camper4lyfe
.308 Win
I think it also removes the administrative restrictions, ie hunting and fishing only. It's either all or nothing.
NYSRPA v. Bruen, NY 2A Case Supreme Court case and decision
- Thread starter ManualF150
- Start date
DrBleachCocktail
.44 mag
Let’s fucking go!!!!
Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one
step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is
broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted
in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history.
But Heller and McDonald do not support applying means-
end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Instead,
the government must affirmatively prove that its firearms
regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits
the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.
step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is
broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted
in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history.
But Heller and McDonald do not support applying means-
end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Instead,
the government must affirmatively prove that its firearms
regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits
the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.
96coal449
.308 Win
I agree with you. 100%.
This is a step in the right direction though, giving credit where due.
That said, I'm not getting my hopes up. Iearned from that mistake long ago.
Bob
6.5 Creedmoor
"We reiterate that the standard for applying the Second Amendment is as follows: When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.” Konigsberg, 366 U. S., at 50, n. 10."
I suspect this is going to set up a number of additional challenges to other NY laws.
I suspect this is going to set up a number of additional challenges to other NY laws.
subsonic
.44 mag
I'm reading the text and not seeing that at all. It will likely be like that in the friendly counties upstate and it may move closer to that statewide or eventually effectively become all or nothing but procedurally restrictions aren't invalidated. They just can't require you to have a special cause to get restrictions removed and it won't be automatic.
Sure creative lawyering if someone is charged with violating a restriction down the pike maybe they can argue that but do you see NYSP and NYAG declaring restrictions administratively null and void? No they will not. If you have a permit draft a letter to your judge and ask them to remove the restriction and take this case into account.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha...
Let the fucking Linda Blair head spinning begin!!!
What we they ever do now? I bet it will take 2 years to get an amendment adding a firearm to your permit! One clerk per county processing, etc!
And wait? Will the need for a Judge to "REVIEW" adding another firearm be "restrictive" as well?
Can't wait to see how NY tries to circumvent the ruling!
I'm outta here soon anyways, but oh boy! Lmfao Rotfl... Fuck YOU NY!
Let the fucking Linda Blair head spinning begin!!!
What we they ever do now? I bet it will take 2 years to get an amendment adding a firearm to your permit! One clerk per county processing, etc!
And wait? Will the need for a Judge to "REVIEW" adding another firearm be "restrictive" as well?
Can't wait to see how NY tries to circumvent the ruling!
I'm outta here soon anyways, but oh boy! Lmfao Rotfl... Fuck YOU NY!
DoOver
.450/400 Nitro Ex
#PhuqKuntieJokecul
camper4lyfe
.308 Win
That may be. I'm not all that smart when it comes to reading this legal stuff. As I read it, I thought they didn't like the restrictions.
This will also be sending a few other cases from CA NJ Maryland back to the lower courts to fix their 2 step approach
Agreed - If you currently have a "hunting/sportsman" type license Now deemed Unconstitutional) and now have to reapply for a CCW.................then guaranteed, you will wait years for that amendment
If the hunting/sportsman license automatically rolls over to CCW...............happy days!
If the hunting/sportsman license automatically rolls over to CCW...............happy days!
maverick52
.223 Rem
She gave a press conference. Vowing many laws to come to fight back. She also said we “should go back to muskets”
Has anyone gone and checked on Eric Adam's.
. Is he ok
. Is he ok
BerettaGuy
.308 Win
Again I will reiterate! I was once very active in 2A rights advocacy. I moved to NY in my late 30s.
I found out that "native" New York gun advocates who had experienced the NY State Pistol License scheme thought it was the same way everywhere. They had no clue that the ability to purchase a handgun in other states was no different than you buying a shotgun here in NY. They were fat and happy knowing that once they received their "permit" it was good for LIFE! Of course, they got bitchslapped in 2013 with NY SAFE.
The New York "proper cause" requirement violates the Constitution, Thomas explains, because it only allows public-carry licenses when an applicant shows a special need for self-defense.
For me, the whole NY Pistol Permit scheme violates the Constitution.
What will change? For the rest of the country? Nothing. For New Yorkers. I don't know. My guess is we go from a may issue to a shall issue.
But what about the documented training?
What about 4 references that live within your town (in some counties)
What about the "registration" of make model and serial number of every handgun - AR and soon to me semi-auto long gun you own?
Are those "reasonable infringements"? Kind of like being a little bit pregnant don't you think?
I found out that "native" New York gun advocates who had experienced the NY State Pistol License scheme thought it was the same way everywhere. They had no clue that the ability to purchase a handgun in other states was no different than you buying a shotgun here in NY. They were fat and happy knowing that once they received their "permit" it was good for LIFE! Of course, they got bitchslapped in 2013 with NY SAFE.
The New York "proper cause" requirement violates the Constitution, Thomas explains, because it only allows public-carry licenses when an applicant shows a special need for self-defense.
For me, the whole NY Pistol Permit scheme violates the Constitution.
What will change? For the rest of the country? Nothing. For New Yorkers. I don't know. My guess is we go from a may issue to a shall issue.
But what about the documented training?
What about 4 references that live within your town (in some counties)
What about the "registration" of make model and serial number of every handgun - AR and soon to me semi-auto long gun you own?
Are those "reasonable infringements"? Kind of like being a little bit pregnant don't you think?
subsonic
.44 mag
Doesn't go that far.
They can't demand "proper cause." Now to be clear "proper cause" is really the foundation of restricted permits in New York up until now. So in gun friendly counties this should make unrestricted a matter of course. But this still leaves the administrative basis of restrictions intact and gives leeway to antigun jurisdictions to find some other hat to hang restrictions on. Like requiring you to take 400 hours of training or undergo a full psychological workup at your own expense prior to issuing a carry permit. Then it's either comply or relitigate.
Poor thing probably curl up like a baby on a subway train car. Someone bring the guy some cookies and a blankie
subsonic
.44 mag
I'm don't usually "ditto" but this guy gets it.
Bob
6.5 Creedmoor
camper4lyfe
.308 Win
This ruling does wipe out the "need cause" requirements in 6-8 different states/cities, so it does go beyond NY.
technicalgadget
.223 Rem
The Supreme Court struck down New York state’s system for issuing concealed weapons permits, ruling that the century-old law requiring that applicants demonstrate “proper cause” and “good moral character” violates the Second Amendment.
The 6-3 decision, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, marks the widest expansion of gun rights since 2010, when the court applied nationwide a 2008 ruling establishing an individual right of armed self-defense within the home. It puts in question similar laws in at least eight other states and the District of Columbia, where authorities hold substantial discretion over issuing concealed-weapons permits.
While Republican-leaning states have been loosening gun regulations over the past decade, California, Hawaii and more urban states in the Northeast have maintained their traditional limits on concealed weapons.
Supreme Court allows the carrying of firearms in public in major victory for gun rights groups
The ruling expands upon a 2008 decision that said the Second Amendment safeguards a person’s right to possess firearms at home for self-protection.
www.nbcnews.com