED to practice Religion... I shouldn't have to possess these qualities in order to freely exercise my 2nd Amendment a Rights Either. Wanna issue a piece of paper with my name on it, ok, but Shall Issue unless you can show, as a Gov't agency, how I should be DENIED my Roght to do so. Period!
Bottom line is, if the same # of people who Vote, Carried, this wouldn't be a conversation. Forget NY, nothing but a bunch of whining bullshit artists here. 75% bitch... 32% Vote!
The issue as to DISCRIMINATION comes on the "Strict" or "Medium" scrutiny applied by the courts, conveniently "Medium" is always the litmus for the 2nd whereas "Strict" seems applied to all others... Can't interpret these so called "RIGHTS" that way. Either it's STRICT because it is a RIGHT, or if not, then they're not (Rights)! If Strict was the Rule, then Open/Concealed is not even a discussion, you carry as you dare, or care. For the matter, I don't care either way, I don't think it's smart to Open carry as it defeats the purpose of carrying at all. But that's just me. I do agree though the CA has ignored previous guidance by SCOTUS and will be interesting to see if they continue to pounce on municipalities ignoring their rulings (see MA - Stun Gun).
What's been brought up in the past and has resonated in my mind since, is that the previous administration, and municipalities that have ignored SCOTUS, exposed the very fact that if they choose, the other Two Branches of our Gov't can IGNORE SCOTUS because it has no enforcement, no teeth. So see, even if SCOTUS bends and rules in favor of the 2nd, it'll just ignite State Soverignty Rights arguments and they'll fight and ignore and do what they want forever. They'll plead cases out before they see the inside of a courtroom and dismiss others to preserve the line like they do now. Carefully picking their fights... You aren't going to win a 2A fight when the other issue was 5lbs of pot in the trunk. Sorry...
But anyways, Good Cause... Well, until I need to have a valid reason to Vote, or exhibit a NEED to practice Religion... I shouldn't have to possess these qualities in order to freely exercise my 2nd Amendment a Rights Either. Wanna issue a piece of paper with my name on it, ok, but Shall Issue unless you can show, as a Gov't agency, how I should be DENIED my Roght to do so. Period!
Bottom line is, if the same # of people who Vote, Carried, this wouldn't be a conversation. Forget NY, nothing but a bunch of whining bullshit artists here. 75% bitch... 32% Vote!
The poorly written statute will be hard to follow and land the business in court. Brick and mortar businesses are having a hard time keeping their doors open in NY now, what makes you think they are all going to jump at the chance to exclude customers? I highly doubt my area will see the problem with this that you city slickers will.
The fatal flaws in your argument is you assume that the gun owners vote as a block and that they all don't like Cuomo.
So, if SCOTUS rules that Open Carry Shall Issue is the right, what may happen? I can see some people without a CCW saying a big Fuck You to the authorities, and carrying openly. And, probably, some businesses will push to keep them out, and the anti states (including NY) will likely make the signs carry the force of law.
And then the shit storm will happen. I think when the police get tired enough from responding to all of the potential SWATing calls from people flipping out over seeing someone carrying openly, that the legislators may just come around to allowing shall issue concealed carry. Then again, - maybe not.
But if SCOTUS rules for open carry as the right, I may just find myself on occasion riding my bicycle or walking my dog around town; sitting on a bench in the village center; attending a street dance; or an open air food festival on public streets with a nice big old .45 holstered on my right hip, and maybe even a second one on my left hip for good measure.
After all, my guns are well behaved, and haven't shot anyone. And they deserve a little time in the sunshine away from the safe. And I'm sure they would like to see the world around them, and not just down at the range...
And then the shit storm will happen. I think when the police get tired enough from responding to all of the potential SWATing calls from people flipping out over seeing someone carrying openly, that the legislators may just come around to allowing shall issue concealed carry. Then again, - maybe not.
But if SCOTUS rules for open carry as the right, I may just find myself on occasion riding my bicycle or walking my dog around town; sitting on a bench in the village center; attending a street dance; or an open air food festival on public streets with a nice big old .45 holstered on my right hip, and maybe even a second one on my left hip for good measure.
After all, my guns are well behaved, and haven't shot anyone. And they deserve a little time in the sunshine away from the safe. And I'm sure they would like to see the world around them, and not just down at the range...
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Why would it be poorly written? The same law from Texas can be copied.
And not all businesses will see it that way. If a quarter of them put up these signs, then the inconveniences will be there regardless to the average person.
And don't forget about guys like Phazer, Celt, and many others. Those guys will be fucked if they don't even have the option to ignore restrictions when those counties say that being that they can open carry, they no longer need that hunting and target licence.
Not all places are like your county.
The Track record of the NY legislature.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Yes . You will find yourself doing that. Not all will however. The guy that just wants to grab a slice of pizza during his 20 minute lunch break may not want to deal with police encounters from snowflakes calling.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
So you are banking on a "What if they write it wrong?" Then you have to bank on a court case most definitely going to be in the anti-gun circuit court's favor followed by a possible cert denial or upholding by SCOTUS.
Who knows for sure until that day comes?
What I do know however, is that when I go riding my hog down to PA, I can both open carry, (as well as riding without a helmet if I choose to just for an extra bit of freedom). And the times I have done that, - riding while openly carrying, stopping in places for lunch, etc., is that it seems like no one even cares. I see people smile, or look expressionless. But to date, I have not had so much as even one person scowl at me or look down at the fact that I was openly carrying.
I think that just goes to show that people can be perfectly reasonable around guns, especially if the laws treat gun owners fairly. But when people are subjected to BS laws and constant anti-gun rhetoric, with the result that many of them are never even exposed to firearms, - then they tend to have excessive fears around them.
Last edited:
Of course I am betting the will write it wrong. They have a track record to go by.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
And that the 2nd Circuit rules in the plaintiff's favor and if not that SCOTUS takes the case and rules in the plaintiff's favor?
not worried about that, I am not really worried about any of this.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Me either. I have mine.
There is no fatal flaw in my argument, I said it quite clearly, gun owners don't even VOTE, so forget they'd even vote together on an issue.
John Stark
.44 mag
So you've read and claim you understand what I've written on this topic, even though you have not, in fact, written a single thing that is relevant this the original post that was about a case pending approval by SCOTUS with regards to concealed carry licenses.
Well, that's refreshing.
Then you go on to assert the following:
I have repeatedly, in both this post and in others at the old forum (by actually sticking to the subject matter of the OP), both delineated what I believe the law to be and where things stand in terms of future cases before the courts, as well as repeatedly stated that I FULLY support those who want to carry concealed.
I have NOT promoted the idea that open carry is the ONLY carry, as you claim. What I have done is point out it has been ruled by SCOTUS that concealed carry can be regulated by the States, and that is the "originalist" or "textualist" view they have taken on the matter.
Every single state that has done away with a permit to carry concealed, I support, and wish I lived in one. Every single state that offers concealed permits and have loosened the rules so that the People can more easily carry concealed, I support.
I have never once stated that anyone should be without a weapon, whether open OR concealed.
Furthermore, I have repeatedly stated in this thread, and at the old forums, that concealed carriers have shown that they are (almost universally) law-abiding, careful of their weapons, respectful to good government, patriotic, and ought to be able to carry in the manner they choose. The Founders were wise men and did the best they could for their time, but they were not omniscient. Concealed carriers have spent the last century proving that they can go armed in a concealed manner, and thereby showing the Founders were in error on this point.
However, that does not change where the law stands on these matters, which apparently you don't want to actually talk about, preferring instead to engage in a debate that has nothing to do with the Peruta case. You are off topic.
Furthermore, I note that you retreat to arguments about how weak women are, the disabled, and so on, as if I want you to be unarmed and bereft of concealed carry. So is it to be a retreat to the feminist line that we have to give special considerations to those who can't meet the standards of the law, and either open carry without a permit, or carry concealed with one? Special privilege for those who "can't" open carry?
See how the double edged sword works? I could state that I could care less about whether you can carry concealed. Its the law! Get with the program! I could state that since you do not support my Right to carry openly, I do not support your "privilege" to carry concealed, as it is as a matter of law.
However, I do not worship the law, I worship Almighty God. Man and women have been trying to perfect themselves by the law for thousands of years, and failing. I believe in good laws, not bad ones: I do not worship the Founders any more than I do Scalia, as GuyMontag accused me of.
I fully, completely, 100%, no fingers crossed behind my back, support your ability to carry concealed. You and millions and millions of Americans have shown that you are trustworthy, I never want anyone victimized by a criminal, regardless of whether they are a man, woman, or child, whether they are fully in control of their capacities or disabled in some manner, and so on. Furthermore, concealed carry is not going away. That is alarmism and hyperbole at its worst.
If I fully support your preferred manner of carry, then you ought to support mine. But you don't, and openly state that because of consequences you've made up in your head about how that means that weak women and the disabled won't be able to carry concealed. Appeal to emotion much?
I wonder what you would think about "originalism" or "textualism" if you were hauled into a court of law, and the prosecutors and judges agreed that the law doesn't really mean what it says as written. I bet you'd be hopping mad.
Men and women died to get this nation started, for the chance for one of the greatest political documents every written to serve as their Law, and yet you brush that Law off as ancillary to "today's world." I'm sure Ruth Bader Ginsburg would be proud of you.
The Constitution is not set in stone, and it might need some amending. Ought we not understand what they meant when they wrote it before tampering with it so that we don't make a worse mess of our Supreme Law?
Now I'm just a stupid truck driver, so maybe all of you "living document" types will get it right someday. I'll be waiting.
So don't quote the law to you, and just hear your perspective; but let me talk about "originalism" and the "true meaning" of the 2A when I want to. In other words, "shut up!" and "hear my truth!"
You sound like a snow flake.
And then you go on to make an unforced error and claim that the 2A was "originally" about "protection from a tyrannical government" rather than "personal protection."
How exactly do you arrive at the point that the 2A is about protecting us from "a tyrannical government" without basing that on the notion of "personal protection," that is, self-defense, in the first place? The Founders would have been aghast at such a notion, and understood that the Right to protect oneself from the "small time" criminal (murderers, thieves, rapists, etc.) was part and parcel of protecting oneself against the "big time criminals," that is, the Tyrants who have butchered and enslaved and imprisoned millions.
Your response is "do as I say, but not as I do." You reserve for yourself the right to "talk about the law" and "originalism" with regards to the "original meaning of the 2A," while insisting that I not make use of "originalism" or reference the law in the first place.
I'm afraid your entire response is nothing more than the perpetuation of one non sequitur after another.
You make me an enemy when I am not one, even while I choose to refuse to be your enemy.
Last edited:
swilliams
6.5 Creedmoor
Wow. Wasn't trying to make an enemy of you, but since that's where you headed, I guess that's where we are. Whatever.
swilliams
6.5 Creedmoor
I should just leave this alone, lol, but I'm stoopid. I don't always manage to get my point across through written words. John, when I said I didn't want to talk about the law as it is, it's because I'm interested in having a conversation about whether concealed carry ought to be constitutionally protected. You're right, I'm "off topic". I think the debate as to whether this country should go forward with new laws based on relatively recent decisions like Heller, or try to widen the scope of constitutional coverage is a good discussion to be having. "Only" was used because that's what is relevant with Peruta, not because I have an issue with those who do so. Yes, what I said is a non-sequitur to the original post. Are we not allowed to expand on a discussion? I gave several reasons as to why I think concealed carry should ALSO be protected by the constitution, and why I think only applying it to open carry can be a bad idea.
I'm sorry this nation is at a point where we could lose all our right due to the way gun-phobic people 'feel'. I'm sorry we might have to think in terms of "living document" in order to protect our rights. I'm not sorry I think it's a mistake to stick our heads in the sand when it comes to the reality of what could happen if we continue down the road Heller lays out, without considering current perspective on guns. It would be great if we could just ignore that portion of the country that would like to see us all disarmed. It would be great if we could trust that the judicial branch of our government wouldn't cave to popular opinion. It's not unrealistic, given what we've seen as NYers, to believe that won't happen.
On gender, I don't see myself, or women in general, as weak. I've been assaulted due to the fact that I'm a woman, though. (I don't like to categorize it as 'sexual assault' because I personally feel that term should be used for a more serious aggression than having some creepy guy grab my butt. That's a different story, though. Just sharing so that I don't get accused of assuming about the nature of the attack.) Then I got sucker-punched when I turned around, and God only knows what might have happened if the train hadn't arrived when it did. It made me realize that while I don't view myself as weak, there are others that ARE going to view me that way merely because I'm a female. There are those people out there who will see a female (or disabled person, etc.) as a target if they're open-carrying. That's reality, not snowflake-ism.
Last point. I'm not unsupportive of open carry, and I'm truly and honestly sorry that it came across to you that way. I'm also sorry if it came across as a personal attack, rather than a general view of what may happen if we end up with a country-wide ruling that open carry is the only protected method of bearing arms.
I'm sorry this nation is at a point where we could lose all our right due to the way gun-phobic people 'feel'. I'm sorry we might have to think in terms of "living document" in order to protect our rights. I'm not sorry I think it's a mistake to stick our heads in the sand when it comes to the reality of what could happen if we continue down the road Heller lays out, without considering current perspective on guns. It would be great if we could just ignore that portion of the country that would like to see us all disarmed. It would be great if we could trust that the judicial branch of our government wouldn't cave to popular opinion. It's not unrealistic, given what we've seen as NYers, to believe that won't happen.
On gender, I don't see myself, or women in general, as weak. I've been assaulted due to the fact that I'm a woman, though. (I don't like to categorize it as 'sexual assault' because I personally feel that term should be used for a more serious aggression than having some creepy guy grab my butt. That's a different story, though. Just sharing so that I don't get accused of assuming about the nature of the attack.) Then I got sucker-punched when I turned around, and God only knows what might have happened if the train hadn't arrived when it did. It made me realize that while I don't view myself as weak, there are others that ARE going to view me that way merely because I'm a female. There are those people out there who will see a female (or disabled person, etc.) as a target if they're open-carrying. That's reality, not snowflake-ism.
Last point. I'm not unsupportive of open carry, and I'm truly and honestly sorry that it came across to you that way. I'm also sorry if it came across as a personal attack, rather than a general view of what may happen if we end up with a country-wide ruling that open carry is the only protected method of bearing arms.