2A ruling from SCOTUS

CZfool68 said:
Not to be a wise ass, but that is pretty funny. NY is a one party rule system. Nobody is going to impeach the Guv for following the democrat playbook. A lot of Sheriff’s upstate will follow the law, but NYC is gonna do what they have always done. The only way any of that changes is to have honest elections or the people rise up in a very aggressive manner. INO neither is likely.
Click to expand...
Notice I said the gov 'can be' impeached ... not that she would be. Notice also that I said a failure to uphold her oath 'would seem to be appropriate grounds', not that they'd act on those grounds.

i.e. I chose and qualified my verbiage very carefully -- specifically because I know NY has a lot of inertia when it comes to guns ... and an object at rest tends to remain at rest.

That said, constituents sick of their BS can absolutely call for impeachment, and impeachable offenses can absolutely be used by people within different (or even the same) parties to good effect during election cycles. :)


noway2 said:
So, at this point, the people have arbitrated the issue to the highest “court” in the nation and the tyrants are still declaring they won’t abide by the agreement. Ok, then, violent and physical overthrow has just become justified. Game on. Get some.
Click to expand...

That doesn't seem very different from Trump implying he won't abide by the outcome of an election. In fact, it seems firmer, since they're declaring. Will we be having June 23 hearings (akin to January 6 hearings) in a few years???
 
Last edited:
surrealone said:
That doesn't seem very different from Trump implying he won't abide by the outcome of an election. In fact, it seems firmer, since they're declaring. Will we be having June 23 hearings (akin to January 6 hearings) in a few years???
Click to expand...
My take is that Donald had what he thought was credible evidence that the election was being stolen by people who did not want to abide by the outcome of the election. He was trying to uphold the Constitution rather than trying to circumvent it. Was his information credible or not? I do not know. I would hope that the POTUS would have access to better information than I would. His actions were quite different from declaring that they will disobey the Constitution.
 
"
For example, we found it “fairly
supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the car-
rying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’ ” that the Second
Amendment protects the possession and use of weapons
that are “ ‘in common use at the time.’ ” "


Let's see. The AR15 is the most popular rifle in America, isn't it?
 
Last edited:
Dale Gribble said:
If I were a New Yorker, I would have been carrying long before today, independent of a chit.
Click to expand...
Haven’t caught up to what’s been said after this, but had to comment: I’m about 95% sure you were born with a strong side IWB toting at least a Glock 26 and you smack that nursin lady with a still dripping umbilical cord because she tried to remove it.
 
Jeppo said:
The Department of Justice remains committed to saving innocent lives by enforcing and defending federal firearms laws, partnering with state, local and tribal authorities and using all legally available tools to tackle the epidemic of gun violence plaguing our communities.”
Click to expand...

You don’t have any “legally available tools”…the BOR expressly forbids it.

Dicks.
 
Jeppo said:
www.justice.gov

Justice Department Statement on Supreme Court Ruling on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen

The Department of Justice today released the following statement from spokeswoman Dena Iverson following the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc., et al. v. Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police, et al.:
www.justice.gov www.justice.gov

Are there some “legally available tools” they haven’t been using???? 🤔

Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, June 23, 2022

Justice Department Statement on Supreme Court Ruling on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen​

The Department of Justice today released the following statement from spokeswoman Dena Iverson following the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc., et al. v. Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police, et al.:
“We respectfully disagree with the Court’s conclusion that the Second Amendment forbids New York’s reasonable requirement that individuals seeking to carry a concealed handgun must show that they need to do so for self-defense. The Department of Justice remains committed to saving innocent lives by enforcing and defending federal firearms laws, partnering with state, local and tribal authorities and using all legally available tools to tackle the epidemic of gun violence plaguing our communities.”
Click to expand...
Activists DOJ. If it was unclear to anyone before, their knee jerk, emotional reaction openly stating that they intend to defy the SCOTUS decision should be a nice wake up call. Disgraceful.
 
Jerzsubbie said:
Activists DOJ. If it was unclear to anyone before, their knee jerk, emotional reaction openly stating that they intend to defy the SCOTUS decision should be a nice wake up call. Disgraceful.
Click to expand...

No problem….”we” can play, too.

F ya’lls laws.🖕🏻

See how that works?
 
Last edited:
Mass civil disobedience is the only solution.

No more jumping through hoops like a damned circus animal or finding “work-arounds”….

Just a flat, “No…we are going to do whatever we want.”
 
Last edited:
gc70 said:
Actions states must recognize from other states are mainly court orders, rulings, or actions. Driver's licenses are recognized under an agreement between the states. Qualified licensing, such as for doctors, dentists, plumbers, etc. is not automatically recognized in other states. Marriage is recognized but only after rulings in specific court cases (i.e. interracial marriages by Loving v. VA in 1967 and same-sex marriages by Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015).
Click to expand...


I hadn't thought of professional licensure, but should have, since I have one and it is recognized in some states, but not others. Good points, all.
 
surrealone said:
Fine by me. If she violates her oath of office (by failing to "support the Constitution of the United States"), she can be impeached and forcibly removed.



Certainly the SCOTUS has zero enforcement power, but the people of NY can insist that their elected officials be impeached for violating oaths of office. Failure to "support the Constitution of the United States" would seem to be appropriate grounds.
Click to expand...
Well it also means NY has no enforcement powers as any judgements handed down as a result would have no grounds.
 
Anyone surprised the DOJ is saying they won’t enforce shouldn’t be surprised. But that just means the GOV won’t do it for you. The SCOTUS ruling means all the laws written like NYs no longer hold water. So any enforcement by the states etc will lead to dismissal. Get ready to see a host of other challenges to overturn BS laws on the books that were based on the 2 step challenge.
 
Last edited:
surrealone said:
That doesn't seem very different from Trump implying he won't abide by the outcome of an election. In fact, it seems firmer, since they're declaring. Will we be having June 23 hearings (akin to January 6 hearings) in a few years???
Click to expand...
I don’t for a moment believe that the election was legitimate or valid. He should have refused to step down.
 
www.justice.gov

Justice Department Statement on Supreme Court Ruling on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen

The Department of Justice today released the following statement from spokeswoman Dena Iverson following the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc., et al. v. Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police, et al.:
www.justice.gov www.justice.gov

I exist. Therefore I retain the right to defend myself using any means I am able....


I have never understood how it works... The "party" who "stands" for the minority, the weak, the disadvantaged, the poor. ALWAYS make life more difficult for the same people who vote them in. Constitutional rights and even just daily life always get more expensive and more difficult to achieve.

Yet here we are once again.
 
Jerzsubbie said:
Activists DOJ. If it was unclear to anyone before, their knee jerk, emotional reaction openly stating that they intend to defy the SCOTUS decision should be a nice wake up call. Disgraceful.
Click to expand...
I cannot find that part in the DOJ statement, although it does contain the usual feel-good liberal double-talk.
The Department of Justice today released the following statement from spokeswoman Dena Iverson following the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc., et al. v. Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police, et al.:
“We respectfully disagree with the Court’s conclusion that the Second Amendment forbids New York’s reasonable requirement that individuals seeking to carry a concealed handgun must show that they need to do so for self-defense. The Department of Justice remains committed to saving innocent lives by enforcing and defending federal firearms laws, partnering with state, local and tribal authorities and using all legally available tools to tackle the epidemic of gun violence plaguing our communities."
Click to expand...
 
Jeppo said:
www.justice.gov

Justice Department Statement on Supreme Court Ruling on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen

The Department of Justice today released the following statement from spokeswoman Dena Iverson following the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc., et al. v. Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police, et al.:
www.justice.gov www.justice.gov

Are there some “legally available tools” they haven’t been using???? 🤔

Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, June 23, 2022

Justice Department Statement on Supreme Court Ruling on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen​

The Department of Justice today released the following statement from spokeswoman Dena Iverson following the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc., et al. v. Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police, et al.:
“We respectfully disagree with the Court’s conclusion that the Second Amendment forbids New York’s reasonable requirement that individuals seeking to carry a concealed handgun must show that they need to do so for self-defense. The Department of Justice remains committed to saving innocent lives by enforcing and defending federal firearms laws, partnering with state, local and tribal authorities and using all legally available tools to tackle the epidemic of gun violence plaguing our communities.”
Click to expand...
What he means is my boss is Joe Biden and I’m afraid I will be replaced.
 
Hmm, so applying the new guidance to other firearm laws, like say the GCA, I don’t see how a ban on manufacturing select fire weapons and allowing them onto the registry for purchase by vetted citizens could be upheld.

Yes, the whole structure should be abolished, but I feel like chipping away is more likely to be successful.
 
So, today's decision, while certainly not 100% ideal in its arguments about permitting and fees (imagine arguing that testing a person's knowledge of Constitutional republicanism and a permit fee to vote didn't unduly burden that Right), it is certainly a day worth celebrating as it seems that at least every 8-15 years the SCOTUS seems to walk back some draconian restriction a few Baby steps in the direction of the plain, clear meaning as written in 1791.

Now - I will argue that no black-robed judges - be they 9 or 1000 - has the legitimate, Constitutional power to determine what our Rights are or are not. There is no particular Constitutional provision that grants the Supreme Court the power of judicial review. Disobedience and Nullification is the rightful remedy for any law which abridges or violates our Rights.

That said, for those of you who have always insisted upon some legal opinion from the government to give you permission to be free, are you now willing to live as Free Men and Free Women? Are you ready to exercise the Rights that are yours by Nature and Nature's God, inalienable from your humanity?

Or will you continue to beg for the scraps of further rulings from the church of government?

Many in power from the various States, as well as within the executive branch of the federal government, have announced their intentions to ignore the ruling outright, with no regard for the separation of powers or the system of checks and balances delicately crafted in 1787 to ward of despotism for as long as possible.

If the State no longer cares for the Rule of Law, why do you continue to worship like dogs at that altar?

Being law abiding Citizens when the laws are written and enforced by the most corrupt among us is not virtue. It's slavery.
 
Last edited:
Timfoilhat said:
"We are also going to change the permitting process,” she said. “We are also going to create a higher threshold for those who want to receive a concealed carry permit. We are going to require training involved and also that they have specific firearm training, and I believe that we are going to be finding a way to create a system where the default position is for a private business that a concealed carry is not allowed unless they affirmatively offer the right to someone to come in with a concealed carry."
Click to expand...
This is why any system that keeps a law-abiding citizen from obtaining a permit (that should not be necessary in the first place) is evil and unconstitutional. If there is a bar over which you must jump, the government can keep raising the bar so high that nobody can get over it. This is the very reason I object to mandatory training to buy a firearm or to carry one. I do not trust the people who set how high the bar is set. They are proving very nicely that they should never ever ever ever be trusted. They are spitting in the face of the Constitution and know it.

I am all for training. Absolutely. But there should be no mandatory training ever to exercise a rights.

If they adopt some sort of mandatory test or requirements for the purchase and carrying of firearms by a law abiding citizen, being able to vote should also have mandatory tests and requirements that people can fail. Perhaps a reading test or a test on the Constitution administered and graded at the polling place when you go to cast your vote in person with proper picture ID would appeal to those people. I somehow doubt it would.
 
RetiredUSNChief said:
Good point.

My wife once asked me "Do you REALLY need to carry your pistol on you in the house?"

"You tell me. Where to 100% of all home invasions happen?"

"Good point."
Click to expand...
For anybody whose wife isn't convinced so easily... ask them where the gun is stored, and how many places they routinely spend time would require them to fight their way through a home intruder to get to the gun.
i was lucky when it happened to me, and i had left a .32 sitting on my livingroom table...
 
Me. said:
If you were a New Yorker, and had a carry-restricted NYS pistol permit, would you start carrying beginning today?
Click to expand...

Unconfirmed:

Here is the NYPD Memo from Deputy Commissioner

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that impacts how concealed carry firearm licenses will be issued by the NYPD’s License Division and other firearm licensors in New York State. Essentially, applicants for such licenses no longer need to demonstrate “proper cause,” or a special need for the license that is not just general self-defense. The Court found that the proper cause requirement is unconstitutional.
It is critical to stress that unlicensed firearm possession remains a crime in New York. The Department’s approach to detecting, interdicting, and arresting those who unlawfully possess firearms remains unchanged. This decision does not impact a uniformed member of the services’ ability to make arrests for illegal firearm possession. The decision also does not affect the legal basis for which members may conduct investigative encounters. The decision does not change the guidance and training the Department has provided to members to conduct reasonable suspicion stops, frisks, searches, etc. When making arrests for illegal firearm possession, members will continue to charge all applicable sections of the New York State Penal Law and other relevant laws.

Additionally, some firearm licenses issued by the NYPD License Division, or other NYS firearm licensors, contain restrictions for when the firearm may be possessed or transported. For example, some handgun licenses only permit possession, and transport, to or at a specific residence or business location. Licensees must continue to abide by the current terms and conditions of their license. Today’s decision does not change these restrictions, nor does it convert a restricted firearm license into a concealed-carry license allowing possession throughout New York City. Violation of a licensee’s terms and conditions is a class A misdemeanor (PL 400.00(15)).

Lastly, in order to lawfully possess a firearm in NYC, a person must have a license issued by the NYPD License Division – with some exceptions for continuous and uninterrupted travel through New York City or for qualified retired law enforcement officers (“H.R. 218”). This legal requirement remains unchanged. Firearm licenses issued from other states, or other localities in New York State, do not authorize legal possession or carry in New York City. Violation of this law is also a class A misdemeanor (PL 400.00(15)).

Where a subject presents an NYPD Gun License, or any firearms license, and the member has questions regarding its validity or compliance with the license’s terms and conditions, the member may call the Legal Bureau. Legal Bureau attorneys are available from 0700 hours to 2300 hours, Monday through Friday, at 646-610-5400. At all other times, an on-call attorney can be reached by contacting the Operations Desk at 646-610-5580.

The Legal Bureau will provide additional guidance if there are any further developments from this decision.

Authority: Deputy Commissioner, Legal Matters
 
  • Like
Reactions: Me.
Dan0311 said:
Unconfirmed:

Here is the NYPD Memo from Deputy Commissioner

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that impacts how concealed carry firearm licenses will be issued by the NYPD’s License Division and other firearm licensors in New York State. Essentially, applicants for such licenses no longer need to demonstrate “proper cause,” or a special need for the license that is not just general self-defense. The Court found that the proper cause requirement is unconstitutional.
It is critical to stress that unlicensed firearm possession remains a crime in New York. The Department’s approach to detecting, interdicting, and arresting those who unlawfully possess firearms remains unchanged. This decision does not impact a uniformed member of the services’ ability to make arrests for illegal firearm possession. The decision also does not affect the legal basis for which members may conduct investigative encounters. The decision does not change the guidance and training the Department has provided to members to conduct reasonable suspicion stops, frisks, searches, etc. When making arrests for illegal firearm possession, members will continue to charge all applicable sections of the New York State Penal Law and other relevant laws.

Additionally, some firearm licenses issued by the NYPD License Division, or other NYS firearm licensors, contain restrictions for when the firearm may be possessed or transported. For example, some handgun licenses only permit possession, and transport, to or at a specific residence or business location. Licensees must continue to abide by the current terms and conditions of their license. Today’s decision does not change these restrictions, nor does it convert a restricted firearm license into a concealed-carry license allowing possession throughout New York City. Violation of a licensee’s terms and conditions is a class A misdemeanor (PL 400.00(15)).

Lastly, in order to lawfully possess a firearm in NYC, a person must have a license issued by the NYPD License Division – with some exceptions for continuous and uninterrupted travel through New York City or for qualified retired law enforcement officers (“H.R. 218”). This legal requirement remains unchanged. Firearm licenses issued from other states, or other localities in New York State, do not authorize legal possession or carry in New York City. Violation of this law is also a class A misdemeanor (PL 400.00(15)).

Where a subject presents an NYPD Gun License, or any firearms license, and the member has questions regarding its validity or compliance with the license’s terms and conditions, the member may call the Legal Bureau. Legal Bureau attorneys are available from 0700 hours to 2300 hours, Monday through Friday, at 646-610-5400. At all other times, an on-call attorney can be reached by contacting the Operations Desk at 646-610-5580.

The Legal Bureau will provide additional guidance if there are any further developments from this decision.

Authority: Deputy Commissioner, Legal Matters
Click to expand...
They are the armed enforcement squad of the political class, and with no surprise, respond to today's ruling exactly within that capacity.
 
Dan0311 said:
Unconfirmed:

Here is the NYPD Memo from Deputy Commissioner

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that impacts how concealed carry firearm licenses will be issued by the NYPD’s License Division and other firearm licensors in New York State. Essentially, applicants for such licenses no longer need to demonstrate “proper cause,” or a special need for the license that is not just general self-defense. The Court found that the proper cause requirement is unconstitutional.
It is critical to stress that unlicensed firearm possession remains a crime in New York. The Department’s approach to detecting, interdicting, and arresting those who unlawfully possess firearms remains unchanged. This decision does not impact a uniformed member of the services’ ability to make arrests for illegal firearm possession. The decision also does not affect the legal basis for which members may conduct investigative encounters. The decision does not change the guidance and training the Department has provided to members to conduct reasonable suspicion stops, frisks, searches, etc. When making arrests for illegal firearm possession, members will continue to charge all applicable sections of the New York State Penal Law and other relevant laws.

Additionally, some firearm licenses issued by the NYPD License Division, or other NYS firearm licensors, contain restrictions for when the firearm may be possessed or transported. For example, some handgun licenses only permit possession, and transport, to or at a specific residence or business location. Licensees must continue to abide by the current terms and conditions of their license. Today’s decision does not change these restrictions, nor does it convert a restricted firearm license into a concealed-carry license allowing possession throughout New York City. Violation of a licensee’s terms and conditions is a class A misdemeanor (PL 400.00(15)).

Lastly, in order to lawfully possess a firearm in NYC, a person must have a license issued by the NYPD License Division – with some exceptions for continuous and uninterrupted travel through New York City or for qualified retired law enforcement officers (“H.R. 218”). This legal requirement remains unchanged. Firearm licenses issued from other states, or other localities in New York State, do not authorize legal possession or carry in New York City. Violation of this law is also a class A misdemeanor (PL 400.00(15)).

Where a subject presents an NYPD Gun License, or any firearms license, and the member has questions regarding its validity or compliance with the license’s terms and conditions, the member may call the Legal Bureau. Legal Bureau attorneys are available from 0700 hours to 2300 hours, Monday through Friday, at 646-610-5400. At all other times, an on-call attorney can be reached by contacting the Operations Desk at 646-610-5580.

The Legal Bureau will provide additional guidance if there are any further developments from this decision.

Authority: Deputy Commissioner, Legal Matters
Click to expand...

I love that 9 supposedly top notch judges in black robes took months to review the law and make a decision. And then NYC has an immediate answer. My guess is that is very well thought out. No back pedaling or BS coming down the line.
 
CZfool68 said:
I love that 9 supposedly top notch judges in black robes took months to review the law and make a decision. And then NYC has an immediate answer. My guess is that is very well thought out. No back pedaling or BS coming down the line.
Click to expand...
I would imagine the moment the case wasn't refused by the Supreme Court, City and State lawyers in New York immediately began preparing a rebuttal if the ruling didn't go their way.
 
SPM said:
I would imagine the moment the case wasn't refused by the Supreme Court, City and State lawyers in New York immediately began preparing a rebuttal if the ruling didn't go their way.
Click to expand...

You are assuming a lot of competence and work ethic by those people. Public employees in NY? Maybe?
 
SPM said:
I would imagine the moment the case wasn't refused by the Supreme Court, City and State lawyers in New York immediately began preparing a rebuttal if the ruling didn't go their way.
Click to expand...
With all the press about "what if" and people knowing that scotus doesn't generally take cases that they don't want to override... yeah, they were working on what to do when they lost, which was fairly obvious. Most people just didn't know how bad the loss would be.

Also, wasn't this one of the cases where the state tried changing it just enough to hope people back off and the court would call it moot so there would be no judgment? The state knew what they were doing was illegal, and they knew that with the current court makeup they would NEVER win.
 
DrScaryGuy said:
Also, wasn't this one of the cases where the state tried changing it just enough to hope people back off and the court would call it moot so there would be no judgment? The state knew what they were doing was illegal, and they knew that with the current court makeup they would NEVER win.
Click to expand...
No, that was a case in 2020 where the city, at the urging of gun control advocates, rescinded the statute in its entirety when the SCOTUS agreed to hear the challenge.

Rather than issue an opinion, the case became moor because the original complaint no longer had standing with the statute repealed.

www.nytimes.com

Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to New York City Gun Ordinance (Published 2020)

Instead of ruling in its first Second Amendment case in a decade, the court found it moot after the city repealed the challenged regulation.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
 
SPM said:
No, that was a case in 2020 where the city, at the urging of gun control advocates, rescinded the statute in its entirety when the SCOTUS agreed to hear the challenge.
Click to expand...
May have to read the history of this case, because I remember the case you cited, but I also remember them trying something with this one too and this time they said, “not so fast”.
 
noway2 said:
May have to read the history of this case, because I remember the case you cited, but I also remember them trying something with this one too and this time they said, “not so fast”.
Click to expand...
That's what i was thinking too
They have a long proud history (and future, apparently) of skirting rulings to infringe on the 2A by any means necessary
 
I think NY will require liability insurance before you can get a permit to carry. One city in CA has done that. Oh it's just like driving your car.
If that is the case then my carry permit should be valid in all 50 States.
 
Jayne said:
Looks like CA and NY are already on the move:
Click to expand...
Think of it like disciplining a child that is perpetually misbehaving. The parents have put their foot down and said no, but the child is continuing to misbehave. At some point, you stop trying to reason with the child and instead give them discipline that they both understand and is effective in discouraging the bad behavior.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom