2nd Circuit decisions published today! Voluminous! 261 Page Decision. Go to CourtListener to review.

[Beerman]

The social media issue IS HUGE..................no longer can Hochul and James require that pistol permit clerks and Judges, read our virulent and truthful attacks upon her and James, on this forum OR ANY OTHERS.....................FOR NOW

She wanted this to disqualify all MAGA, in future pistol, and semi auto re-certs.......just like the de-facto ammo purchase ban............

Jack smith Chairman Xi's personal attack dog, has all the twitter likes on Trump ...SAME ILLEGAL SHIT..................Hochul will likely try again and again, this time getting a single court order to examine each PP recert application............FUCKING BET ON IT.
She will claim that anyone wanting to re certify has criminal intent and social meida will prove the danger.

THIS IS HUGE ANYWAY.......sets them back on their asses for existing pp holders. fopr a while.
SHE WILL APPEAL TO THE FULL APPEALS COURT............. she has to............

The upholding of 4 non felon and non criminal signatories, to attest to your moral character to get a permit .........is a joke.
Thomas explicitly shitcanned that in Bruen...."SHALL FUCKING ISSUE."
The clause actually hurts minorities the most...........

The war is on for sure...................if the entire 2nd delays the hearing another year........ and lets Hochul do what I predict above, regarding socila media court orders....... and redefining private places...............

Are you certain, 100% certain, that Bruen “explicitly shitcanned” the State’s ability to require character references required for applications? Are you sure enough to bet your life on itr are you on a tirade and just ranting?

That State is not allowed to determine subjective requirements, but Bruen said nothing of what the actual pistol license application will/may/shall consist of, nor did it address the legality/Constitutionality/practicality/timeliness of the licensing process.

The main thing that came out of the Bruen case was the SC saying that the right to carry for self defense outside the home (vs premises or a version of a “sportsman’s” permit) is guaranteed to all citizens, and that all licensing schemes must pass strict scrutiny of history, text and tradition. It was also stated in a concurrence (by Brett “I Love Beer” Kavanaugh) that permitting/licensing laws are allowed. That’s NOT a binding part of the ruling, but it sure stings, and further emboldened NYS to enact the 16+2 training requirement after Sept 1, 2022.

 

[Zerex]

Thomas said IN BRUEN.............show up to gun dealer--pass NICS and go home with pistol.......LIKE A RIFLE........... No morality test.
CCL was a license situation, but had to be shall issue.........
............training was a gray area ............


HOCHUL ONLY SPEAKS AND UNDERSTANDS HARKONNEN

 

[Beerman]

View attachment 218911

How did this just morph into the bidet thread???

 

[Acer-m14]

and that all licensing schemes must pass strict scrutiny of history, text and tradition.

and there was none in 1791

 

[Deplorable Me]

my home is private property ..

please leave your guns in your automobile ..

including you too officer ..

Does that apply to the ATF? Think how many dogs that will save.

 

[fresch]

Here a communist
There a communist
Everywhere a communist
The democrats are communist, the Republicans are leaning heavily to communism.
They see how chi-na is using both systems yet keeping communism as the control over the people.

 

[Saltwater60]

I mean I guess

The social media issue IS HUGE..................no longer can Hochul and James require that pistol permit clerks and Judges, read our virulent and truthful attacks upon her and James, on this forum OR ANY OTHERS.....................FOR NOW

She wanted this to disqualify all MAGA, in future pistol, and semi auto re-certs.......just like the de-facto ammo purchase ban............

Jack smith Chairman Xi's personal attack dog, has all the twitter likes on Trump ...SAME ILLEGAL SHIT..................Hochul will likely try again and again, this time getting a single court order to examine each PP recert application............FUCKING BET ON IT.
She will claim that anyone wanting to re certify has criminal intent and social meida will prove the danger.

THIS IS HUGE ANYWAY.......sets them back on their asses for existing pp holders. fopr a while.
SHE WILL APPEAL TO THE FULL APPEALS COURT............. she has to............

The upholding of 4 non felon and non criminal signatories, to attest to your moral character to get a permit .........is a joke.
Thomas explicitly shitcanned that in Bruen...."SHALL FUCKING ISSUE."
The clause actually hurts minorities the most...........

The war is on for sure...................if the entire 2nd delays the hearing another year........ and lets Hochul do what I predict above, regarding socila media court orders....... and redefining private places...............

I mean I guess it’s big but they are listening in anyway and have beefed up their internet goon squad so do they need it? Maybe this is what our $9 and $2.50 fees for background checks are financing and maybe that’s why it was overturned. Don’t think any of this isn’t a calculated or coordinated behind the scenes. I don’t think the court made this decision on their own without approval.

 

[Saltwater60]

Thomas said IN BRUEN.............show up to gun dealer--pass NICS and go home with pistol.......LIKE A RIFLE........... No morality test.
CCL was a license situation, but had to be shall issue.........
............training was a gray area ............


HOCHUL ONLY SPEAKS AND UNDERSTANDS HARKONNEN

I never heard this before and they said pistol permits were ok but they can’t be too costly or burdensome. If I’m wrong please enlighten me.

 

[Beerman]

I never heard this before and they said pistol permits were ok but they can’t be too costly or burdensome. If I’m wrong please enlighten me.

You never heard it because it’s fiction.

 

[FrankenCub]

Hmmmm.... interesting

 

[pshift]

 

[John Stark]

I believe the Second Circus, in an attempt to stave off SCOTUS review, gave us as little back as they dared to.

I'm using your point here as springboard, as I agree with you overall and I'm not directing any criticism your way given the general nature of your view.

The FedCom and State Stasi trash who have been attempting to usurp our Rights are playing a game of obstruction because they know they have already lost this battle. In essence, they are fighting a rearguard action in an attempt to hold onto as much power over the Second Amendment as they possibly can, and I would submit they do this because they are scared of an armed populace. Almost all of that is tied directly into the licensing schemes the Feds and the States have been running since the Civil War era and beyond. Obviously this is power that they do not want to give up. This is the very definition of the government "picking winners and losers," which underscores their view that having the means to protect yourself from criminals (especially from themselves, as governments are the largest mass murderers as clearly shown by history) belongs only to the chosen few. Notably, I include NICS checks as another licensing/permitting scheme. There certainly was no "background check" agency or mechanism according the history, text, and tradition" when the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights were enshrined as our supreme law.

Others have noted that the rearguard action is all about stalling until the makeup of the Court can be changed and they get rulings more to their liking; and I broadly agree with that sentiment. That being said, there are a lot of other moving parts here.

The fact that demrats are utter trash who hate our Constitution and our Rights fuels a lot of this, and we are seeing this play out in real time in a soap-operatic manner. This state bans this, that state restricts that, this other state requires thus and so. Partly the various (and mostly retarded) Federal and State rulings post Heller are a means to muck up the works and slow things down as long as possible, but there is another very important dimension to this. I do not leave out the Republicucks out of the picture, but they do at least mouth platitudes about the Second Amendment even if most of that is lip service. Doubtless, the powers that be behind both parties would love a citizenry that was even more docile and supine about their Rights and their Heritage than they already are!

The facts are all on our side, hence the propaganda campaign. Liars prosper by sowing discord via lies.

The plain fact of the matter is they want a patchwork of various Fed and State laws, because that sows confusion among their enemies. For example, that is how they have brainwashed a good portion of society to accept things like NICS licensing schemes and State permitting schemes. Worse, the hive mind has infected many so-called Second Amendment supporters into accepting such schemes themselves since its the "way its always been" or worse, because they have fallen away from the principles this nation was founded upon and WANT licensing and permitting schemes, as long as they are "fair."

Our political masters govern by the art of stirring the shitshow and lying about everything. They are purposely poisoning the Well of Liberty via propaganda and their various unlawful and evil actions because they want to reduce us to absolute despotism.

Hence, the Second Circuit dithering for so long, and only grudgingly throwing in the towel on parts of NY's permitting schemes that are not only obviously unconstitutional on their face, but clearly overruled already in 3 very strong SCOTUS opinions.

Unfortunately, the Supremes are willing to allow multiple courts in multiple jurisdictions to break the law and get away with flagrantly flaunting their precedents, knowing that unless the People take matters into their own hands, they can use their law enforcement powers and the threat of arrest and incarceration to keep us under their jackboot while keeping SCOTUS declawed and defanged.

This pattern of purposeful destruction via their bullshit laws, and worse, their bullshit law enforcement actions, all taken to curtail our Rights, is nothing more than a long term, coordinated straregy to destroy our nation.

The fact that We the People are content to bandy words with crooked men and women in crooked courts of "law," as if there really is much debate about the "limits" of our Freedoms is, quite frankly, the most ominous part of this entire clusterfuck.

 

[livingston]

Hmmmm.... interesting

Faux Histoire of the Right to Bear Arms: Young v. Hawaii (9th Cir. 2021)

Young v. Hawaii, 992 F.3d 765 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc), purports to find that the right to bear arms is outside the historical scope of the Second Amendment, w

papers.ssrn.com

Faux Histoire of the Right to Bear Arms: Young v. Hawaii (9th Cir. 2021)​

Young v. Hawaii, 992 F.3d 765 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc), purports to find that the right to bear arms is outside the historical scope of the Second Amendment, which protects that very right to bear arms. The actual text of the Second Amendment is AWOL in the Ninth Circuit’s holding that Hawaii may ban the carrying of firearms, whether openly or concealed. The court’s lengthy account of the history of prohibition on bearing arms is a faux histoire.

 

[John Stark]

I look forward to seeing "no firearms" signs pop up so I know which businesses to avoid giving any of my money to.

You're not going to see those, at least not for long even if any go up.

Businesses and other private property "open to the public" must allow free men to Bear. That is exactly what SCOTUS already said, relying upon "history, text, and tradition," what the Second Circus caved to (knowing how clear SCOTUS was on this point), and which is strongly backed up by both Federal and State laws that regulate the commerce of businesses that are "open to the public."

Any business "open to the public" that puts up such a sign opens themselves up to lawsuits at this point.

Gun owners are not second class citizens, and they have as much Right to engage in society as the unarmed sheep do.

 

[John Stark]

Are you certain, 100% certain, that Bruen “explicitly shitcanned” the State’s ability to require character references required for applications? Are you sure enough to bet your life on itr are you on a tirade and just ranting?

That State is not allowed to determine subjective requirements, but Bruen said nothing of what the actual pistol license application will/may/shall consist of, nor did it address the legality/Constitutionality/practicality/timeliness of the licensing process.

The main thing that came out of the Bruen case was the SC saying that the right to carry for self defense outside the home (vs premises or a version of a “sportsman’s” permit) is guaranteed to all citizens, and that all licensing schemes must pass strict scrutiny of history, text and tradition. It was also stated in a concurrence (by Brett “I Love Beer” Kavanaugh) that permitting/licensing laws are allowed. That’s NOT a binding part of the ruling, but it sure stings, and further emboldened NYS to enact the 16+2 training requirement after Sept 1, 2022.

It appears you answered your own questions with this line: the "State is not allowed to determine subjective requirements..."

First of all, Constitutional law and jurisprudence assumes many thing in any given case, bedrock foundational principles that many give little to no consideration of, like: Due Process, Equal Rights before the bar of the law, that law abiding citizens ought to be allowed to exercise their Rights in a lawful (i.e., non-criminal) manner, and so on. The notion of Prior Restrain weighs heavily in every instance when it comes to our Rights. Etc. It is wise to always keep these principles in mind, even if SCOTUS or any other court does not reference them. These and more ought to be thought of by our populace as "sure, assumed principles" just as our Right to be considered innocent until proven guilty is widely known and embraced.

When it comes to the interaction of citizens exercising their Rights vs. government power, the burden of proof is always on the government, and the lawful exercise of Rights by the citizens are not on to be constrained. Period end of story.

The very notion of "character references" to establish "good moral character" in order to exercise a fundamental Right is repugnant in the first place, given our "history, text, and tradition," and IN FACT is unlawful tyranny and a very callous and wicked usurpation of our status as citizens of this once great nation.

In essence, the State asks of the permit beggar to prove himself to meet some vague standard before he or she can engage in lawfully protected conduct. That is the very essence of Prior Restraint, and if it is not "fruit from a poisoned tree," then I'll be damned.

Why must we "prove our character" when we are BORN with these natural and God-given Rights in the first place, and have them guaranteed us by our wonderful Constitution in the second place? They are ours at birth, and they brook no restraint unless and until we are actual criminals: murderers, rapists, kidnappers, terrorists, and so on, whether convicted or in the commission of such a crime.

Furthermore, how in hell are character references any kind of objective rubric by which we ought to discern whether a man or woman ought to be deprived of their Rights, or be allowed to by their moral character?

Do the people giving these character references know the applicant well enough to know he has a felony murder conviction in his past? Does the character reference know any given man or woman does a lot of charity in their community, if that person wisely chooses to "not let the left hand know what the right is doing;" in other words, does great works of charity anonymously without blowing their own horn about it? Does a character reference that states the applicant "loves puppies and kittens" count, even if the man or woman physically abuses his or her spouse, or cheats on their spouse extensively and mercilessly?

Before you could even have a rubric for "good moral character" useful in any sense to our evil and retarded political masters in such matters, we would have to actually have a moral standard in this nation, which we obviously do not have any longer.

As well, your assertion that: "The main thing that came out of the Bruen case was the SC saying that the right to carry for self defense outside the home..." is utterly erroneous. The notion that we have the Right to Keep Arms, and the Right to Bear those Arms, were both upheld in Heller first of all. Bruen merely affirmed the Right.

I almost want to jump to asshole mode and ask if you even read Heller, but I do try to restrain myself from being a jackwagon from time to time. I will note however that Heller clearly held up Dick Heller's right to obtain a license to conceal carry in DC, and that the DC morons were forced more than once to change their rubrics by which a citizen of the United States could gain such a permit because the government standards were NOT objective, but very subjective indeed.

I'm not going to bother citing the relevant portions of Heller at this point, because I have written about this previously and strenuously, long before Bruen was a twinkle in Justice Thomas's eye.

With all due respect to you, I could go on and on about this subject ad nauseum, and not always to the pleasure of the peanut gallery, so to speak. My points here are brief, but need not be so!

 

[Xae289]

They didn’t have them before so why will they now?

Because the law previously set prohibiting lawful concealed carry as the default. Now the default is to allow concealed carry unless explicitly forbidden.

You're not going to see those, at least not for long even if any go up.

Businesses and other private property "open to the public" must allow free men to Bear. That is exactly what SCOTUS already said, relying upon "history, text, and tradition," what the Second Circus caved to (knowing how clear SCOTUS was on this point), and which is strongly backed up by both Federal and State laws that regulate the commerce of businesses that are "open to the public."

Any business "open to the public" that puts up such a sign opens themselves up to lawsuits at this point.

Gun owners are not second class citizens, and they have as much Right to engage in society as the unarmed sheep do.

I wholeheartedly agree with your take on the issue of character references to establish "good moral character". However, when it comes to signage, I think you are flat wrong and don't understand the legal issues at play. Businesses open to the public absolutely can put up signs prohibiting concealed carry without violating your Second Amendment rights just like they can ban clothes with vulgarity, clothes with political messages, t-shirts, yellow hats, or whatever without infringing on your First Amendment rights. Those Amendments prevent the government from infringing on your rights, not private entities whom you can choose or refuse to do business with. Under any current interpretation, the 2A does not mean that private businesses can be forced by the government to allow you to be armed on their premises against their wishes.

Obviously, there are exceptions to private businesses' freedoms to deny service with the concept of "protected classes" in that you can't deny a person service based on sex, religion, race, etc. I.e. you can say "no hats", but you have to exempt Jews wearing yarmulkes or Sikhs wearing turbans. People bearing arms are far from being considered a protected class, and this is a legal reality whether or not you or I believe that they should be granted special protections insofar as they are exercising 2A rights. To my knowledge, there has not been even one post-Bruen legal challenge to "no guns" signs, and I doubt that any such challenge will be successful despite the fact that there exist plenty of such signs in states where carrying firearms is way more common than NY. Nor are you likely to see any successful legal challenges. Let me know if you have heard of any such challenge, because I would be very intested to follow such a case.

What we ARE likely to see are successful challenges to what the government is allowed to dictate as being a "sensitive" (i.e. gun-free) location. For one, we will likely see the government defeated in its attempts to categorize as much as possible as a gun-free location. In fact, that is already what we saw with this recent 2nd Circuit decision. We will also likely see the provision overturned barring people from carrying in places that serve alcohol while retaining prohibitions on intoxicated people carrying. What we won't see is the courts dictating to privately owned business that they must allow concealed carry. Even tyrannical NY in setting "no concealed carry" as the default for private businesses, still admitted that businesses held the ultimate decision by allowing most private businesses (except those that serve alcohol) to post "guns allowed" signage.

 

[John Stark]

I wholeheartedly agree with your take on the issue of character references to establish "good moral character". However, when it comes to signage, I think you are flat wrong and don't understand the legal issues at play. Businesses open to the public absolutely can put up signs prohibiting concealed carry without violating your Second Amendment rights just like they can ban clothes with vulgarity, clothes with political messages, t-shirts, yellow hats, or whatever without infringing on your First Amendment rights. Those Amendments prevent the government from infringing on your rights, not private entities whom you can choose or refuse to do business with. Under any current interpretation, the 2A does not mean that private businesses can be forced by the government to allow you to be armed on their premises against their wishes.

Obviously, there are exceptions to private businesses' freedoms to deny service with the concept of "protected classes" in that you can't deny a person service based on sex, religion, race, etc. I.e. you can say "no hats", but you have to exempt Jews wearing yarmulkes or Sikhs wearing turbans. People bearing arms are far from being considered a protected class, and this is a legal reality whether or not you or I believe that they should be granted special protections insofar as they are exercising 2A rights. To my knowledge, there has not been even one post-Bruen legal challenge to "no guns" signs, and I doubt that any such challenge will be successful despite the fact that there exist plenty of such signs in states where carrying firearms is way more common than NY. Nor are you likely to see any successful legal challenges. Let me know if you have heard of any such challenge, because I would be very intested to follow such a case.

What we ARE likely to see are successful challenges to what the government is allowed to dictate as being a "sensitive" (i.e. gun-free) location. For one, we will likely see the government defeated in its attempts to categorize as much as possible as a gun-free location. In fact, that is already what we saw with this recent 2nd Circuit decision. We will also likely see the provision overturned barring people from carrying in places that serve alcohol while retaining prohibitions on intoxicated people carrying. What we won't see is the courts dictating to privately owned business that they must allow concealed carry. Even tyrannical NY in setting "no concealed carry" as the default for private businesses, still admitted that businesses held the ultimate decision by allowing most private businesses (except those that serve alcohol) to post "guns allowed" signage.

I'm going to quote your response at this point just to be clear what I am responding to, because I plan on addressing this more fully.

I have been trying recently to limit myself to a 24 hour rule when it comes to weighing in on important matters, as a constraint on my own resolve and firmness in my principles. A cooling off period so to speak. I want to respond to you thoughtfully. However I am often not always successful in holding my tongue. Further, with the Christmas season upon us, I am frankly quite busy, despite my proverbial felt need to always "strike while the fire is hot."

I will state ahead of time that most of your points and the "facts" by which your assertions depend are ripe for deconstruction, rebuttal, and rejection, especially under the rubric of "history, text, and tradition," a rubric that the Supreme Court certainly did not invent out of whole clothe in the 21st century but that hearkens back centuries and even millennia. Part of my response would also hearken to the loss of any sense of what was once known as "common law," and the ramifications of that in Constitutional jurisprudence; something Scalia took great pains with in his research and historical analysis of the Second Amendment in Heller.

I believe your reply to me was given in an honest manner (even though I find your analysis to be in error), so I want to be clear that I am not casting aspersions your way on account of your expressed views, and I am not taking your response as a personal attack or one that holds malice aforethought. I do believe that your assertions amount to saying I am overreaching without warrant (especially with your point about how our Rights are protected by Constitutional Amendment from the government, as if I needed to be reminded of that elementary fact!), when it will be my contention that you are grasping at many straws, and stand on very shaky ground.

For now I will break my 24 hour rule slightly, and ask two simple but intertwined questions:

Is it possible (and punishable) for a citizen or citizens of the United States to purposely violate the natural and God-given Rights protected by our laws?

(Note that I do not say "civil rights" here in particular, as that turn of phrase has connotations that I do not like.)

Further as an adjunct to my first question:

Is it possible (and punishable) for a citizen or citizens of the United Stats to purposely enter into a conspiracy to violate the natural and God-given Rights protected by our laws? This followup is very close to my first question obviously, but perhaps even more potent and important.

 

[Acer-m14]

got to love it when the 2nd circus has to make up a law to obey the Queen of NY ..

and that old BS keep referring to the King and his people too ..

unfking real ..




Lastly, the case of State v. Huntly, 25 NC 418, 420 (1843) is further proof that this alleged NC law should hold no bearing on questions of 2A meaning. The Huntly case explains that even assuming that this law was in place in 1792, the law had been eliminated by 1838. Huntly explains, “The argument is, that the offence of riding or going about armed with unusual and dangerous weapons, to the terror of the people, was created by the statute of Northampton, 2nd Edward the 3d, ch. 3d, and that, whether this statute was or was not formerly in force in this State, it certainly has not been since the first of January, 1838, at which day it is declared in the Revised Statutes, (ch. 1st, sect. 2,) that the statutes of England or Great Britain shall cease to be of force and effect here.” State v. Huntly, 25 N.C. 418, 420 (1843)

 

[Willyone]

got to love it when the 2nd circus has to make up a law to obey the Queen of NY ..

and that old BS keep referring to the King and his people too ..

unfking real ..

You mean the British king? WTF!! I heard somewhere that we kicked the Brits out'a here about 240 years ago.

 

[Acer-m14]

You mean the British king? WTF!! I heard somewhere that we kicked the Brits out'a here about 240 years ago.

yeah .. that king ..

the 2nd Circus did not get that memo ..

 

[ManualF150]

Oneida County Pistol Licensing Office Provides Clarity on Where Permitted Gun Owners Can Carry

Nine months to generate a 261-page ruling, and somehow, gray area, questions and uncertainty about where legal gun owners can bring their guns remain.

www.wktv.com

UTICA, N.Y. -- Nine months to generate a 261-page ruling, and somehow, gray area, questions and uncertainty about where legal gun owners can bring their guns remain.

"Nine out of 10. I think nine out of ten people don't have a clue how much legislation has been passed and appealed and rejected and overturned. It's almost an impossible thing to follow," Oneida County Assistant Pistol Licensing Officer, Dan Sullivan, said.

It's the latest in a seemingly endless volley between the state and gun rights advocates that happened this past Friday when the U.S. Appeals Court for the Second Circuit issued a 261-page ruling regarding challenges to New York State's Concealed Carry Improvement Act.

The Oneida County Pistol Licensing Office clarifies where licensed gun owners can't carry.

"Sensitive locations...government buildings, schools, Times Square—places like that are gone. It specifically states bars. It doesn't distinguish between a bar room and then a restaurant in another location of the bar room," says Sullivan.

"My personal feeling is from a legal standpoint, they're probably saying bars and restaurants are one," he added.

Here's where Sullivan said the decision says you can carry your legally-possessed gun.

"We can carry in public buildings that are owned, whether it's a local grocery store, whether it's a local supply store, whether it's your barber, your hairdresser, whatever the case may be. They did say that the state didn't have the authority to do that," says Sullivan.

Sullivan says business owners are no longer required to put up signs saying guns are permitted, but if they want to, they can put up signs saying guns aren't permitted.

Sullivan's unclear on how to interpret parts of the ruling.

"They specifically site city parks in the ruling. There's a question of whether we're talking about local village or town parks."

In spite of the ongoing confusion, people living in Oneida County are still applying for pistol permits-around 50 in the past week alone.

 

[Willyone]

Oneida County Pistol Licensing Office Provides Clarity on Where Permitted Gun Owners Can Carry

Nine months to generate a 261-page ruling, and somehow, gray area, questions and uncertainty about where legal gun owners can bring their guns remain.

www.wktv.com

UTICA, N.Y. -- Nine months to generate a 261-page ruling, and somehow, gray area, questions and uncertainty about where legal gun owners can bring their guns remain.

"Nine out of 10. I think nine out of ten people don't have a clue how much legislation has been passed and appealed and rejected and overturned. It's almost an impossible thing to follow," Oneida County Assistant Pistol Licensing Officer, Dan Sullivan, said.

It's the latest in a seemingly endless volley between the state and gun rights advocates that happened this past Friday when the U.S. Appeals Court for the Second Circuit issued a 261-page ruling regarding challenges to New York State's Concealed Carry Improvement Act.

The Oneida County Pistol Licensing Office clarifies where licensed gun owners can't carry.

"Sensitive locations...government buildings, schools, Times Square—places like that are gone. It specifically states bars. It doesn't distinguish between a bar room and then a restaurant in another location of the bar room," says Sullivan.

"My personal feeling is from a legal standpoint, they're probably saying bars and restaurants are one," he added.

Here's where Sullivan said the decision says you can carry your legally-possessed gun.

"We can carry in public buildings that are owned, whether it's a local grocery store, whether it's a local supply store, whether it's your barber, your hairdresser, whatever the case may be. They did say that the state didn't have the authority to do that," says Sullivan.

Sullivan says business owners are no longer required to put up signs saying guns are permitted, but if they want to, they can put up signs saying guns aren't permitted.

Sullivan's unclear on how to interpret parts of the ruling.

"They specifically site city parks in the ruling. There's a question of whether we're talking about local village or town parks."

In spite of the ongoing confusion, people living in Oneida County are still applying for pistol permits-around 50 in the past week alone.

Seems it's a combination of ignorant law makers and legislators, along with intentional confusion. Unless you're a lawyer familiar with 2A, or a person able to sift thru and sort out the 261 pages of gibberish, about the only way to truly know what's right or wrong is to wait for arrests and trial outcomes. Business, or better yet, bullshit as usual.

As I see it, the best thing to do is CC when/where you see fit, and don't pull on someone unless it is an ABSOLUTE necessity.

 

[Acer-m14]

Oneida County Pistol Licensing Office

Sullivan's unclear on how to interpret parts of the ruling. then do not interpret anything .. you are not a lawyer ...

I got a Idea .. READ THE 2A .. READ BRUEN .. there was no Oneida County Pistol Licensing Office in 1791 ..

honor your Oath .. Stand down ..