Well, New York has wasted no time whatsoever

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

....I can see the Bruen ruling being used in defense if one were a legal permit holder, and were charged with a crime for carrying in one of the new "gun free zones" but in the given situation, the crime is carry without a permit, isn't it?? The poster stated so, specifically, and I don't see how the SCOTUS ruling could be applied to that.

IF the ruling were that the entire permit process were unconstitutional, then yes, but that isn't what the Bruen ruling did.

I think if would take another, different case and SCOTUS ruling to void the entire permit requirement system, wouldn't it??

To void the entire permit requirement system, probably. That said, one of the things lawyers do is "mine" opinions for the principles behind them, then apply those principles to the case in front of them. For example, if I were charged with a federal crime involving firearms and a school zone, I might use the Bruen case, the EPA case, maybe some zoning cases and a few Due Process cases to try to overturn the GFSZ laws. But bear in mind that I might pose my challenge as either "facial" (IOW, this law is wholly unconstitutional on its face) or "as applied" to me, and only me.

[44 AMP]

But bear in mind that I might pose my challenge as either "facial" (IOW, this law is wholly unconstitutional on its face) or "as applied" to me, and only me.

And regardless of which way you posed your challenge, the court could rule it the other way?? correct??

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

And regardless of which way you posed your challenge, the court could rule it the other way?? correct??

Yes. A court could always rule the other way.

[ChimpMunk20]

Honestly I feel there’s no hope for CA and NY

[44 AMP]

Honestly I feel there’s no hope for CA and NY

Until the sea or the ice covers them, or the sun burns us up, or we all die of plague there is always hope.

However I do not see much chance of a reversal of their policies anytime soon, absent an external enemy.

The kind of people who seek to rule others (and particularly those who believe they must, for our own good) need the obedience of the people. When they can focus the attention of the people on an "enemy" their job is easier.

But, certain things require the "right" kind of enemy. Foreign nations, and foreign terrorist threats work against gun control. Look at the fact that for years after 9/11 gun control proposals got little or no traction. When there is an identifiable outside threat, most people realize that gun control does nothing about it, and might even put us at greater risk.

But, when there isn't much of an external enemy, our rulers tend to create one, an internal one. People who criminally misuse firearms to rob, or kill are, naturally, the "enemy" of decent people everywhere, so for the rulers, its an easy mark.

HOWEVER, putting the bad folks in prison and keeping them there for long periods of time runs smack into the currently popular social idea that criminals aren't really responsible for their acts, so severe punishment is less common than it once was.

The alternate they chose was to increase restrictions on everyone, rather than just those who actually are the problem.

IF we should be invaded by carnivorous aliens or suffer the "zombie apokyclips" I suspect you would see permits and backgound checks rapidly abandoned. Short of something like that, or a "Red Dawn" type scenario, I don't see NY or CA changing anything to relax their regulations.

Note how even a Supreme Court ruling resulted in NY passing increased restrictions tht go far beyond what they had prior, and "more than make up" for what SCOTUS struck down.

Time will tell.

[DaleA]

Yes. A court could always rule the other way.

I find this irritating, frustrating and discouraging.

I've always assumed the 'social contract' was the laws would be written so I'd be able to understand them and I'd live by them or face the penalties outlined in the laws.

Now we see 'sanctuary cities' and cities/states where you can freely thumb your nose at federal laws and after the supreme court rules something is unconstitutional the states double down by passing even MORE laws that will have to wind there way thru the legal system...it's depressing. I think we need adult supervision for our law makers.

Side note: what I mean about freely thumbing your nose at federal laws: Minnesota just got 'edibles' so we can get buzzed even though cannibus is federally illegal (note: I'm PROBABLY mistaken about the details here...but I have heard MN has approved only the '3.2 beer' of the cannibus trade---and also note MN STILL has 3.2 beer which can be sold in super markets but real beer cannot---so go figure.)

[Metal god]

Honestly I feel there’s no hope for CA and NY

Only time and the current make up of the SCOTUS to remain is all we need in CA . All the current on going anti gun suites in CA are being and are likely going to be sent down to the lower courts to a judge that has already ruled them unconstitutional using the Bruan guidelines well before Bruan was even granted cert . To me , unless the plaintiff's ( the state ) come up with some extraordinary arguments never before argued . He'll likely rule the same way again . setting the stage for appeals which I believe the SCOTUS will grant cert for if the 9th does what it always does in second amendment cases which is find any way to side with the states interest .

Correct me if I’m wrong but the Supreme Court after Heller did not immediately grant CERT to several “ controversial” cases , then vacate them and send them back for review under their new guidelines like this SCOTUS did . I believe it's very different this time and the Supreme Court is serious ! One reason I believe they are serious is because of the crap all the lower courts have pulled since Heller . Not to mention Thomas pointing out how he is tired of the Second Amendment being treated like a second class right .

Yes I know I could be wrong but I believe it’s different this time and it will stay different until the make up of the this SCOTUS changes .

CA basically just tried to do what NY did but it was shot down in committee which surprises me . In my mind there should have been zero reason they couldn't get the votes . One thought was that to many legislatures likely have carry permits and did not want to go through the process of getting a psychiatric evaluation , review of all social media , corrector references along with all the other numerus new requirements and restrictions .

Regardless as soon as it failed I applied for my CA ccw . I made sure to ask what is required in the reason you want to carry section . San Diego county sheriff's said self defense is all you need . I don't know about SF or LA but SD seems to be following Bruan . The extreme down side to all this .... closest appointment date I could get was 9 months from application date . A LOT can happen in that time .

[44 AMP]

The thing about the NY law, and the part that SCOTUS struck down was the requirement to provide a specific reason for wanting a concealed permit.

This requirement was in addition to the general question asking the reason you are applying for a permit. The general reasons of Hunting, Sporting, and even Self Defense, were adequate to obtain a permit to possess and carry openly, but not a permit to carry concealed.

TO get one of those the state required a special reason, such as, you carried large amounts of cash or gems, or you had been threatened by.... or that you were armed Private Investigaor or Security and needed it in the course of your work, some specific reason like that.

The Court ruled (as I understand it) that having to meet such a requirement was an unconstitutional burden on the rights of the applicant, and so voided that provision of the NY law.

With the Heller decision, SCOTUS used what I call "courtspeak" in a portion of their ruling that I translate as meaning "We are not looking at other gun control laws today, and until we do, we will presume them to be Constitutional".

Now, what the gun control people "heard" was "other gun control laws are Constitutional" and took off doing things that led us to where we are now.

Remember that SCOTUS has no requirement to correct lower courts misinterpretations of their rulings, until SCOTUS hears a specific case involving that.

[Metal god]

With the Heller decision, SCOTUS used what I call "courtspeak" in a portion of their ruling that I translate as meaning "We are not looking at other gun control laws today, and until we do, we will presume them to be Constitutional".

.
.
Remember that SCOTUS has no requirement to correct lower courts misinterpretations of their rulings, until SCOTUS hears a specific case involving that.
__________________

I agree and goes to my point that this time it's different . They not only gave new guidance , they also granted cert to several cases and vacating them to be looked at again using there new guidance .

I hope and it appears this SCOTUS will require the lower courts to follow there lead . At least that's the way it looks right now . Time will tell if they meant what they said because at least one if not all of the cases they remanded will be back up for them to review . The question is when and will the make up of the court be the same as it is/was for the Bruan case .

[44 AMP]

Lower courts are bound to obey the High Court's rulings, but when not otherwise specific, are not bound to have to follow anyone's opinion of what the High Court's intent was.

Short form, if the Supreme court says "do this" the lower courts must do that. IF the matter is something the High Court didn't specifically say "do this" about, then its up to each lower court to decided what they will do, or not do.

[stuckinthe60s]

I frequent a sportsmans club in Putnam county(north of nyc), and the club rule is all guns on the grounds must be pouched until in the clubhouse or firing line. no guns are allowed to be seen at any point between car to club.
always wondered about that, but now I know it to be the ny open carry law.

[mikejonestkd]

stuckinthe60s,

and the club rule is all guns on the grounds must be pouched until in the clubhouse or firing line

NYS law and club rules do not always align. Clubs can't be less strict than law, but they can add rules....

A local club near me does not allow more than 5 rounds in any magazine when on the range, and no shots can be sent downrange faster than 1 shot per second.

[stuckinthe60s]

that makes sense. private range, privately owned, private rules.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by mikejonestkd

A local club near me does not allow more than 5 rounds in any magazine when on the range, and no shots can be sent downrange faster than 1 shot per second.

I am not in New York state. The indoor range where I shoot has the same one shot per second rule, and for a valid reason. They had a huge problem with yahoos trying to see just how fast they could pop off rounds. News flash: muzzle rise is a thing. The ceiling, the baffles in front of the lights, and the lights themselves were being shot up on a continuing basis.

First they posted a rule that said "NO RAPID FIRE ALLOWED". That didn't work -- the yahoos all went to the same school of Philadelphia lawyering and, when asked to stop, invariably argued that what they were doing wasn't "rapid" fire because they could shoot a lot faster if they wanted to.

So the owner changed the rule to not more than one shot per second. That's quantifiable and measurable. I have acted a RSO for him a handful of times. To be honest, I think he should have made it one shot in five seconds. He allows practicing double taps, so the Philadelphia lawyers now like to play the game of how close they can space successive double taps before they get spoken to.

And then there are the ones who say (on the days when the owner isn't there), "But Chris always lets me do this."

Well, Chris isn't here, I'm the RSO, so follow to rules or pack up and go home.

[44 AMP]

I see where several groups are mounting legal challenges against the newly expanded NY rules defining "sensitive places" in particular houses of worship and the public area of Times Square. As I understand it, the primary objection is the arbitrary designation, prohibiting valid permit holders from carry there, including on private property regardless of the property owner's wishes.

We'll see how these go, because this isn't just about guns, it about the authority of government to create and enforce NEW rules in areas where they previously had never done so.

[Linker]

NYC is losing people at an alarming rate. Maybe if it loses more things will change. I don't think so. The sad thing is that this part of the country is where the "country" started. If I lived there I would be looking for an opportunity to leave. That is sad. But it is catching on. Even down South you can't own a gun if you are a non violent felon. In the past you couldn't buy one but could own one if you already had it but no more.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Linker

Even down South you can't own a gun if you are a non violent felon. In the past you couldn't buy one but could own one if you already had it but no more.

This has nothing to do with "even down South." It's federal law that convicted felons cannot possess firearms. The federal law does not, in this regard, differentiate between violent and non-violent felonies.

This is not recent. I believe this came in with the Gun Control Act of 1968 ... but it might have been the National Firearms Act of 1935.

[44 AMP]

I believe the Federal lifetime prohibition on firearms ownership by convicted felons came from the 1968 Gun Control Act. So did specific age limits, firearms dealers required to have federal licenses, and prohibition of firearms from those adjudicated mentally incompetent.

That law also ended mail order firearm sales and delivery, imposed a host of import restrictions and other regulations.

In 1996, the Lautenberg amendment extended the firearm prohibition to people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence.

[stuckinthe60s]

new Yorkers are sucking up land and moving to ct....to ruin what little ct has left as it is. the new Yorkers are jacking up real estate values sky high bringing their ways to ct.

[ViperJon]

Ironically I have a full carry for CT despite being a NY resident and yet I can't be trusted in my own state. It's far worse here than before the SC decision and will take years if ever to rectify. These lawsuits being filed now are going nowhere with NY's democratic activist judges.

[Quigs37]

Does this effect the sale of ammunition?

[44 AMP]

https://www.nysenate.gov/newsroom/pr...20a%20firearms

there is a section on ammunition record keeping requirements.

[mikejonestkd]

Here's an update on an upcoming lawsuit concerning the CCIA in NYS

https://www.syracuse.com/crime/2022/...e-it-down.html

[stuckinthe60s]

ammo use to be sold on signature in ct back in the 60-70's. I remember having to sign a log in the gun store to buy a box of #6 shotshells for hunting. what comes around, goes around.

[44 AMP]

ammo use to be sold on signature in ct back in the 60-70's. I remember having to sign a log in the gun store to buy a box of #6 shotshells for hunting.

Not counting what various states require the Fed 68 Gun Control law also required record keeping on ammo sales. After a few years the ammo log requirement was dropped.