Latest NY state handgun permit law

[dgapilot]

If SCOTUS is sufficiently incensed, they might assert original jurisdiction to take the case early in the next term and issue an immediate opinion.

One can only hope ...

How would this work? I think taking a case on first impression is only cases between states. Is there a provision somewhere that allows for re-examining a case for flagrant disregard by the loosing party? Maybe it’s a good thingNY took the lead on this BS if it can go right back to SCOTUS in October.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[RoadDawg]

Nah, the lower courts will just uphold your conviction. Mark my words, NYSRPA will be viewed in time as a monumental set back for gun owners. https://reason.com/volokh/2022/07/01/bruen-broke-the-deal/

Only by those who blame the woman for the rape because she went someplace she shouldn’t have.

How dare those people actually try to exercise their COTUS rights. Woe is us.

How about blaming and shaming the criminals who are violating our COTUS rights? Instead of blaming those who are fighting to save them.

 

[Lmo]

How would this work? I think taking a case on first impression is only cases between states. Is there a provision somewhere that allows for re-examining a case for flagrant disregard by the loosing party? Maybe it’s a good thingNY took the lead on this BS if it can go right back to SCOTUS in October.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.

This would be a case in which New York was a party.

 

[Lmo]

Just curious, in the New York case before Bruen, why did New York pull for the case? And what was the case about?

 

[press1280]

Just curious, in the New York case before Bruen, why did New York pull for the case? And what was the case about?

That was about premises permit holders not able to transport outside the city. NY pulled the case because Scotus granted review.

 

[press1280]

These new laws NY put in theoretically should be automatically suspect. You know damn well they didn’t do any studies and when they go to court will just parrot “common sense”.
With the ruling we got the lower courts may be hesitant to rubber stamp anything NY put in that isn’t present in any other state.

 

[lazarus]

New York got Bruen because they pissed off the court a year before and mooted a case at the last second.

Passing a law inside a week with no rationale other than to stick their thumb in the eye of the court won't go over much better. It will take some time, but this will backfire just as badly.

Technically in less than a day. Sure it took a week from the ruling, but they were in session for less than 24hrs. Most of the legislators didn't even see the text of the law until they showed up for the session. So mere hours to read the text, discuss with staff and debate before passing it.

 

[teratos]

SCOTUS interruptus.

 

[Lmo]

Technically in less than a day. Sure it took a week from the ruling, but they were in session for less than 24hrs. Most of the legislators didn't even see the text of the law until they showed up for the session. So mere hours to read the text, discuss with staff and debate before passing it.

If the DEMs in the legislature even read it and didn't follow like Lemmings off the cliff ...

 

[lazarus]

These new laws NY put in theoretically should be automatically suspect. You know damn well they didn’t do any studies and when they go to court will just parrot “common sense”.
With the ruling we got the lower courts may be hesitant to rubber stamp anything NY put in that isn’t present in any other state.

Not just that, but the public statements can be used against the state in court. Other than a pretty whackado liberal judge, I think even your garden variety liberal judge is going to be willing to issue an injunction against it. All of the public statements effectively boil down to "we needed to subvert the Supreme Court ruling" and "We are passing laws right up to the limit of what is going to be allowed and the court can show us if we went too far".

They are basically admitting there is an excellent chance that the law they passed violates the recent Bruen decision. I don't see how a reasonably sane, remotely honest judge wouldn't view a request on injunction very favorably after that when the politicians admitted they probably went too far and passed the legislation as an end run around a court decision. Not legislation to COMPLY with a court order, but to negate the effect.

 

[Jim12]

If they can, I bet they do. SCOTUS issued a firm opinion, and NY took the list of things not to do and put it all in a bill. It’s defiance.

Not just that; New York just committed a reactionary, BAD FAITH, intentional deprivation of civil rights. Nobody believes that this statute is constitutional or can stand, and they all knew it when they passed it.

If punitive damages and sanctions can be awarded against the State of New York, legislators, its Governor, and everybody who acted in bad faith to pass this, this would be a test case to go for it. New York has invited it: "F*** you, SCOTUS, come and get us."

New York's bad faith statute is not unlike passing a statute to revoke women's right to vote, or to negate the Fifth Amendment, or to legalize slavery. Aside from their ridiculous unconstitutionality, what blowback would there be to those who do that?

 

[Jim12]

Technically in less than a day. Sure it took a week from the ruling, but they were in session for less than 24hrs. Most of the legislators didn't even see the text of the law until they showed up for the session. So mere hours to read the text, discuss with staff and debate before passing it.

There was a time when legislative bodies were deliberative. They debated, contemplated, and even held hearings.

No more, in the Pelosi Era.

You have to pass the Bill in order to read it.

Epic failure of a democratic republic.

Pelosi set (eradicated) the standard.

 

[Jim12]

Thanks for nothing NYSRPA. Coming soon to an MGA near you. Over on the NYGuns forums, rural/upstate permit holders are waking up to realize that effective 9/1 their permits are worthless because all of NY is now a "sensitive place". And yes, the atitude is "Thanks for nothing NYSRPA".

NY's New Gun Law.

-CCWs will expire every 3 years. You have to complete the mandatory training course in order to renew. If your permit was re-certified >3 years ago you have 1 year to renew, requiring only live fire qualification.

-Training course requirements: 16 hours of classroom training on general firearm safety, safe storage requirements and general secure storage best practices, state and federal gun laws, situational awareness, conflict de-escalation, best practices when encountering law enforcement, places considered sensitive or illegal to carry, conflict management, use of deadly force, suicide prevention, and the basic principles of marksmanship. Minimum score of 80% on a written test. Minimum 2 hours live fire training.

Gun owners must have "good moral character" supported by 4 references and a review of all social media activity. Claiming to not have social media accounts may be deemed "anti-social" behavior and grounds for non-issuance of a permit.

-Ammunition background checks: The state is pushing forward with a statewide licensing and record database, managed by the state police. Before Ammunition is transferred, the seller will be required to contact the state police prior to sale.

-They've added verbiage to fix the law pertaining to body "vests". It would be amended to "body armor" designed to protect against gunfire.

"Sensitive" places where carrying is a Class E felony: Places where carrying will get you a felony charge:

• Guns will be off-limits on private property unless the property owner indicates that he or she expressly allows them. This bans carry by default in all businesses unless the owner allows it in writing. It also potentially bans firearms within apartments if the landlord hasn't expressly given permission.
• Anywhere people gather to express their constitutional rights to protest or assemble
• Any place under the control of federal, state, or local government for the purpose of administration
• Any medical facility
• Any church or place of worship
• libraries, public playgrounds, public parks, and zoos
• Any place the office of children and family services runs a "program"
• nursery schools, preschools, summer camps
• anywhere the office for people with developmental disabilities runs a program, or programs funded by them
• homeless shelters, runaway homeless youth shelters, family shelters, shelters for adults, domestic violence shelters, and emergency shelters, and residential programs for victims of domestic violence
• residential settings licensed, certified, regulated, funded, or operated by the department of health
• grounds owned or leased by educational institutions, public or private
• Any public transportation, including the buildings or structures that facilitate them
• Anywhere alcohol or cannabis is served for public consumption
• any place used for the performance, art entertainment, gaming, or sporting events
• polling places
• public sidewalks of public places where access has been restricted
• Times Square

Current Maryland W&C permit holders will probably be looking at a similar statute, making their current permits worth less than an old gummed up playing card. In may issue states, those who already have unrestricted licenses will find themselves subject to far more restrictive carry laws than before Bruen was decided. The lower courts will simply ignore Bruen the way they ignored Heller for 12 years. Anyone who thinks the 2nd Circuit is going to support 2nd Amendment rights because "Clarence Thomas said so" is living in a fantasy world. The lower courts will support these laws for another decade before anything of significance comes back to SCOTUS.

That is ridiculous beyond words.

 

[Jim12]

I have to admit, I must laugh to keep from crying.

All law abiding, valid permit holders in New York will need to map out unrestricted roads and go looking for businesses that have signs that say, "Permit holders welcome to carry". LOL So, there might be 5 businesses in the state where you can lawfully carry.

No, they won't. And no, there won't be.

 

[Jim12]

SCOTUS interruptus.

SCOTUS isn't likely to let NYSRPA v. Bruen be aborted, postpartum.

 

[Lalez]

SCOTUS isn't likely to let NYSRPA v. Bruen be aborted, postpartum.

The Supreme Court could declare Maryland Constitutional Carry and half the posters on this forum still wouldn’t carry, they are THAT scared of the police in your state

 

[teratos]

SCOTUS isn't likely to let NYSRPA v. Bruen be aborted, postpartum.

Ha! Well played, sir.

 

[rbird7282]

Nah, the lower courts will just uphold your conviction. Mark my words, NYSRPA will be viewed in time as a monumental set back for gun owners. https://reason.com/volokh/2022/07/01/bruen-broke-the-deal/

Seriously, take your BGOS somewhere else. Jesus.

 

[jrumann59]

It would not surprise me if NY, MD, CA all are colluding on the end around of the ruling.

 

[Lalez]

It would not surprise me if NY, MD, CA all are colluding on the end around of the ruling.

Then citizens of those states should carry anyway 24/7. Keep a copy of the 2nd Amendment and the Bruen ruling on your phone pdf style

F these politicians in these oddball weirdo 7 states. These 7 states are on the defensive bigly