Bigfoot
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Edit - never mind on second thought the video wasn't on topic so I moved it.
Last edited:
NYSRPA v. Bruen, NY 2A Case Supreme Court case and decision
- Thread starter ManualF150
- Start date
ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
It sucks that NYS seems to think they are above the law. In some instances it really does seem like they should just secede from the union because they seem to think the bill of rights and the consitution don't apply to them. The beauty of this latest ruling, is that kicking and screaming, nys courts now have to rule differently on the 2A. So while the legislature is free to pass whatever garbage they want to, the courts can no longer oblige the legislature with interest balacing rulings. The shit just won't stick.
maverick52
.223 Rem
How soon after they pass their new laws will the second circuit rule?
ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
Unfortunately, cases have to be brought. The judiciary isn't proactive. Someone has to bring suit. The good news is that because of this latest ruling, any case brought shouldn't have to go past the lowest court.
maverick52
.223 Rem
Right. But scotus remanded the case back to the 2nd circuit. So based on that, they can rule against the new laws coming in?
spat
.950 JDJ
Maybe even get some out of state non residents to apply.
Not sure "residency" would be a legitimate requirement either.
ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
Based on that they should rule against any new laws that are not in compliance with the 2A. They have basically been mandated to by the highest court in the country. If they don't, it will surely find its way to a highly sympathetic supreme court.
nortatoga
.338 Win Mag
And the 2nd circuit will remand it to the district court as the that was the first step up the ladder.
dwa12479
.338 Win Mag
That essentislly just returns it to them with instructions on how to correct their mistake and why it was wrong. It doesn't give them the opportunity to re-issue the same incorrect ruling.
No 2nd circuit can only rule on the case that is remanded back to them
camper4lyfe
.308 Win
I don't have a subscription, so I couldn't see the whole article, but as I quickly scanned, I saw a reference to live fire training. Dear NY, if I, who does not have a permit, can not touch a handgun, how am I supposed to participate in live fire training?
Dumbasses
Another thread someone copy and pasted the whole article. I'll tag you when I find it
gun_slinger_boy
.338 Win Mag
That's the NY Stockholm syndrome kicking in. Free states are excited about becoming even more free due to this ruling. I see the potential of this and like what I see on the horizon.
None of those will past muster using the standard of Text as informed by history.
Also it won't take "many years".. the case originally started in 2018, with the lower courts ruling incorrectly (presumably on a 2 step analysis) it then went to the 2nd circuit in 2020. And now ruled on 2022.
At best all the new laws will be destroyed in the lower courts and not need to go to the 2nd circuit,
The more they loose Power and control, the more they will finally admit to the problems and their duplicity.
Column: Is California ready for more Black people to legally carry guns in public?
The Supreme Court says the 2nd Amendment covers the right to carry guns in public. But for Black people, the calculation has always been more complicated.www.latimes.com
Remind me who the racists are again.
Phazer
.450/400 Nitro Ex
And prove how racist they really are. The leftists will unmask themselves....eventually.
exactly!
Egret-II
.40 S&W
LibertyWins
9mm
I really hope the horse-faced witch loses today & a Republican takes office again. It's been 20 years, but I feel like it can happen. The people have had enough of the BS from the left.
"The governor indicated lawmakers want to give private businesses the authority to keep guns off their premises. Sources said businesses would have to affirmatively “opt in” to declare they are allowing guns. The default position would be for businesses to prohibit guns."
Nope. The default is we can carry wherever. If a business does not want us there they have to say so.
You don't get to defacto-ban carrying all over.
Did she fail remedial english or something?
Nope. The default is we can carry wherever. If a business does not want us there they have to say so.
You don't get to defacto-ban carrying all over.
Did she fail remedial english or something?
camper4lyfe
.308 Win
Yes she did, and she also failed Constitution 101
LibertyWins
9mm
This puts private businesses in a bad spot and basically forces them into a situation where they're able to be publicly politicized if they choose to allow their customers to carry. It's like the mask mandates and forcing businesses to put the "masks must be worn" sign up. It's ridiculous.
I agree the default should be the opposite, unless a business has a sign specifying.
MikeyCNY
6.5 Creedmoor
Cavalry
.338 Win Mag
Interesting. Giardino is my sheriff, as well as having the unique distinction of also being a former County DA and county judge. I would hope having held all those positions he knows something about law. He is pretty pro 2A and had no problem handing out unrestricted permits while on the bench. Hes not as staunch or as vocal on 2a as our former Sheriff Lorey but I get the impression he is not a shitbag either.
I read his FB post and honestly didnt really get the same message. He said thats the direction its going, let it all settle out, give it a couple weeks and it will be a done deal. I am sure he is deflecting it away from being his decision. Horechul does have the ability and power to remove him.
Last edited:
Cavalry
.338 Win Mag
Saltwater60
20×102mm Vulcan
I don’t get the giving business signs the force of law. What if I made a sign that said no one in a green shirt or I’ll have them arrested? I get that’s a little bit ridiculous, but now we’re giving private citizens the option to arrest us for exercising our rights without contact or asking us to leave first?
JackNeat
.45 acp
Big news for Rockland county…. This will likely be posted by the Rockland Pistol Clerk very soon.
The Sportman/Residence restrictions will no longer apply.
The Sportman/Residence restrictions will no longer apply.
ManualF150
.308 Win
Here's what I think based upon what I've read here, elsewhere, and talking to people.
I think that the counties (except NYC -- who knows/I don't care) may drag their feet for a bit, then comply and turn anyone who has restrictions into full carry. Reason being is that folks that already demonstrated that they are upstanding citizens with pistols. So it's a lot more justifiable to give Johnny unrestricted since he's had his pistol permit for 2+ years.
What I believe will occur next is that anyone who wants to initially apply for their pistol permit (new applications), will need to go through more background checks, and they will scrutinize any little thing that might be a "red flag". If they see something out of the ordinary, they'll automatically deny it. That was what one licensing officer said.
Where I'm getting at with this, is that for those that already have restricted permits, will automatically get unrestricted. Basically meaning it's your lucky day, cause if you didn't do it X number of years ago and you want to do it now, well, good luck.
I think that the counties (except NYC -- who knows/I don't care) may drag their feet for a bit, then comply and turn anyone who has restrictions into full carry. Reason being is that folks that already demonstrated that they are upstanding citizens with pistols. So it's a lot more justifiable to give Johnny unrestricted since he's had his pistol permit for 2+ years.
What I believe will occur next is that anyone who wants to initially apply for their pistol permit (new applications), will need to go through more background checks, and they will scrutinize any little thing that might be a "red flag". If they see something out of the ordinary, they'll automatically deny it. That was what one licensing officer said.
Where I'm getting at with this, is that for those that already have restricted permits, will automatically get unrestricted. Basically meaning it's your lucky day, cause if you didn't do it X number of years ago and you want to do it now, well, good luck.
Seems to me like the license scheme in its entirety is subject . We have the right to bear arms.
At the end of this long journey through the Anglo-American
history of public carry, we conclude that respondents have
not met their burden to identify an American tradition jus-
tifying the State’s proper-cause requirement. The Second
Amendment guaranteed to “all Americans” the right to bear
commonly used arms in public subject to certain reasona-
ble, well-defined restrictions. Heller, 554 U. S., at 581.
Those restrictions, for example, limited the intent for which
one could carry arms, the manner by which one carried
arms, or the exceptional circumstances under which one
could not carry arms, such as before justices of the peace
and other government officials. Apart from a few late-19th-
century outlier jurisdictions, American governments simply
have not broadly prohibited the public carry of commonly
used firearms for personal defense. Nor, subject to a few
late-in-time outliers, have American governments required
law-abiding, responsible citizens to “demonstrate a special
need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the
general community” in order to carry arms in public.
Klenosky, 75 App. Div., at 793, 428 N. Y. S. 2d, at 257.
IV
The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-
defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely
different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guaran-
tees.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion). We
know of no other constitutional right that an individual
may exercise only after demonstrating to government offic-
ers some special need. That is not how the First Amend-
ment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free
exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment
works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the
witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second
Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-
defense.
New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Four-
teenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens
with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right
to keep and bear arms. We therefore reverse the judgment
of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further pro-
ceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
At the end of this long journey through the Anglo-American
history of public carry, we conclude that respondents have
not met their burden to identify an American tradition jus-
tifying the State’s proper-cause requirement. The Second
Amendment guaranteed to “all Americans” the right to bear
commonly used arms in public subject to certain reasona-
ble, well-defined restrictions. Heller, 554 U. S., at 581.
Those restrictions, for example, limited the intent for which
one could carry arms, the manner by which one carried
arms, or the exceptional circumstances under which one
could not carry arms, such as before justices of the peace
and other government officials. Apart from a few late-19th-
century outlier jurisdictions, American governments simply
have not broadly prohibited the public carry of commonly
used firearms for personal defense. Nor, subject to a few
late-in-time outliers, have American governments required
law-abiding, responsible citizens to “demonstrate a special
need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the
general community” in order to carry arms in public.
Klenosky, 75 App. Div., at 793, 428 N. Y. S. 2d, at 257.
IV
The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-
defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely
different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guaran-
tees.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion). We
know of no other constitutional right that an individual
may exercise only after demonstrating to government offic-
ers some special need. That is not how the First Amend-
ment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free
exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment
works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the
witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second
Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-
defense.
New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Four-
teenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens
with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right
to keep and bear arms. We therefore reverse the judgment
of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further pro-
ceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.