Democrats have to do what Democrats do, cheat.

Right now Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh is on my less liked list. On the Bruen decision he wrote his own concurring opinion. In it he gave the left the anchors to hang gun control on. There are 80 pages in the opinion, most by Thomas. Amy said “We didn’t clarify this and we should have.” Alito said “The judges in disent aren’t practicing law, they’re practicing emotional blackmail.” And Kavanaugh…

First, the Court’s decision does not prohibit States from imposing licensing requirements for carrying a handgun for self-defense. In particular, the Court’s decision does not affect the existing licensing regimes—known as “shall-issue” regimes—that are employed in 43 States.

…or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Adding to Thomas’s:

Consider, for example, Heller’s discussion of “longstanding” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.” 554 U. S., at 626. Although the historical record yields relatively few 18th- and 19th-century “sensitive places” where weapons were altogether prohibited—e.g., legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses—we are also aware of no disputes regarding the lawfulness of such prohibitions. See D. Kopel & J. Greenlee, The “Sensitive Places” Doctrine, 13 Charleston L. Rev. 205, 229–236, 244–247 (2018); see also Brief for Independent Institute as Amicus Curiae 11–17. We therefore can assume it settled that these locations were “sensitive places” where arms carrying could be prohibited consistent with the Second Amendment. And courts can use analogies to those historical regulations of “sensitive places” to determine that modern regulations prohibiting the carry of firearms in new and analogous sensitive places are constitutionally permissible.

From this we knew what was going to happen. The second amendment infringers were going to paper cut the right to its death.

And being cheaters they have to cheat.

According to Minority Leader Willam A. Barclay of the New York State Assembly office, the bill that the Governor wants them to vote on has not been given to them as of 1600 on June 30th. They have no idea when they will have a copy of the text of the bill. There is nothing filed at this point.

It sounds more and more like the S.A.F.E. act. It will be passed at midnight before anybody can actually comment on the bill. As normally a politician won’t accept comments on a bill for which there is no text.

First they are going to extend “sensitive” places to include government buildings, hospitals, schools, public transits, and places where children gather, bars. (My original source had more listed). The thing to note about these sorts of sensitive places is that there are likely to be a radius around them which is considered to be part of the sensitive location).

Thus it is likely that “public transport” will mean buses, subways, trains, as well as bus stations, train stations, subway stations, and bus stops. Consider a simple 100ft limit. This means that every bus stop in NYC now has a 100ft no-go zone around it. It might mean that as a bus moves through the streets it also has a 100ft radius. You are driving down the street, minding your own business and drive pass a playground and suddenly you are breaking the law. It could mean that all of central park is a no-go zone.

Without stepping over the line of making all of NYC a sensitive place, it could make it so that there are so many no-go zones that it is impossible to go anywhere without intruding into one of these places.

In addition they are looking at including 15 hours of in-person range time. One version I read had it “Must pass the same training in firearms as law enforcement.” Given that certified instructors are not cheap this will be expensive. In talking to one range owner it will cost you two boxes of ammo plus $100 for an hour of range time with him as an instructor. It looks to me as if the cost for 15 hours of training will run well over $500, not counting ammo.

Side note, I don’t like talking to NYC people. They have an entirely different way of talking to people which starts with not answering the question asked, assuming you are a dolt and then telling you what you have to do. This owner includes instructions on how to clean your gun. I didn’t have the heart to tell him I was sitting next to more firepower than anybody outside of criminals and Law Enforcement has in NYC. I.e. I have more than one firearm.

The biggest difference is that NY State is going to declare all private businesses as gun free zones without an explicit concealed carry permitted here signage. In reasonable states an owner can post a No Guns sign. In most states the signage is very explicit as to size, shape and visibility. This is so some nasty can’t put a post-it note up with a hand drawn “no guns allowed” and then bust a legal gun owner that didn’t see the sign.

In some states, such as mine, a No Guns Allowed is not prohibitive. You can still carry in those locations. The business can ask you to leave if they see the firearm but it isn’t a real issue. I’ve yet to see a no guns sign outside of hospitals and clinics. Which is sometimes funny when I forget I’m carrying and they ask me to take my coat off so they can take my blood pressure.

The good news is that most state level second amendment organizations as well as the FPC and other national organizations have a number of lawsuits teed up for these actions. The 9th circuit remanding cases based on Bruen is a good sign. I’m hoping that we’ll see the lower courts just hammering these laws so that we don’t even have to wait for a circuit court to hear the case.

Hochul: NY Lawmakers Hold Special Session, Will Limit Where Guns Can Be Carried plus some personal calls to legislators offices and gun ranges.

Spread the love

By awa

6 thoughts on “Avoiding Bruen: NY State”
  1. “First, the Court’s *decision* does not prohibit States from imposing licensing requirements for carrying a handgun for self-defense. In particular, the Court’s decision does not affect the existing licensing regimes—known as “shall-issue” regimes—that are employed in 43 States.” {Emphasis mine}

    They ruled narrowly on carry in public. Clement, in oral arguments, stated, “We want what the other 43 states currently have”. This does not mean that permits and sensitive places can not be challenged after Bruen.

    If I remember correctly, Clement has already stated that he’s working on challenging how a sensitive place should be defined as per text, history and tradition. Again, IIRC, and I can’t find the link, he mentioned courthouse in many states that offer armed protection. This is contrast to areas like public transportation, where government offers none. Stay tuned…

  2. Justice Thomas addressed this
    Footnote 9
    9To be clear, nothing in our analysis should be interpreted to suggest the unconstitutionality of the 43 States’ “shall-issue” licensing regimes, under which “a general desire for self-defense is sufficient to obtain a [permit].” Drake v. Filko, 724 F. 3d 426, 442 (CA3 2013) (Hardiman, J., dissenting). Because these licensing regimes do not require applicants to show an atypical need for armed self-defense, they do not necessarily prevent “law-abiding, responsible citizens” from exercising their Second
    Amendment right to public carry. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 635 (2008). Rather, it appears that these shall-issue regimes, which often require applicants to undergo a background check or pass a firearms safety course, are designed to ensure only that those bearing, arms in the jurisdiction are, in fact, “law-abiding, responsible citizens.” Ibid. And they likewise appear to contain only “narrow, objective, and definite standards” guiding licensing officials, Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U. S. 147, 151 (1969), rather than requiring the “appraisal of facts, the exercise of judgment, and the formation of an opinion,” Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 305 (1940)—features that typify proper-cause standards like New York’s. That said, because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.

    Those ‘for example’ was not an inclusive list and from what we’ve read of Thomas’ decisions, he’s daring states to do something as raw as NY is looking to do.
    I have near metaphysical certitude that he’s probably already writing slapdowns to use in rulings on the shadow docket

  3. Blabla bla bla… more bla bla from judges and democraps! They need to read the Constitution: the right to bear arms SHOULD NOT BE INFRINGED! All these conditions, if, restricted places, etc, are just BS. This right SHOULD NOT BE INFRINGED, period! How hard is it to understand?

  4. If I was smeared and defamed like Justice Kavanaugh was and still is?

    I would be the most reactionary anti-progressive SCOTUS Justice I possibly could be. I would never, ever give the Left an inch, an out, or any slight moderation. What will the Liberals do? They cannot hate Kavanaugh any more than they already continue to do. And they will never, ever STOP HATING Kavanaugh. Just ask Nixon, Thatcher, or Reagan. I would make it my life’s goal to drive every close minded, bigoted, hateful freaking liberal I meet to either tears or apoplexy, and hopefully both.

    I noticed that none of his so liberal and empathetic, professional, elite, senior bureaucrat neighbors seemed to come to his defense when the protesters besieged his family and his house. They interviewed some of those neighbors and their sneering hatred for Kavanaugh came shining through. Imagine those protesters in Red America? There would be barbecues in the driveways up and down the street (and backyards full of laughing children) with lots of men and women staring down the interlopers. “Get Off MY Lawn! Now!”

  5. Chicago tried to pull the same stunts after their licensing ban was stopped. They mandated training but then banned any places to train in the city along w/ a bunch of other restrictions. That took a few more years to get reversed.

  6. Besides Thomas and Alito, I believe only Gorsuch can be considered to be truly on the right. I don’t see Kavanaugh in the same mold. And as far as NYFS is concerned you can’t appreciate how terrible the political climate is here for anyone that isn’t a liberal. The Democrats in Albany, overly represented by low IQ NYFC morons, truly embrace stupid progressive ideas. The only place I’d rather be less is CA…

Login or register to comment.