NY Gun Laws Suspended...

Tim

Tim

Checked Out
Staff member
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Vendor
Multi-Factor Enabled
Joined
Dec 17, 2016
Messages
16,570
Location
A Glass Cage of Emotion
Rating - 100%
85   0   0
Published this afternoon:

www.reuters.com

U.S. judge suspends many of New York's new gun restrictions

A federal judge in New York temporarily suspended many parts of the state's new gun restrictions on Monday to allow members of a gun-owners' rights group to continue their lawsuit challenging the new law as unconstitutional.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com

No more Jim Crow like provisions...
- "Good Moral Character"
- Review of Social Media accounts
- Details on ALL adults in the home.
etc.
 
Last edited:
Good news, and an interesting read.

I'm glad to hear this!!:

"...of Gun Owners of America, which competes with the National Rifle Association in political influence."

But, of course, Reuters had to get their issue bias digs in...

"...making it harder for lawmakers nationwide to regulate guns in a country where mass shootings are commonplace."
 
Windini said:
Good news, and an interesting read.

I'm glad to hear this!!:

"...of Gun Owners of America, which competes with the National Rifle Association in political influence."

But, of course, Reuters had to get their issue bias digs in...

"...making it harder for lawmakers nationwide to regulate guns in a country where mass shootings are commonplace."
Click to expand...
Exactly what I noticed and that's as far as I could go before I cut out.
 
Jmoser said:
Yup - next 5-10 years bouncing around courts until SCOTUS sees another appeal. But PRNY will ultimately lose. Endless civil rights lawsuits may be needed first to drain their coffers.
Click to expand...
they'll raise taxes to keep fighting if they have to
 
He also sharply pared back New York's new list of "sensitive places" where it is a new felony crime to possess a gun even with a license, writing that the state could not ban guns in theaters, bars and restaurants, parks, airports and other public places.
Click to expand...
so... do you think he wants to move to scenic NC?
I'll never understand the thinking that you can drive a 6ft wide car at 70mph perfectly legally at blood alcohol of 0.079.... but having a holstered gun that pokes 0.22" holes with your blood alcohol measurable is super duper illegal.
and as for carrying in a bar.. listen, if i'm driving, i'm not drinking enough to be drunk. i am capable of being in a bar and not shooting up the place!
 
NY threw a lot of crap against the wall and too much of it stuck.

Look for the 2nd circus to stay the injunction and eventually deny it on appeal.

Then it goes full circle back to the supremes. By then, the demon crats will have packed the SC and it will stand as constitutional.

Color me jaded.
 
What are the chances that NY gets a new governor today and some of this gets repealed? (only half joking)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Me.
Windini said:
But, of course, Reuters had to get their issue bias digs in...

"...making it harder for lawmakers nationwide to regulate guns in a country where mass shootings are commonplace."
Click to expand...
Beat me to it, was going to comment on that. I was thinking of the chart in the other thread about media bias and remembered that Reuters was among the more neutral and I think this piece would have been except for that remark.
 
Timfoilhat said:
What are the chances that NY gets a new governor today and some of this gets repealed? (only half joking)
Click to expand...
😂 😂

Zeldin SAYS he will. RINO at best although a lot of demonrats have endorsed him.

Schmucky Shumer is on the ballot also and hasn't even campaigned. Either the fix is in or he's so arrogant he doesn't feel the need to. Likely both
 
Timfoilhat said:
What are the chances that NY gets a new governor today and some of this gets repealed? (only half joking)
Click to expand...

A few weeks ago I truly didn't think Zeldin had a chance - but he's close. Win or lose, if it's close that's a good thing for NY. But if he does win he'll be by himself in Albany and I'm pessimistic at how much he will be able to accomplish. I think the best NYer's can hope for is a Gov that won't hurt its residents any worse than Cuomo/Hochul.
 
Dan0311 said:
A few weeks ago I truly didn't think Zeldin had a chance - but he's close. Win or lose, if it's close that's a good thing for NY. But if he does win he'll be by himself in Albany and I'm pessimistic at how much he will be able to accomplish. I think the best NYer's can hope for is a Gov that won't hurt its residents any worse than Cuomo/Hochul.
Click to expand...
Some years back Illinois broke off the chains and went for RINO Rauner. He was mostly impotent. He was good on gun rights. He was the only governor that ever opened his door to me on gun rights lobby day. But he signed off on legislation that expanded the rights to an abortion which killed him with the base making him a one termer with no chance at re-election. I suspect Zeldin in NY would be in a similar boat.
 
re: the "RINO" comments above.

If you're a Republican in one of these areas, do you stand any chance of winning if you're NOT a RINO?
Isn't it better to have a guy/gal in place that leans our way, even if not entirely perfect, than to just give it up and let the other guys have it?

Incremental gains are still gains, right?

Pragmatic and open-eyed about the playing field seems to me the better choice than being purely dogmatic.

Now, cue the regular comments calling me a closet leftist....
 
Tim said:
re: the "RINO" comments above.

If you're a Republican in one of these areas, do you stand any chance of winning if you're NOT a RINO?
Isn't it better to have a guy/gal in place that leans our way, even if not entirely perfect, than to just give it up and let the other guys have it?

Incremental gains are still gains, right?

Pragmatic and open-eyed about the playing field seems to me the better choice than being purely dogmatic.

Now, cue the regular comments calling me a closet leftist....
Click to expand...

This why we need more than a 1 party we currently have.
 
Tim said:
re: the "RINO" comments above.

If you're a Republican in one of these areas, do you stand any chance of winning if you're NOT a RINO?
Isn't it better to have a guy/gal in place that leans our way, even if not entirely perfect, than to just give it up and let the other guys have it?

Incremental gains are still gains, right?

Pragmatic and open-eyed about the playing field seems to me the better choice than being purely dogmatic.

Now, cue the regular comments calling me a closet leftist....
Click to expand...
Death over dishonor!!!

You are obviously a closet lefty 😂
 
AR10ShooterinNC said:
This why we need more than a 1 party we currently have.
Click to expand...
This initially brings me to thinking of parliamentary systems where there is no party large enough to dictate and they must form coalitions in order to get anything done. Then I look at all the countries that have parliaments, e.g. Canada, England, Australia, France, Italy, etc., and they are all leftist monstrosities.

I keep coming back to the notion that the problem is the system of people opting to run for office. While there may be a few honorable ones out there, the majority of them are doing it for profit. Instead, I am intrigued by the Hellenic Democracy model where there are three bodies, that are randomly comprised of the eligible voter pool, one proposes laws, both new ones and the removal of them, a second one votes on the proposals, and the third is judicial. A side note on the judicial is that it's services need to be available to everyone, not just those with tens of thousands to spend. No parties. No career politicians. The randomization coupled with the ability to eliminate laws would tend to even out the extremes.
 
noway2 said:
This initially brings me to thinking of parliamentary systems where there is no party large enough to dictate and they must form coalitions in order to get anything done. Then I look at all the countries that have parliaments, e.g. Canada, England, Australia, France, Italy, etc., and they are all leftist monstrosities.

I keep coming back to the notion that the problem is the system of people opting to run for office. While there may be a few honorable ones out there, the majority of them are doing it for profit. Instead, I am intrigued by the Hellenic Democracy model where there are three bodies, that are randomly comprised of the eligible voter pool, one proposes laws, both new ones and the removal of them, a second one votes on the proposals, and the third is judicial. A side note on the judicial is that it's services need to be available to everyone, not just those with tens of thousands to spend. No parties. No career politicians. The randomization coupled with the ability to eliminate laws would tend to even out the extremes.
Click to expand...
I've always liked that model, in theory. And I think it would do very well in a homogenous (shared values, not necessarily ethnicity) society, or at least on a smaller scale than the US. Perhaps county or even states.

One HUGE benefit of the 2 party system that always goes unnoticed, or at least uncommented on, is the gridlock that occurs. Gridlock is a GOOD thing in politics because it means that status quo pretty much rules. Businesses know what to expect, so they can plan and grow without wondering what the hell the next admin is going to pull.

With the occasional exception, neither side gets 'their' extreme policies enacted and the country just motors along with relatively little influence from the .gov. At least historically. The only things getting done are the obviously beneficial.

What's messed that up in the last decade or so is the meteoric rise in the use of Executive Orders and the bureaucracy to enact 'law' or policy. Coupled with the Legislature abdicating their authority to keep the Executive in check is a terrible combination. There's no way in hell that the President and his cabinet should have so much influence on the day to day lives of citizens.

The Legislature needs to smack the Executive back into its proper lane. That won't happen, because it would require the congresscritters to actually do their job.
 
Last edited:
Tim said:
re: the "RINO" comments above.

If you're a Republican in one of these areas, do you stand any chance of winning if you're NOT a RINO?
Isn't it better to have a guy/gal in place that leans our way, even if not entirely perfect, than to just give it up and let the other guys have it?

Incremental gains are still gains, right?

Pragmatic and open-eyed about the playing field seems to me the better choice than being purely dogmatic.

Now, cue the regular comments calling me a closet leftist....
Click to expand...
I wrote RINO because it was an accurate description. Not intended to be a slam or insult against the guys who caucus with the conservatives. They are who they are, and they were the only choice for me for years trying to slow the slide down that slippery left slope.
 
vp9c said:
You mean you’d rather be weak and alive vs dead and right?
Click to expand...
Yup. Just like the Marines at Chosin Reservoir or Geo Washington leaving Long Island. Better to be bruised and bloody, but still in the fight.

It’s ok to die while holding onto virtue; every battle needs cannon fodder and every cause needs its useful idiots.
 
Last edited:
Tim said:
re: the "RINO" comments above.

If you're a Republican in one of these areas, do you stand any chance of winning if you're NOT a RINO?
Isn't it better to have a guy/gal in place that leans our way, even if not entirely perfect, than to just give it up and let the other guys have it?

Incremental gains are still gains, right?

Pragmatic and open-eyed about the playing field seems to me the better choice than being purely dogmatic.

Now, cue the regular comments calling me a closet leftist....
Click to expand...
The problem with the GOP is there’s never gains. They shift left when the Dems are in power but never shift back right when they get in power.
 
Tim said:
I've always liked that model, in theory. And I think it would do very well in a homogenous (shared values, not necessarily ethnicity) society, or at least on a smaller scale than the US. Perhaps county or even states.

One HUGE benefit of the 2 party system that always goes unnoticed, or at least uncommented on, is the gridlock that occurs. Gridlock is a GOOD thing in politics because it means that status quo pretty much rules. Businesses know what to expect, so they can plan and grow without wondering what the hell the next admin is going to pull.

With the occasional exception, neither side gets 'their' extreme policies enacted and the country just motors along with relatively little influence from the .gov. At least historically. The only things getting done are the obviously beneficial.

What's messed that up in the last decade or so is the meteoric rise in the use of Executive Orders and the bureaucracy to enact 'law' or policy. Coupled with the Legislature abdicating their authority to keep the Executive in check is a terrible combination. There's no way in hell that the President and his cabinet should have so much influence on the day to day lives of citizens.

The Legislature needs to smack the Executive back into its proper lane. That won't happen, because it would require the congresscritters to actually do their job.
Click to expand...
I think the obsession with RINOs (yes, they ARE despicable creatures!) is a result of the overall failure of the conservative movement to realize that all change, political and cultural is LOCAL first, then upwards, and then last come the kicking and screaming centralized feds. If I had to pick between a good ferocious county da, sheriff, and education director for my COUNTY and a stellar leader on the federal level, I will pick the county every time. It is astounding to me. I got into some (deserved! lol) trouble with @Studentofthegun earlier for calling conservatives "stupid" because I was and am so frustrated with the overwhelming obsession with the presidency and DC power (I was also furious over the Republican willingness to engage in foreign military escapades, but fortunately Trump has moved most of the party to a Libertarian/Ron Paul position there).
The real battles are, and always will be, local. I do not understand why the GOP does not have ideological zealots dedicated to propagating principles of freedom at the grass roots level. That is where the real battle is. Change NEVER comes from the top down.
 
DrScaryGuy said:
so... do you think he wants to move to scenic NC?
I'll never understand the thinking that you can drive a 6ft wide car at 70mph perfectly legally at blood alcohol of 0.079.... but having a holstered gun that pokes 0.22" holes with your blood alcohol measurable is super duper illegal.
and as for carrying in a bar.. listen, if i'm driving, i'm not drinking enough to be drunk. i am capable of being in a bar and not shooting up the place!
Click to expand...
The only problem with that thinking is that most folks that say they aren't drinking enough to be drunk, actually do end up drunk and driving. Can't you refrain from drinking for a night when you are carrying and need to drive?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom