New York Concelled Carry

[Bailey Creek,5759]

Watching Fox News. The Supreme Court Ruled against New York State.

On Concelled Carry.

It won't only affect New York, other States as well.

Will be interesting to see what spin. They will put on it.

[Eyesa Horg]

Just saw it on NBC as well. They did say the states could have restrictions in "sensitive" areas. The journalist took that to mean churches, schools, hospitals etc. Looks to be basically a win for the good guys. 

[J.D. Daily]

This is good news.  The only thing that is a pleasant surprise is thar Thomas wrote the majority opinion.  He has been the most vocal justice in criticizing the court for ignoring lower courts ignoring Heller.  This opinion means that effectively in the 7 states that have may issue laws there are no enforceable laws requiring permission to carry outside the home until the legislatures pass laws that comply with the opinion.  This is the opinion of Georgetown constitutional law professor Johnathan Turley.

[Uno Mas SASS #80082]

Roberts voted with the Conservative majority.  Justice Thomas wrote the Majority Opinion, which is a VERY good sign for the Constitution.  His Opinion is already being referred to as Historic.  Justice Breyer authored the Minority Opinion. 

[Alpo]

Does this mean that the Sullivan Act will be struck down?

[Chantry]

17 minutes ago, Alpo said:

Does this mean that the Sullivan Act will be struck down?

 Yes and No

 

NY & NYC are now going to find new ways to make things difficult for people to get carry permits and I expect there will be further court cases at the lower levels that will deal with those politicians who try to find ways to avoid granting permits, possibly including new or additional dis-qualifiers that prevent a person from getting a permit.

 

I'll note that in NY people outside NYC can get carry permits which I believe are handled by the Sheriff departments, but that those permits are NOT recognized in NYC.  NYC has it's own permitting system, which mostly means only the rich, famous or well connected people get permits.

[Rye Miles #13621]

I’m Ohio we just got Constitutional Carry but any business can post a NO GUN sign. Churches, schools and government buildings are also restricted! 

[Alpo]

1 hour ago, Chantry said:

NYC has it's own permitting system, which mostly means only the rich, famous or well connected people get permits.

And the Mafia. We can't forget about the Mob.

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

This ruling affects several states.

The PRK Demorats are in shock. 

[Forty Rod SASS 3935]

59 minutes ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

I’m Ohio we just got Constitutional Carry but any business can post a NO GUN sign. Churches, schools and government buildings are also restricted! 

Arizona has that same feature, however, if they ask you to leave and you don't it's trespassing infraction.

 

Denny's has signs posted asking that you do not carry openly.  You can still carry, but apparently they have had some people complain about people carrying openly.  I can understand and respect that because they are appeasing a lot of tourists and it doesn't infringe on me to any degree....and I really like their super bird sandwiches.

[Cold Lake Kid, SASS # 51474]

Meanwhile, in Canada, things get tougher for Canadian LEGAL handgun owners, at the same time the government(?) reduces the mandatory sentencing for criminal misuse of firearms.

Nice to know who OUR government is working for.

[Eyesa Horg]

I just don't understand this getting softer on criminals BS. I say find an island and just drop  em off. Then survival of the fittest. If they kill each other, Oh effin well. 

[Subdeacon Joe]

[Waxahachie Kid #17017 L]

What drives me crazy(ier) is why this was not a unanimous vote.

 

The Supreme Court, especially, is supposed to hold up anything that comes up before them, to the Constitution, and see if it fits or not. They do look at previous decisions. They should look at what the Founding Fathers intent and mind-set were, as well as looking and considering common law, and the laws that were in existence before the Constitution was ratified. 

But no...each justice looks at every issue with his/her own prejudice, and background, and where they were educated, and who appointed them.

The Second Amendment, like the other Amendments, simply states the existing Rights we have, that the Creator has already given to humanity/Americans.

"...they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...", then it lists three of the rights: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. 

So...we have a right to "Life". Of course, without life, the other two are meaningless, as well as the rest of our rights. 

 

 

 

[Phantom Falcon, SASS # 46139]

1 hour ago, Waxahachie Kid #17017 L said:

What drives me crazy(ier) is why this was not a unanimous vote.

 

The Supreme Court, especially, is supposed to hold up anything that comes up before them, to the Constitution, and see if it fits or not. They do look at previous decisions. They should look at what the Founding Fathers intent and mind-set were, as well as looking and considering common law, and the laws that were in existence before the Constitution was ratified. 

But no...each justice looks at every issue with his/her own prejudice, and background, and where they were educated, and who appointed them.

The Second Amendment, like the other Amendments, simply states the existing Rights we have, that the Creator has already given to humanity/Americans.

"...they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...", then it lists three of the rights: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. 

So...we have a right to "Life". Of course, without life, the other two are meaningless, as well as the rest of our rights. 

 

 

 

The other 3 do not understand the U. S. Constitution; never have, probably never will. They revere their own ideology, not the Constitution.

[Sedalia Dave]

4 hours ago, Waxahachie Kid #17017 L said:

But no...each justice looks at every issue with his/her own prejudice, and background, and where they were educated, and who appointed them.

 

It is only very recently that appointments to SCOTUS have become so political. In the not too distant past Judges were appointed for their qualifications and not their political affiliation.

 

[Shepherd Book]

As an upstate resident, it is way past time for this to have happened...SB

[Clay Mosby]

The hysteria from the left is rather mind-boggling! Just watched Hannity and ol' Geraldo Rivera was all but foaming at the mouth. They showed excerpts from, as Hannity referred to them, a "hard-hitting news show", and the stupidity, insanity and hyperbole were on full display.

 

According to these criminal protecting, anti-police idiots the streets are going to be running red 10 seconds after the ruling takes effect.  I'm sure they started lining up lawyers to  attack the ruling as soon as the case went to the Supreme Court.

[Pat Riot]

Did anyone catch the the statements by our esteemed Supreme Leader that the court overturned 100 years of tradition

https://link.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/biden-reacts-to-supreme-court-handing-gun-owners-second-amendment-victory_4553509.html?utm_campaign=app-cc&utm_source=ref_share
 

His quotes from the Epoch Times:

“Since 1911, the State of New York has required individuals who would like to carry a concealed weapon in public to show a need to do so for the purpose of self-defense and to acquire a license.”

“More than a century later, the United States Supreme Court has chosen to strike down New York’s long-established authority to protect its citizens,” Biden added. “I urge states to continue to enact and enforce commonsense laws to make their citizens and communities safer from gun violence,” he added.

“Does everyone understand what a concealed weapon means? That you have no forewarning that someone can hide a weapon on them and go into our subways, going to our grocery stores, like stores up in Buffalo, New York, where I’m from,” Hochul said. “This decision isn’t just reckless. It’s reprehensible. It’s not what New Yorkers want. And we should have the right of determination of what we want to do in terms of our gun laws in our state.”

I guess state and local laws trump the Constitution. 
I guess he forgot about this little ditty he sang on Inauguration Day:

The Presidential oath:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
 

[Widder, SASS #59054]

BEWARE my friends.

This will be another reason why the Libs want to pack SCOTUS.    

 

..........Widder

 

[Rye Miles #13621]

Relax everyone, this did not address the actual buying of guns which in NY and California and a couple other states is a real task from what I understand!  New Yorkers and Cal. folks please chime in................

[largo casey #19191]

Never have liked Geraldo.Saw him on Hannity.He has no Clue.

                                                                                                                    Largo

[Snake River Clay]

I live on the east end of Long Island, New York. I have a pistol license issued by the county sheriff. It is a carry license with a Sportsman restriction. I am allowed to carry to and from a range and while at the range. 

It is not against the law to carry at other times. It is an administrative restriction and if caught can mean suspension or revocation of my license. 

A friend of mine recently was offered and accepted full carry. He had to take a class at a local gun shop which included practical shooting at their range. I would imagine our licenses will remain restricted until we are able to take a similar class.

[Cold Lake Kid, SASS # 51474]

11 hours ago, Bellatrix said:

Mr Justin has made it almost impossible to own a forearm in Canada, He sees himself as some kinda hero.

 

I'm afraid you are wrong.

He sees himself as something else entirely.

[El Hombre Sin Nombre]

17 hours ago, Sedalia Dave said:

 

It is only very recently that appointments to SCOTUS have become so political. In the not too distant past Judges were appointed for their qualifications and not their political affiliation.

 

Absolutely. I have always found the term liberal or conservative judges to be utterly appalling, especially at the Supreme Court level. It’s quite interesting that cases before the Supreme Court can be looked at by constitutional scholars on how they should be decided, but instead end up being decided exactly on partisan lines with very little consideration on actual law or precedent. This is a relatively new phenomenon starting around 30 years or so ago 

[El Hombre Sin Nombre]

4 hours ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

Relax everyone, this did not address the actual buying of guns which in NY and California and a couple other states is a real task from what I understand!  New Yorkers and Cal. folks please chime in................

Buying in Calicut is us not all that difficult. Nothing like New York. Carrying is something else entirely. In many counties, mine included, it’s up to one individual to determine if you “need” to carry concealed. I think last I checked there was one issued license in my county in the last 15 years and it went to a politician. 

[Rip Snorter]

Dad had a New York Carry permit that was related to his employment.  Ten years after he retired and was living in another state, New York sent him a letter demanding the return of the permit and that he surrender his firearms.   He did send them the permit.  Sometimes the efficiency of the bureaucrats is just stunning!

[Buckshot Bob]

4 hours ago, Widder, SASS #59054 said:

BEWARE my friends.

This will be another reason why the Libs want to pack SCOTUS.    

 

..........Widder

 

They want to pack it anyway. I’ve learned my lesson with gun control laws. No matter how much you give them they will always be back for more . 
The best defense is a good offense 

[Bart Slade]

15 minutes ago, El Hombre Sin Nombre said:

Absolutely. I have always found the term liberal or conservative judges to be utterly appalling, especially at the Supreme Court level. It’s quite interesting that cases before the Supreme Court can be looked at by constitutional scholars on how they should be decided, but instead end up being decided exactly on partisan lines with very little consideration on actual law or precedent. This is a relatively new phenomenon starting around 30 years or so ago 

 

This pretty much lays out my biggest concern for our country - everything is whimsical.   Meaning dependent on who happened to be President when a Supreme Court position comes open, and how that person pans out.

 

I just fundamentally do NOT understand how every Supreme Court decision does not come down to 9-0 (or 8-1 worst case).   The Supreme Court is not there to decide the moral right-and-wrong of things, or what the citizens of this country want.   They are there to decide IF the Constitution applies to a certain situation, and if so HOW it applies.   That's it.   Their only say should be "here's what the Constitution says on the subject".

 

After that, it's up to Congress to generate laws that are compatible with the Constitution, and/or amend the Constitution.

 

The three-fifths clause is a good example.   We decided (correctly) that it was abhorrent and needed to be out of the Constitution.   We didn't put it in the hands of the Supreme Court - we went through the process that is laid out in the Constitution and STRUCK IT.  We didn't try some backdoor tricks.

 

Want to ban guns?   Do it legitimately if you have the votes.   If you don't have the votes...well then "A well regulated militia....etc etc".

[El Hombre Sin Nombre]

4 minutes ago, Bart Slade said:

 

This pretty much lays out my biggest concern for our country - everything is whimsical.   Meaning dependent on who happened to be President when a Supreme Court position comes open, and how that person pans out.

 

I just fundamentally do NOT understand how every Supreme Court decision does not come down to 9-0 (or 8-1 worst case).   The Supreme Court is not there to decide the moral right-and-wrong of things, or what the citizens of this country want.   They are there to decide IF the Constitution applies to a certain situation, and if so HOW it applies.   That's it.   Their only say should be "here's what the Constitution says on the subject".

 

After that, it's up to Congress to generate laws that are compatible with the Constitution, and/or amend the Constitution.

 

The three-fifths clause is a good example.   We decided (correctly) that it was abhorrent and needed to be out of the Constitution.   We didn't put it in the hands of the Supreme Court - we went through the process that is laid out in the Constitution and STRUCK IT.  We didn't try some backdoor tricks.

 

Want to ban guns?   Do it legitimately if you have the votes.   If you don't have the votes...well then "A well regulated militia....etc etc".

Yes sir. Completely agree. I think only John Roberts embodies that stance on the current bench. All the others vote along strict partisan lines 

[Black Angus McPherson]

I heard the NYC mayor whining that it'll be a return to "The Wild West".    You would think they'd find a new catch phrase.  I think I've heard that "return to the wild west" crap every time a state has passed, or tried to pass, a concealed carry law.  I remember it from the first time Florida made concealed carry legal and when my home state of Missouri tried to pass it the first time.

 

Somebody really should collect video of all the politicians whining about a "return to the wild west" and string them all together.  I'm sure it would be a lengthy video.

 

Angus

[El Hombre Sin Nombre]

1 hour ago, Black Angus McPherson said:

I heard the NYC mayor whining that it'll be a return to "The Wild West".    You would think they'd find a new catch phrase.  I think I've heard that "return to the wild west" crap every time a state has passed, or tried to pass, a concealed carry law.  I remember it from the first time Florida made concealed carry legal and when my home state of Missouri tried to pass it the first time.

 

Somebody really should collect video of all the politicians whining about a "return to the wild west" and string them all together.  I'm sure it would be a lengthy video.

 

Angus

Especially New York never really had a Wild West. 

[Pat Riot]

1 hour ago, Black Angus McPherson said:

Somebody really should collect video of all the politicians whining about a "return to the wild west" and string them all together.  I'm sure it would be a lengthy video.

 

Yep but the popcorn buckets would be for barf, not popcorn. 

24 minutes ago, El Hombre Sin Nombre said:

Especially New York never really had a Wild West. 

They had The Village People…

 

That was pretty wild. 

[Birdgun Quail, SASS #63663]

2 hours ago, El Hombre Sin Nombre said:

Especially New York never really had a Wild West. 

Well, don't forget about this NYC Wild West Cowboy!!

[Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770]

4 hours ago, Pat Riot, SASS #13748 said:

They had The Village People…That was pretty wild. 

Only at the YMCA.