We're on our own (new gun carry law)

[Dr. Evil]

IDK what you all are bitching about, Just become a gang-banger, a member of MS-13, Crips, bloods, Hells Angels.... they carry where they want, whenever they want, if they get caught, they get a ticket and go home?? never to return? its really not that big a deal.

When guns are outlawed, I will become an outlaw

I have no idea who came up with that saying, but it works for me

of course, there is "plan B" MOVE OUT OF THIS POLITICAL CIRCUS

Choosing B.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

The problem with your argument is that you act as if I am against people getting their CCW. Just the opposite. Equal consideration? Nope. Why? The officer already passed the background checks, has been pressure tested to some degree. The applicant for CCW would be no different than a new police recruit at that point( a lot of police recruits have a lot of experience from all sorts of backgrounds). No warm and fuzzies for police recruits
Military veterans often get warm and fuzzies too by the way.

You aren’t truly understanding the threat against LEOs. We will and have be attacked not just for anything we had direct hand in or an enemy we created. We will be attacked if someone simply finds out what profession we once held. LEO can go on vacation to the other side of the country, completely out of his former jurisdiction, and be attacked by a complete stranger when that stranger learns of his his (former or current ) profession- from minor things like vandalism to physical assaults to attempted murder. It’s so common it doesn’t make the news.
That’s why LEOSA exists.

But equal consideration? Why should it even matter in a shall issue permit system.

The problem with your argument, is that you seem to think that your life or the lives of retired LEO's are more important that other people's lives. I'm not dismissing that LEO's don't have a legit reason to have LEOSA, rather we should all have LEOSA by way of universal recognition of the right to keep and bear arms. Your home state permit gets recognized in the other 49 just like a drivers license does. No need for exemptions. Everyone can carry country wide. Equal protection under the law. Real threats not withstanding, from a constitutional stand point LEOSA creates a special class of citizen, who now has more rights than everyone else. Not cool.

 

[GOPerfect]

I have been though a few police academies. I served twenty five years in the military. I have had some really freaken awesome training. Massive amounts of trading and real world experience. This is not bragging, just a few facts. Even being the sweetheart that I am, I have made quite a few "enemies". My life and the lives of my family have been threatened many times. I run into crims that I have dealt with more time times than I can say.

I have all kinds of exemptions and different rules apply to me. It is unfair and filled with all kinds of bullshit. I am happy to have these exemptions. I use them to my advantage. I do not wish them to go away. I think it sucks balls that others do not have the same based on their employment or the lack of their employment.

I get all kinds of tax breaks, discounts and deals due to my military time and my VA status. Nope, don't want to give them up either.

Only in my mind am I special. I am not more important than others. Still not willing to give up what I have.

Maybe someday this will all change and everything and everyone will be on level ground....

Nope, this is never going to happen, we have never, not we ever live in utopia. There will always be people more equal than others.

We live permanently in a version of Animal Farm.

 

[Truebeliever]

The problem with your argument, is that you seem to think that your life or the lives of retired LEO's are more important that other people's lives. I'm not dismissing that LEO's don't have a legit reason to have LEOSA, rather we should all have LEOSA by way of universal recognition of the right to keep and bear arms. Your home state permit gets recognized in the other 49 just like a drivers license does. No need for exemptions. Everyone can carry country wide. Equal protection under the law. Real threats not withstanding, from a constitutional stand point LEOSA creates a special class of citizen, who now has more rights than everyone else. Not cool.

Do you hear me fighting reciprocity? I’m immune to the new “ sensitive places”. Do you hear me saying “ great law”?
I know the slippery slope and denial of your rights today is the denial of mine tomorrow.
And yep, a special class was created just as a special class was created for veterans.
In part, created out of special need.
Should I scream it’s unconstitutional that a veteran gets preference for a job over me even if I am more qualified for the job?
Were the rules of such preferences different when I made the choice not to become a veteran that I should complain now? Did cops not have such preferences to carrying a gun when you made a choice not to join law enforcement( codified or not)?
Should I , when active , complained that a fed could carry on an airplane while on vacation but I could not? Should my fed friends complain that my pension is better than theirs?
There are benefits to the choices we make as well as disadvantages.
Instead of trying to tear down what our special need is, you could be saying “ me too”.
Those same people who were against LEOSA were also against reciprocity. The very same police chief organizations .
Go look up why we don’t have reciprocity? It wasn’t the anti gunners who killed it

 

[ArmedCorgi]

Should I scream it’s unconstitutional that a veteran gets preference for a job over me even if I am more qualified for the job?

I'm not saying you don't want people to have a ccw or that you are against reciprocity. You are confusing my argument.

We aren't talking about preference over a job or your place in line at the ice cream parlor. We are talking about the exercise of a civil right. So no, your status as a retired cop or 4 star general or whatever other best of the best of the best with honors, should not in any way put you above others when it comes to civil rights. Period. Stop muddying the argument with talk of benefits and job choices. I could easily turn that around and say, well, you should have known the risks of becoming a cop and what can happen when you retire. Welcome to the thankless job of being a public servant. Here is the process you have to go through, like everyone else, to get a ccw.

 

[Truebeliever]

I'm not saying you don't want people to have a ccw or that you are against reciprocity. You are confusing my argument.

We aren't talking about preference over a job or your place in line at the ice cream parlor. We are talking about the exercise of a civil right. So no, your status as a retired cop or 4 star general or whatever other best of the best of the best with honors, should not in any way put you above others when it comes to civil rights. Period. Stop muddying the argument with talk of benefits and job choices. I could easily turn that around and say, well, you should have known the risks of becoming a cop and what can happen when you retire. Welcome to the thankless job of being a public servant. Here is the process you have to go through, like everyone else, to get a ccw.

Job preference is a violation of equal protection under the law if it’s for a government job. Veterans get preferential treatment in hiring, promotion, etc. for government jobs by law. This is by the standards you are setting anyway.
It’s not about a job at an ice cream parlor. If you apply for a job with the federal or state government, they get preferential treatment. If you are applying for a federal job, any veteran who applies has preference over a non veteran no matter how more qualified the non veteran is over the veteran.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

Job preference is a violation of equal protection under the law if it’s for a government job. Veterans get preferential treatment in hiring, promotion, etc. for government jobs by law. This is by the standards you are setting anyway.
It’s not about a job at an ice cream parlor. If you apply for a job with the federal or state government, they get preferential treatment. If you are applying for a federal job, any veteran who applies has preference over a non veteran no matter how more qualified the non veteran is over the veteran.

So then affirmative action violates the constitution... Are you saying you are against a veteran getting a job over someone? I actually don't mind a vet getting a job over me. I do mind a vet getting to exercise their second amendment rights more than me though.

 

[Truebeliever]

So then affirmative action violates the constitution... Are you saying you are against a veteran getting a job over someone? I actually don't mind a vet getting a job over me. I do mind a vet getting to exercise their second amendment rights more than me though.

I am pointing out that by his standards, the veterans wouldn’t get the preference and how it’s the same thing as the preferences that other professions get.
And if he is against one on “ constitutional “ grounds, he should be against the veterans too.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

I am pointing out that by his standards, the veterans wouldn’t get the preference and how it’s the same thing as the preferences that other professions get.
And if he is against one on “ constitutional “ grounds, he should be against the veterans too.

You realize you are talking to the same person and no, I don't consider preferential treatment when it comes to jobs as a benefit for service to your country a violation of my rights. But being able to exercise your 1st or 2nd amendment rights when others cannot is not something I agree with.

Something like protection against job discrimination is a "right" that has been extracted from the text of the Constitution by lawyers. The 2nd amendment IS the text of the Constitution. To me there is a big difference.

 

[spat]

What are you talking about.
The law was signed just two days ago. Republicans had no say in the matter. Whatever the democrats wrote was getting passed to the Governor period .
GOA, NRA or any other court challenges can only start after the law is passed. Then they have to read it and figure out important things like when to file so it goes before certain judges if possible. Hopefully they will get an injunction next week

Funny, when the right passes something the left doesn't like there are lawsuits and injunctions in place before the ink is dry.

You'd think the pro RKBA organizations would anticipate these tricks and have plans in place to deal with them.

When this BS passed it should have been "Cheryl, grab the folder from cabinet 47b and get it filed right away please".

 

[Truebeliever]

You realize you are talking to the same person and no, I don't consider preferential treatment when it comes to jobs as a benefit for service to your country a violation of my rights. But being able to exercise your 1st or 2nd amendment rights when others cannot is not something I agree with.

Something like protection against job discrimination is a "right" that has been extracted from the text of the Constitution by lawyers. The 2nd amendment IS the text of the Constitution. To me there is a big difference.

Actually, it would be under the “ equal protection clause “ which is in the 14th amendment and is why the other rights in the constitution apply against the states instead of just the federal government. Under the law, by your standard, a veteran would get more than equal protection. They also get preference in court ( special “ veterans “ courts have been set up for veterans who are arrested). There are many veterans benefits that the general public don’t get.
It’s the same thing as when a retired cop who also earned the benefit they got .
It’s not as if you didn’t know the benefit when you made a choice not to become LE

 

[spat]

Good. Fuck their claims to superior status.

NY was told its law is unconstitutional and yet for any of us with a carry permit now we’re actually losing what it lets us do.

i don’t know if scotus could have preempted by including ideas that licenses cannot be excessively difficult to get or defined public places but it sounds like NY has required another 1-2 scotus rulings. So maybe by 2035 it’s cleared up.

We will find out just how corrupt NY courts are.

In any reasonable justice system the first court this is filed in will impose an injunction immediately, and string the law ASAP. Then NYS can appeal all the way to SCOTUS if they want, but this should *never* be enforceable.

If we have to wait till it gets to SCOTUS for relief, then all the lower courts have just proven they are illegitimate. The decent judges should resign in protest.

I don't know if it's ever happened, but I believe SCOTUS has the power to remove a federal judge if they are found to be willfully defying precedent. Criminal charges could probably be brought

Maybe that's what it would take to get the justice system back on track. Actual consequences for judges willfully misconstruing the law.

 

[ManualF150]

^^
In a perfect world, that would happen. We all know that they are slapped on their wrist for mistakes or misconstruing laws.

If it goes in our favor, these little brats will get a slap on the wrist and then move onto something else.

No different than what will happen to folks who misuse/abuse the Red Flag laws in revenge. Just a slap on the wrist if that.

 

[Carlos Hathcock]

Well theres a glass half full outlook.It seems Bruen is what bought about this crap. Not saying Bruen is/was a bad thing but we make some small progress and they hit back twice as hard.Its gonna be a long hard fight, every time we make any small gain they will throw out the most ridiculous anti gun regs and drain our resources.These fuckers have unlimited funds it seems with the likes of Soros and Bloomberg leading the charge.

Soros & Bloomberg? That don't need their money. Their using tax money, OUR MONEY, to fuck us. They're sitting back laughing about the irony.

 

[cranberry]

So I was in a couple of gun stores today in westchester co and got talking to a couple of guys behind the counter one guy in one store said if you currently have a pistol permit that you'd have to redo it and get 6 character references and also anyone who lives with you will be interviewed and also your social media accounts will be scrutinized , the other guy in the other store was saying we won't know anything until September 1 as to who will have to get the training and he also said that the state is mandating that the only people who will be able to give the class will be police instructors like the ones from the academy no NRA certified instructors will be allowed to teach the 16 hour class anyhow I'm taking this all with a pinch of salt especially the guy in the first gun store .

 

[ArmedCorgi]

Actually, it would be under the “ equal protection clause “ which is in the 14th amendment and is why the other rights in the constitution apply against the states instead of just the federal government. Under the law, by your standard, a veteran would get more than equal protection. They also get preference in court ( special “ veterans “ courts have been set up for veterans who are arrested). There are many veterans benefits that the general public don’t get.
It’s the same thing as when a retired cop who also earned the benefit they got .
It’s not as if you didn’t know the benefit when you made a choice not to become LE

U.S. Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

The original text of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

constitution.congress.gov

Find me where it talks about preferential treatment for jobs specifically. I'm talking actual text like "the right of the people to keep and bear arms...". I don't see it. A lawyer pulled it out of the "equal protection of the law" part which would only connect the 14th to jobs because of state or federal job discrimination laws.
Which yes, would make vets getting preferential treatment unconstitutional (which isn't the issue at hand and doesn't bother me), but while you are trying to point out my contractiction, you do realize the 14th supports my argument against retired cops or soldiers being able to exercise their 2A rights more than regular citizens, right?
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

 

[Truebeliever]

U.S. Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

The original text of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

constitution.congress.gov

Find me where it talks about preferential treatment for jobs specifically. I'm talking actual text like "the right of the people to keep and bear arms...". I don't see it. A lawyer pulled it out of the "equal protection of the law" part which would only connect the 14th to jobs because of state or federal job discrimination laws.
Which yes, would make vets getting preferential treatment unconstitutional (which isn't the issue at hand and doesn't bother me), but while you are trying to point out my contractiction, you do realize the 14th supports my argument against retired cops or soldiers being able to exercise their 2A rights more than regular citizens, right?
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

Go to the 14th.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That same law would say veterans should not get more “ rights” than someone who wasn’t a veteran by your logic.
Giving a preference to retired LE is the same thing. You should be just arguing the law is just against the 2nd amendment instead of arguing it wrong that the law made exceptions.
Veterans do get preference on things. How do they justify it? In addition to recognizing the need, the idea is equal opportunity to be a veteran and some chose not to. It’s the same with the the LE.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

That same law would say veterans should not get more “ rights” than someone who wasn’t a veteran by your logic.
Giving a preference to retired LE is the same thing. You should be just arguing the law is just against the 2nd amendment instead of arguing it wrong that the law made exceptions.
Veterans do get preference on things. How do they justify it? In addition to recognizing the need, the idea is equal opportunity to be a veteran and some chose not to. It’s the same with the the LE.

Veterans or LE shouldn't get more "rights" than anyone else. Nothing in the Constitution or Bill of Rights gives them more rights or exemptions. Laws passed by the federal government or state legislatures might, but the Constitution does not specifically. Lawyers will pull meaning from the text of the Constitution to try and justify or demerit federal and state laws, but as far as actual text, it isn't there. It isn't there, the same way abortion isn't but bearing arms is.

Being able to carry shouldn't be determined by my choice of occupation or to serve or not or to take a job as a cop or not. Stop using that argument. You knew the risks of being LE, so stop hiding behind it and trying to tell me that you need protection more that anyone else and that I could have all these benefits if I just chose to serve.

No one has a "right" to a job. The right to a job is not an enumerated right like the 2nd is. And yes, LEO getting LEOSA violates the 2nd because it falsely creates a class of people who are given more access to the 2nd based off of a "proper cause" for carrying. Proper cause being a concept which was just struck down by the Supreme Court.

 

[Truebeliever]

Veterans or LE shouldn't get more "rights" than anyone else. Nothing in the Constitution or Bill of Rights gives them more rights or exemptions. Laws passed by the federal government or state legislatures might, but the Constitution does not specifically. Lawyers will pull meaning from the text of the Constitution to try and justify or demerit federal and state laws, but as far as actual text, it isn't there. It isn't there, the same way abortion isn't but bearing arms is.

Being able to carry shouldn't be determined by my choice of occupation or to serve or not or to take a job as a cop or not. Stop using that argument. You knew the risks of being LE, so stop hiding behind it and trying to tell me that you need protection more that anyone else and that I could have all these benefits if I just chose to serve.

No one has a "right" to a job. The right to a job is not an enumerated right like the 2nd is. And yes, LEO getting LEOSA violates the 2nd because it falsely creates a class of people who are given more access to the 2nd based off of a "proper cause" for carrying. Proper cause being a concept which was just struck down by the Supreme Court.

So if we passed a law saying only people of a certain type are allowed to apply , that’s “ equal protection under the law” by your standard?
It’s the same 14th amendment that makes the bill of rights apply to the states by the way. The bill of rights didn’t apply to state governments until Mapp v Ohio (1960). Heller didn’t apply to the states until McDonald which gets applied to the states via the 14th.
Veterans get special courts they can go to, do non-veterans?
Are there privileges that can come from different jobs etc. Yep. A non practicing retired doctor can still write perscriptions ( non narcotics if their Narco license lapses) .

Instead of saying why them— take it away from them, just say, it’s my right too and get it.
Trying to take away from us isn’t going to help you get yours.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

So if we passed a law saying only people of a certain type are allowed to apply , that’s “ equal protection under the law” by your standard?
It’s the same 14th amendment that makes the bill of rights apply to the states by the way. The bill of rights didn’t apply to state governments until Mapp v Ohio (1960). Heller didn’t apply to the states until McDonald which gets applied to the states via the 14th.
Veterans get special courts they can go to, do non-veterans?
Are there privileges that can come from different jobs etc. Yep. A non practicing retired doctor can still write perscriptions ( non narcotics if their Narco license lapses) .

Instead of saying why them— take it away from them, just say, it’s my right too and get it.
Trying to take away from us isn’t going to help you get yours.

You aren't reading my posts are you? Try again.

 

[Truebeliever]

You aren't reading my posts are you? Try again.

I read them word for word. I disagree with you.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

I read them word for word. I disagree with you.

I don't think you did because you clearly don't understand. I disagree with you. Let's just agree to disagree because you aren't worth any more of my time.

 

[Truebeliever]

I don't think you did because you clearly don't understand. I disagree with you. Let's just agree to disagree because you aren't worth any more of my time.

Great. I understood your argument and disagreed. An enumerated right is necessarily more than unenumerated right.

 

[Acer-m14]

how do you think they did the i think its was the The Hughes Amendment .. so called banning machines .. they actually said we cant just out right ban them that's unconstitutional .. so will make them pay a 200 dollar tax .. something on intercommerce and they can figure it out later .. lawyers / judges just making things up ..

 

[Truebeliever]

how do you think they did the i think its was the The Hughes Amendment .. so called banning machines .. they actually said we cant just out right ban them that's unconstitutional .. so will make them pay a 200 dollar tax .. something on intercommerce and they can figure it out later .. lawyers / judges just making things up ..

You mean the law the 1936Miller case is based on? What about the 1986 FOPA act ? Or Obama care?

 

[Phazer]

I get all kinds of tax breaks, discounts and deals due to my military time and my VA status. Nope, don't want to give them up either.

Those benefits were promised to you, and were earned, through service.

Constitutional rights are not earned. They are inherent to every law-abiding American citizen, regardless of vocation, income, or service.

 

[GOPerfect]

Are there different classes of citizens depending on where one lives? Some States, and the residents of that State are able to exercise their Rights more than others in less free states.

Is this not the same as those in LE that have exemptions?

 

[ArmedCorgi]

Are there different classes of citizens depending on where one lives? Some States, and the residents of that State are able to exercise their Rights more than others in less free states.

Is this not the same as those in LE that have exemptions?

No it is not. Sadly some elected legislatures have everything wrong.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

Great. I understood your argument and disagreed. An enumerated right is necessarily more than unenumerated right.

No you didn't. But yes, you are right. "An enumerated right is necessarily more than an enumerated right." It's God given.

 

[Uninformed and Compliant]

Here is from the email:


Members of the NYSFOP:
We need your help! Please follow the link and sign the petition. This law, which will restrict retired NYS Peace Officers, needs to be amended.
Help us by circulating this petition!
Fraternally,

Michael Essig
President
NYSFOP

RJ Bishop started this petition
Bob Bishop
rbishop@pittabishop.com
In the wake of recent tragedies in New York State and in our country, Governor Kathy Hochul, Majority Leader of the New York State Senate Andrea Stewart Cousins, and Speaker of the New York State Assembly Carl Heastie, took swift and decisive action by crafting and passing legislation to strengthen gun laws in New York State.
The new law makes possession of a firearm in “sensitive locations”, such as airports, public transportation, bars, and houses of worship, illegal. The law exempts retired police officers from this rule. However, the law does not include retired peace officers within this exemption.
Peace officers represent some of the most highly trained and qualified law enforcement officers in New York. These include the tens of thousands of officers that are employed to protect our courts, hospitals, jails, prisons, and schools.
We ask specifically that the law be changed as follows:
Penal law § 265.01-e (3) d is amended to read as follows:
(d) persons who were employed as police officers as defined in subdivision thirty-four of section 1.20 of the criminal procedure law or who were designated peace officers by section 2.10 of the criminal procedure law but are retired;
265.01-d (2)c is amended to read as follows:
(c) persons who were employed as police officers as defined in section 1.20 of the criminal procedure law, or who were designated peace officers by section 2.10 of the criminal procedure law but are retired;
The heroic actions of off-duty officer David Donegan that took place in New York City during Independence Day celebrations (https://nypost.com/2022/07/03/off-duty-correction-officer-shot-at-queens-motorcycle-party/), show that the presence of seasoned and armed officers has the potential of saving many lives. Increasing the number of trained law enforcement individuals who are equipped to react to emergencies that may occur in these sensitive locations is vital in maintaining public safety.
Please sign this petition to call upon Governor Hochul and the New York State Legislature to enhance public safety by amending this new law to allow experienced and certified retired peace officers to protect us in sensitive areas.
Follow the link to sign the petition!!
https://chng.it/qKcykKyW

Fucking vassals.