forums

Off-Topic Mass killings

Advertisement
So ... with today's SC decision striking down that NY law restricting the ability to open carry, will crime go up or down in NYC?
 
hotshot said:
So ... with today's SC decision striking down that NY law restricting the ability to open carry, will crime go up or down in NYC?
Click to expand...
Unless I misread it, that's not what it did. It just said you didn't need to give the state a good reason to carry a concealed weapon. They still issue licenses, but now you don't have to hope to get approval by demonstrating proper cause to get one. Basically, they're going to change from May Issue to Shall Issue.

It really isn't that big of a deal.
 
JD08 said:
Unless I misread it, that's not what it did. It just said you didn't need to give the state a good reason to carry a concealed weapon. They still issue licenses, but now you don't have to hope to get approval by demonstrating proper cause to get one. Basically, they're going to change from May Issue to Shall Issue.

It really isn't that big of a deal.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that reading. I thought it was broader than that. You could always have a gun at home; now, under the general rubric of "self defense," you can take it with you outside the home.
 
hotshot said:
Thanks for that reading. I thought it was broader than that. You could always have a gun at home; now, under the general rubric of "self defense," you can take it with you outside the home.
Click to expand...
If you have a license. That doesn't change unless they go to constitutional carry.
 
Advertisement
JD08 said:
Unless I misread it, that's not what it did. It just said you didn't need to give the state a good reason to carry a concealed weapon. They still issue licenses, but now you don't have to hope to get approval by demonstrating proper cause to get one. Basically, they're going to change from May Issue to Shall Issue.

It really isn't that big of a deal.
Click to expand...
It does stop yet another avenue muppets were pursuing to essentially repeal 2A.
 
OriginalCanesCanesCanes said:
Are you off your meds? Dude! Criminals already carry concealed guns - this rationale is absolutely retarded.

I’m trying not to laugh out loud at this statement. Like criminals are looking for permission to carry concealed weapons. L-O-L

This is literally the most laughable thing I’ve seen posted here in a while.
Click to expand...

This is the same guy that thought AR meant automatic rifle................
 
Empirical Cane said:
It does stop yet another avenue muppets were pursuing to essentially repeal 2A.
Click to expand...
What's funny is that this is a case where the city/country divide comes into place. My relative in MA had to get approval and the sheriff agreed before he could finish asking.
 
Advertisement
JD08 said:
What's funny is that this is a case where the city/country divide comes into place. My relative in MA had to get approval and the sheriff agreed before he could finish asking.
Click to expand...
As I understand, NY is a very divided state in all things rural vs urban.
 
JD08 said:
Unless I misread it, that's not what it did. It just said you didn't need to give the state a good reason to carry a concealed weapon. They still issue licenses, but now you don't have to hope to get approval by demonstrating proper cause to get one. Basically, they're going to change from May Issue to Shall Issue.

It really isn't that big of a deal.
Click to expand...

Disagree, both on the practical outcome and the longer term legal implications. Practically speaking, this will result in considerably more guns being carried around New York. Whether that results in higher or lower crime, we'll just have to see, but it will certainly result in more gun related accidents. Legally, this decision has created a new rule regarding laws regulating firearms at the state level - that to be constitutional, a state must prove they are grounded in the "historical tradition" of gun control measures, which for Thomas essentially means at the time of the founding. Thomas' opinion also eliminates another step long used by circuit courts in evaluating gun control measures, namely to evaluate the dangers posed by firearms to the public. It's fair to say that the effect of this decision is that every single firearm restriction at the state level - age, background checks, etc. - is now presumptively unconstitutional. I'd imagine there will be widespread challenges to all of them, and under this rubric (and as applied by this Court) it's hard not to conclude that many will be successful. We'll just have to see if the Court decides to limit the application of this principal at all in future decisions (e.g., only apply it to CC licensing)

It's quite a radical expansion of 2A rights, even in the context of the already very 2A friendly regime ushered in by the Heller decision. And it's a curious infringement on the central tenet of federalism to give states latitude to determine their own laws, particularly in light of the coming abortion decision (which posits that abortion should be a question for the states).
 
CaneintheWilderness said:
Disagree, both on the practical outcome and the longer term legal implications. Practically speaking, this will result in considerably more guns being carried around New York. Whether that results in higher or lower crime, we'll just have to see, but it will certainly result in more gun related accidents. Legally, this decision has created a new rule regarding laws regulating firearms at the state level - that to be constitutional, a state must prove they are grounded in the "historical tradition" of gun control measures, which for Thomas essentially means at the time of the founding. Thomas' opinion also eliminates another step long used by circuit courts in evaluating gun control measures, namely to evaluate the dangers posed by firearms to the public. It's fair to say that the effect of this decision is that every single firearm restriction at the state level - age, background checks, etc. - is now presumptively unconstitutional. I'd imagine there will be widespread challenges to all of them, and under this rubric (and as applied by this Court) it's hard not to conclude that many will be successful. We'll just have to see if the Court decides to limit the application of this principal at all in future decisions (e.g., only apply it to CC licensing)

It's quite a radical expansion of 2A rights, even in the context of the already very 2A friendly regime ushered in by the Heller decision. And it's a curious infringement on the central tenet of federalism to give states latitude to determine their own laws, particularly in light of the coming abortion decision (which posits that abortion should be a question for the states).
Click to expand...
1656003810165.png
 
CaneintheWilderness said:
Disagree, both on the practical outcome and the longer term legal implications. Practically speaking, this will result in considerably more guns being carried around New York. Whether that results in higher or lower crime, we'll just have to see, but it will certainly result in more gun related accidents. Legally, this decision has created a new rule regarding laws regulating firearms at the state level - that to be constitutional, a state must prove they are grounded in the "historical tradition" of gun control measures, which for Thomas essentially means at the time of the founding. Thomas' opinion also eliminates another step long used by circuit courts in evaluating gun control measures, namely to evaluate the dangers posed by firearms to the public. It's fair to say that the effect of this decision is that every single firearm restriction at the state level - age, background checks, etc. - is now presumptively unconstitutional. I'd imagine there will be widespread challenges to all of them, and under this rubric (and as applied by this Court) it's hard not to conclude that many will be successful. We'll just have to see if the Court decides to limit the application of this principal at all in future decisions (e.g., only apply it to CC licensing)

It's quite a radical expansion of 2A rights, even in the context of the already very 2A friendly regime ushered in by the Heller decision. And it's a curious infringement on the central tenet of federalism to give states latitude to determine their own laws, particularly in light of the coming abortion decision (which posits that abortion should be a question for the states).
Click to expand...
NY already had concealed carry permits, you just needed the approval of the state and to get that you had to show proper cause for the need to defend yourself. So if you were a public official, rich, or a celebrity. you stood a good chance. If you were the hoi polloi, it would be denied. This simply removes that criteria as is the case in other states, including PA, DC, and VA.
 
Advertisement
JD08 said:
NY already had concealed carry permits, you just needed the approval of the state and to get that you had to show proper cause for the need to defend yourself. So if you were a public official, rich, or a celebrity. you stood a good chance. If you were the hoi polloi, it would be denied. This simply removes that criteria as is the case in other states, including PA, DC, and VA.
Click to expand...

Right. I understand the underlying law, and what the decision does in this particular case by striking down that law. But it is not "not a big deal."
 
This muppet, and those like her, ARE THE PROBLEM. Full stop.

NY Gov. Hochul defiant after Supreme Court gun decision: 'We're just getting started'

www.foxnews.com

NY Gov. Hochul defiant after Supreme Court gun decision: 'We're just getting started'

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul condemned a Supreme Court decision striking down a state law that restricted Americans' access to concealed carry permits Thursday.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com

"Today, the Supreme Court is sending us backwards in our efforts to protect families and prevent gun violence..."

"...[I am] prepared to go back to muskets" through gun restrictions..."
 
Well, I'm in OH & before DeWine signed Constitutional Carry, even with a CCW, still places you couldn't carry even with the permit
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
Back
Top