User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/22/2019 2:39:13 PM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because we no longer tar, feather, and ride politicians out on a rail. Remember way back when the Senate had voted on Obamacare but the House hadn't? Ben "Cornhusker Kickback" Nelson went home and went to a local pizza joint with his wife. He was booed out of the building. I'm convinced if the boo-ers had strung him up in the street the House would never have voted for Obamacare. It's real easy to say "the worst that happens is you don't get reelected but we have a nice lobbyist job as a consolation" but is a whole other thing when politicians put their literal skin on the line. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:NYC says you can't transport your pistol except from your domicile to their seven approved ranges, not even to other states, your upstate home, or to go hunting.  Remember way back when the Senate had voted on Obamacare but the House hadn't? Ben "Cornhusker Kickback" Nelson went home and went to a local pizza joint with his wife. He was booed out of the building. I'm convinced if the boo-ers had strung him up in the street the House would never have voted for Obamacare. It's real easy to say "the worst that happens is you don't get reelected but we have a nice lobbyist job as a consolation" but is a whole other thing when politicians put their literal skin on the line. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2019 2:41:19 PM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They are right to be worried. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
IBT "Roberts will fuck us" underscores/concern trolls. Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2019 2:45:01 PM EST
[#3]
I always thought it was federal law that said you can transport your firearm anywhere you are allowed to have it to anywhere else you are allowed to have it. Including through blue liberal fucktard states. I think though that this Nazi bullshit only applies to the NYC licence holders.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2019 2:47:34 PM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I always thought it was federal law that said you can transport your firearm anywhere you are allowed to have it to anywhere else you are allowed to have it. Including through blue liberal fucktard states. I think though that this Nazi bullshit only applies to the NYC licence holders. So NYC will have to start issuing carry permits again. They will try to "restrict" them to only allow target shooting/hunting...but it would still be a carry permit according to NYS law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2019 2:51:38 PM EST
[#5]
Didn't Thomas say he wanted to write the decision on a gun case before he retires? If this goes our way and Thomas writes the decision I can see strict scrutiny coming out of this case which will be huge.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2019 2:53:53 PM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
NYC says you can't transport your pistol except from your domicile to their seven approved ranges, not even to other states, your upstate home, or to go hunting. The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case and weigh in if that is an acceptable restriction within the 2A, the commerce clause of the constitution, and the right to travel. This is the first major 2A case to reach the merits stage since McDonald in 2010, Caetano had a summary disposition, so if they side with NYSRPA instead of NYC, it would instantly establish precedent across the country for CA, MD, NJ, etc to abide by. Kharn Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Cliff notes? This is the first major 2A case to reach the merits stage since McDonald in 2010, Caetano had a summary disposition, so if they side with NYSRPA instead of NYC, it would instantly establish precedent across the country for CA, MD, NJ, etc to abide by. Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2019 2:55:28 PM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
NYC says you can't transport your pistol except from your domicile to their seven approved ranges, not even to other states, your upstate home, or to go hunting. The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case and weigh in if that is an acceptable restriction within the 2A, the commerce clause of the constitution, and the right to travel. This is the first major 2A case to reach the merits stage since McDonald in 2010, Caetano had a summary disposition, so if they side with NYSRPA instead of NYC, it would instantly establish precedent across the country for CA, MD, NJ, etc to abide by. Kharn Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Cliff notes? This is the first major 2A case to reach the merits stage since McDonald in 2010, Caetano had a summary disposition, so if they side with NYSRPA instead of NYC, it would instantly establish precedent across the country for CA, MD, NJ, etc to abide by. Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2019 2:56:55 PM EST
[#8]
I hope New York shity loses bigly.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2019 2:57:28 PM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Roberts voted for Heller |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2019 2:58:20 PM EST
[#10]
Quoted:
Quoted:
A guy at the Nassau permit office told my buddy not to think the "I belong to a 24 hr. range" story will work. Any restrictions on a NYS carry permit are purely administrative. Quoted:
When they lose, NYC will HAVE start issuing CARRY/Target/Hunting licenses again...which according to NYS law, allow full carry. The NYPD is going to cry hard. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2019 3:01:24 PM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's the issue. A NYC PREMISE pistol permit holder is NOT allowed to even possess a pistol outside of the address on their permit. So NYC will have to start issuing carry permits again. They will try to "restrict" them to only allow target shooting/hunting...but it would still be a carry permit according to NYS law. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I always thought it was federal law that said you can transport your firearm anywhere you are allowed to have it to anywhere else you are allowed to have it. Including through blue liberal fucktard states. I think though that this Nazi bullshit only applies to the NYC licence holders. So NYC will have to start issuing carry permits again. They will try to "restrict" them to only allow target shooting/hunting...but it would still be a carry permit according to NYS law. Hopefully SCOTUS makes the right call and declares NYC's restrictions unconstitutional, then it'll be like in DC when Heller came down. NYC will get to decide what they're going to do about the ruling. They'll probably enact some form of premise + transport permit that won't go anywhere close to being a carry permit. NYS will probably go along with it. Or change NYS law to accommodate what their masters in NYC want. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2019 3:02:16 PM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thats some fucked up law Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Cliff notes? This is the first major 2A case to reach the merits stage since McDonald in 2010, Caetano had a summary disposition, so if they side with NYSRPA instead of NYC, it would instantly establish precedent across the country for CA, MD, NJ, etc to abide by. Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2019 3:06:05 PM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah that's what the guy meant, he'd lose his permit and his pistols. They'll just add the administrative restriction like the Long Island counties do and revoke the permit/confiscate the guns of anyone caught carrying. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A guy at the Nassau permit office told my buddy not to think the "I belong to a 24 hr. range" story will work. Any restrictions on a NYS carry permit are purely administrative. Quoted:
When they lose, NYC will HAVE start issuing CARRY/Target/Hunting licenses again...which according to NYS law, allow full carry. The NYPD is going to cry hard. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2019 3:07:56 PM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
NO, Dave. NYC won't have to do anything. Hopefully SCOTUS makes the right call and declares NYC's restrictions unconstitutional, then it'll be like in DC when Heller came down. NYC will get to decide what they're going to do about the ruling. They'll probably enact some form of premise + transport permit that won't go anywhere close to being a carry permit. NYS will probably go along with it. Or change NYS law to accommodate what their masters in NYC want. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I always thought it was federal law that said you can transport your firearm anywhere you are allowed to have it to anywhere else you are allowed to have it. Including through blue liberal fucktard states. I think though that this Nazi bullshit only applies to the NYC licence holders. So NYC will have to start issuing carry permits again. They will try to "restrict" them to only allow target shooting/hunting...but it would still be a carry permit according to NYS law. Hopefully SCOTUS makes the right call and declares NYC's restrictions unconstitutional, then it'll be like in DC when Heller came down. NYC will get to decide what they're going to do about the ruling. They'll probably enact some form of premise + transport permit that won't go anywhere close to being a carry permit. NYS will probably go along with it. Or change NYS law to accommodate what their masters in NYC want. NY either has a CARRY permit...or a PREMISE only permit. No in between. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2019 3:09:58 PM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah that's what the guy meant, he'd lose his permit and his pistols. They'll just add the administrative restriction like the Long Island counties do and revoke the permit/confiscate the guns of anyone caught carrying. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2019 3:12:09 PM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If that's true that's amazing. California has nothing close to that nonsense (yet). Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Assuming a positive outcome this could be a big win for people in NJ. While the transportation rules aren't as bad as NYC they are very restrictive as well. In NJ it is a crime to take a handgun from your home to a hotel, friends house, or vacation home for example. NY and NJ are probably the most oppressive States when it comes to gun controul. Seems like WA wants to catch up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2019 3:13:01 PM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Didn't a guy get arrested for stopping for gas in his way home from the range recently? I could literally see cops staking out ranges to bust people and take their handguns under that law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2019 3:17:02 PM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They will try to enact a Premise permit with a "transport" authorization of some kind, I agree...but it will still be illegal for them per NYS law. NY either has a CARRY permit...or a PREMISE only permit. No in between. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I always thought it was federal law that said you can transport your firearm anywhere you are allowed to have it to anywhere else you are allowed to have it. Including through blue liberal fucktard states. I think though that this Nazi bullshit only applies to the NYC licence holders. So NYC will have to start issuing carry permits again. They will try to "restrict" them to only allow target shooting/hunting...but it would still be a carry permit according to NYS law. Hopefully SCOTUS makes the right call and declares NYC's restrictions unconstitutional, then it'll be like in DC when Heller came down. NYC will get to decide what they're going to do about the ruling. They'll probably enact some form of premise + transport permit that won't go anywhere close to being a carry permit. NYS will probably go along with it. Or change NYS law to accommodate what their masters in NYC want. NY either has a CARRY permit...or a PREMISE only permit. No in between. Again, NYC won't have to do anything, other than make a new law restricting your rights, and I'm certain they won't be issuing carry permits to anyone who asks for one. Edit: I was being too optimistic. SCOTUS will simply say, at best, that NYC's permit regulations aren't constitutional. Go fix them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2019 3:17:58 PM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The law in NJ was written to now allow "Reasonable deviations" in trips to and from firearm use. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Didn't a guy get arrested for stopping for gas in his way home from the range recently? I could literally see cops staking out ranges to bust people and take their handguns under that law. The attorney general of NJ issued a letter addressing this concern a few years ago: https://www.state.nj.us/oag/dcj/agguide/transporting-firearms_guide.pdf It provides a good glimpse into the absurdity gun owners in NJ have to deal with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2019 3:27:31 PM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well, you can shoot them on BLM land. That wasn't the case under the Clinton administration, but Bush changed it. AWs have to be locked up separate from their ammo during transport. Basically the same rules apply to AWs that apply to handguns. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2019 3:28:40 PM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I haven't read the cert. petition, but I'd guess the best result will be SCOTUS saying you don't need a permit to have a gun in your home or transport it locked & unloaded. (see Heller) Again, NYC won't have to do anything, other than make a new law restricting your rights, and I'm certain they won't be issuing carry permits to anyone who asks for one. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I always thought it was federal law that said you can transport your firearm anywhere you are allowed to have it to anywhere else you are allowed to have it. Including through blue liberal fucktard states. I think though that this Nazi bullshit only applies to the NYC licence holders. So NYC will have to start issuing carry permits again. They will try to "restrict" them to only allow target shooting/hunting...but it would still be a carry permit according to NYS law. Hopefully SCOTUS makes the right call and declares NYC's restrictions unconstitutional, then it'll be like in DC when Heller came down. NYC will get to decide what they're going to do about the ruling. They'll probably enact some form of premise + transport permit that won't go anywhere close to being a carry permit. NYS will probably go along with it. Or change NYS law to accommodate what their masters in NYC want. NY either has a CARRY permit...or a PREMISE only permit. No in between. Again, NYC won't have to do anything, other than make a new law restricting your rights, and I'm certain they won't be issuing carry permits to anyone who asks for one. So using their own argument over the past 30 years, the only way they can abide by a SCOTUS smack down is to issue target/hunting/sportsman/transport pistol permits, which are legally still full carry permits. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2019 3:29:07 PM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Jesus Christ. How can rights get so stripped away like this in a state. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Cliff notes? This is the first major 2A case to reach the merits stage since McDonald in 2010, Caetano had a summary disposition, so if they side with NYSRPA instead of NYC, it would instantly establish precedent across the country for CA, MD, NJ, etc to abide by. Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2019 3:29:32 PM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yep, and RBG will surface to join him. How does the 86 FOPA (Firearms Owners Protection Act) not negate this BS NYC law right out of the box. Part of the law was to protect us when moving our firearms from place to place as long as where they started and ended was legal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2019 3:33:26 PM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This needs to be stressed more in this thread. If SCOTUS comes back with a decision that all 2A cases must be reviewed with strict scrutiny, it could result in blowing just about every firearms restriction (AWBs, may-issue permits, magazine capacity limits, etc) out of the water. It could quite literally be an instant death sentence to the anti-gun agenda Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Probably more important that Heller, as Heller has been basically ignored. This would give Heller some teeth, strict scrutiny is the highest standard of review. A SC ruling applying strict Constitutional scrutiny to anything related to the 2A could open the door to national reciprocity, Constitutional carry, rolling back the NFA, etc... One of the district judges here called out the scrutiny nonsense for what it was and did his analysis under both the traditional method and the "levels of scrutiny" one (just to cover his bases) in his opinion granting an PI against CA's mag ban. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2019 3:39:24 PM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I agree the will try...but all these years, the NYPD has stated (and argued in documented court cases) that they CAN'T allow premise holders to leave NYC with handguns because they are PREMISE permits, and premise permits don't allow transport per NYS law. So using their own argument over the past 30 years, the only way they can abide by a SCOTUS smack down is to issue target/hunting/sportsman/transport pistol permits, which are legally still full carry permits. Why is that so hard to understand? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2019 3:40:19 PM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For any honest justice/judge this should be an open and shut case. Grossly unconstitutional bullshit. This case will do little to help anyone else. We need a magazine capacity and an "assault weapon" case. After ginsburg dies and we get another conservative hopefully we'll get some useful cases. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Cliff notes? This case will do little to help anyone else. We need a magazine capacity and an "assault weapon" case. After ginsburg dies and we get another conservative hopefully we'll get some useful cases. No idea how this works, but my understanding is you need 5 judges to agree to hear a case. I suppose they are testing the waters with this one. I think this will be an easy win though. Not being able to state them out of state or out of city seems like it would be slapped down easily. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2019 3:41:07 PM EST
[#27]
We won't know the outcome until June, right?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2019 3:43:09 PM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We won't know the outcome until June, right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2019 3:43:47 PM EST
[#29]
It's hard to imagine NYC winning this case at SCOTUS. It would completely destroy any remaining hope I have that the Constitution can be salvaged. I would not count my chickens too early, though, on this one even with that high degree of confidence.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2019 3:44:06 PM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Court may just say that if you have a premise permit you can transport your firearm (we SCOTUS -- fuck NY state law), but that doesn't mean NYC is going to start issuing (or be forced to issue) carry permits. Why is that so hard to understand? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I agree the will try...but all these years, the NYPD has stated (and argued in documented court cases) that they CAN'T allow premise holders to leave NYC with handguns because they are PREMISE permits, and premise permits don't allow transport per NYS law. So using their own argument over the past 30 years, the only way they can abide by a SCOTUS smack down is to issue target/hunting/sportsman/transport pistol permits, which are legally still full carry permits. Why is that so hard to understand? Again I agree with you that they will just make up their own rules again...but if NYC wants to actually follow NYS law properly after this SCOTUS smack down, they have to issue carry permits. They will "restrict" them like some counties in NY do, but it's still a carry permit per NYS law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2019 3:51:10 PM EST
[#31]
The lower court decisions were hilarious "you can practice shooting at ranges in NYC including an NYPD range" I'd love to see some dude show up at that NYPD range with his pistol from his apartment in a little locked pistol case
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2019 3:52:45 PM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If SCOTUS says NYC has to allow transport with a premise permit, then NYS has to change NY penal law section 400 to abide, or make a new class of "premise" permit...which isn't going to happen in my opinion (amending NY PL400 law is a serious can of worms and hasn't really changed since 1911 - look up the Sullivan Law). So NYC will be forced to issue the only other kind of NYS pistol permit that exists. Again I agree with you that they will just make up their own rules again...but if NYC wants to actually follow NYS law properly after this SCOTUS smack down, they have to issue carry permits. They will "restrict" them like some counties in NY do, but it's still a carry permit per NYS law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2019 4:03:10 PM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Dems control everything, they can make whatever changes they want to 400 and will probably retaliate by basically ending carry permits for everyone Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: If SCOTUS says NYC has to allow transport with a premise permit, then NYS has to change NY penal law section 400 to abide, or make a new class of "premise" permit...which isn't going to happen in my opinion (amending NY PL400 law is a serious can of worms and hasn't really changed since 1911 - look up the Sullivan Law). So NYC will be forced to issue the only other kind of NYS pistol permit that exists. Again I agree with you that they will just make up their own rules again...but if NYC wants to actually follow NYS law properly after this SCOTUS smack down, they have to issue carry permits. They will "restrict" them like some counties in NY do, but it's still a carry permit per NYS law. But Dave isn't going to become one of those special people just because he has a premise permit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2019 4:12:27 PM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I doubt NY will take carry permits away from the special people. They're special after all. But Dave isn't going to become one of those special people just because he has a premise permit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: If SCOTUS says NYC has to allow transport with a premise permit, then NYS has to change NY penal law section 400 to abide, or make a new class of "premise" permit...which isn't going to happen in my opinion (amending NY PL400 law is a serious can of worms and hasn't really changed since 1911 - look up the Sullivan Law). So NYC will be forced to issue the only other kind of NYS pistol permit that exists. Again I agree with you that they will just make up their own rules again...but if NYC wants to actually follow NYS law properly after this SCOTUS smack down, they have to issue carry permits. They will "restrict" them like some counties in NY do, but it's still a carry permit per NYS law. But Dave isn't going to become one of those special people just because he has a premise permit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2019 4:17:17 PM EST
[#35]
In before we get got by the switch hitter Roberts and the frat boy we just put in.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2019 4:18:27 PM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have a full carry permit. Granted it's not a NYC carry permit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: If SCOTUS says NYC has to allow transport with a premise permit, then NYS has to change NY penal law section 400 to abide, or make a new class of "premise" permit...which isn't going to happen in my opinion (amending NY PL400 law is a serious can of worms and hasn't really changed since 1911 - look up the Sullivan Law). So NYC will be forced to issue the only other kind of NYS pistol permit that exists. Again I agree with you that they will just make up their own rules again...but if NYC wants to actually follow NYS law properly after this SCOTUS smack down, they have to issue carry permits. They will "restrict" them like some counties in NY do, but it's still a carry permit per NYS law. But Dave isn't going to become one of those special people just because he has a premise permit. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2019 4:18:44 PM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The lower court decisions were hilarious "you can practice shooting at ranges in NYC including an NYPD range" I'd love to see some dude show up at that NYPD range with his pistol from his apartment in a little locked pistol case 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2019 4:21:25 PM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Great. This case will probably have no impact on your life, unless the penguin is right, and then you're going to lose your permit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: If SCOTUS says NYC has to allow transport with a premise permit, then NYS has to change NY penal law section 400 to abide, or make a new class of "premise" permit...which isn't going to happen in my opinion (amending NY PL400 law is a serious can of worms and hasn't really changed since 1911 - look up the Sullivan Law). So NYC will be forced to issue the only other kind of NYS pistol permit that exists. Again I agree with you that they will just make up their own rules again...but if NYC wants to actually follow NYS law properly after this SCOTUS smack down, they have to issue carry permits. They will "restrict" them like some counties in NY do, but it's still a carry permit per NYS law. But Dave isn't going to become one of those special people just because he has a premise permit. I've fought them myself personally a few times and won. I even got various guns that they wrongly considered "assault weapons" made legal in NYC including the Ares / Fite Lite SCR. So for me it's a little personal. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2019 4:31:40 PM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
With how the court ruled in Heller and then McDonald , I see NY getting smacked down. Very limited transportation of a firearm is a severe restriction on a right. On McDonald they held that the Second Amendment was incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment thus protecting those rights from infringement by state and local governments. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association is the official NRA-affiliated State Association. I'm sure someone will come along and complain "where is the NRA?" though. The NRA operates behind the curtain so that local state residents can be front and center. It reduces the complaints that they have no standing or that it is "entities outside the state trying to control what happens in another state". Kharn On McDonald they held that the Second Amendment was incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment thus protecting those rights from infringement by state and local governments. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2019 4:35:47 PM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Didn't Thomas say he wanted to write the decision on a gun case before he retires? If this goes our way and Thomas writes the decision I can see strict scrutiny coming out of this case which will be huge. As long as we're dreaming, perhaps this is the case where the Court abandons levels of scrutiny analysis AND selective incorporation and returns to the privileges and immunities analysis Thomas has been advocating for. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2019 4:39:33 PM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yep, and RBG will surface to join him. How does the 86 FOPA (Firearms Owners Protection Act) not negate this BS NYC law right out of the box. Part of the law was to protect us when moving our firearms from place to place as long as where they started and ended was legal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2019 4:39:37 PM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
One thing to remember - none of the commentary by Justice Stephens about influencing Justice Kennedy's vote on the _Heller_ decision makes any mention about Roberts being as easily influenced. The language the states have been leaning on to justify their continued infringements on the right to keep and bear arms were all required to keep Kennedy's vote. Just stating the obvious that the right is NOT limited to one's home would be a significant blow to those states and would overrule district court rulings. Even though nobody can really claim that transporting a handgun in a locked case constitutes "bearing arms", as they are not in a usable configuration that way, but it's still an infringement upon the right to KEEP those arms, and also on freedom of travel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2019 5:40:47 PM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I agree with all of this, but really hope they don't mess it up by leaning too much on the fact that NY requires a permit just to have a gun. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
One thing to remember - none of the commentary by Justice Stephens about influencing Justice Kennedy's vote on the _Heller_ decision makes any mention about Roberts being as easily influenced. The language the states have been leaning on to justify their continued infringements on the right to keep and bear arms were all required to keep Kennedy's vote. Just stating the obvious that the right is NOT limited to one's home would be a significant blow to those states and would overrule district court rulings. Even though nobody can really claim that transporting a handgun in a locked case constitutes "bearing arms", as they are not in a usable configuration that way, but it's still an infringement upon the right to KEEP those arms, and also on freedom of travel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2019 5:54:51 PM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Court may just say that if you have a premise permit you can transport your firearm (we SCOTUS -- fuck NY state law), but that doesn't mean NYC is going to start issuing (or be forced to issue) carry permits. Why is that so hard to understand? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I agree the will try...but all these years, the NYPD has stated (and argued in documented court cases) that they CAN'T allow premise holders to leave NYC with handguns because they are PREMISE permits, and premise permits don't allow transport per NYS law. So using their own argument over the past 30 years, the only way they can abide by a SCOTUS smack down is to issue target/hunting/sportsman/transport pistol permits, which are legally still full carry permits. Why is that so hard to understand? In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998) , in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment … indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2019 5:56:47 PM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In before we get got by the switch hitter Roberts and the frat boy we just put in. Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2019 5:59:04 PM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Didn't Thomas say he wanted to write the decision on a gun case before he retires? If this goes our way and Thomas writes the decision I can see strict scrutiny coming out of this case which will be huge. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2019 6:02:46 PM EST
[#47]
Can somebody give a guesstimate on how long this will take the Supreme Court to make a decision , NYC needs to be bitch slapped on this outrageous law .
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2019 6:04:23 PM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Jesus Christ. How can rights get so stripped away like this in a state. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2019 6:05:55 PM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Or change NYS law to accommodate what their masters in NYC want. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2019 6:09:21 PM EST
[#50]
I wonder what the makeup of USSC will be when the case is heard?
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
