Off-Topic Mass killings

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?
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.
 
Advertisement
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.
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.
 
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.
If you have a license. That doesn't change unless they go to constitutional carry.
 
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.
It does stop yet another avenue muppets were pursuing to essentially repeal 2A.
 
Advertisement
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.

This is the same guy that thought AR meant automatic rifle................
 
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.
As I understand, NY is a very divided state in all things rural vs urban.
 
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.

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).
 
Advertisement
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).
1656003810165.webp
 
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).
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.
 
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.

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'


"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..."
 
Advertisement
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
I notice he decided to refer to Coney Barrett by diminishing her qualifications as a paralegal. That's horribly sexist.

Hes a bitter, angry and talentless man that bottomed on his career and just spends his time lashing out. No one cares what he thinks. Although I wouldn't mind using him as a punching bag, tbh.
 
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.
Geraldo disagrees. Now says he wouldn't be surprised to see people gunned down on the subway by someone who's had a bad day, just been fired, or girlfriend/wife left him ...

I don't know enough about it.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top