If this story is already on the forum I can’t find it.

“Eric Adams has warned New Yorkers that they should be 'very afraid' of what will happen in their city if the Supreme Court strikes down a long-held state law requiring gun owners to have a license in order to carry a firearm.

<big snip>

The lawsuit behind the looming guidance was filed by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association (NYSRPA) last year, and was sent to the US' top court in November after being dismissed by New York's circuit court - the second tier of the country's court system.

The suit argues the licensing law comes in violation of the Second Amendment, since it only allows concealed carry permits to be issued to those who can show 'proper cause' for keeping a hidden weapon on their person in public - a stipulation that is rarely met by gunowners applying for the permit.

During oral arguments in the case last year, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito - the jurist who penned the leaked Roe vs. Wade repeal draft - conceded that it was not fair that 'law-abiding people' are barred from carrying firearms on the city's crime-riddled subway system, while lawbreakers continue to carry weapons illegally.

'All these people with illegal guns: They’re on the subway, walking around the streets, but ordinary, hard-working, law-abiding people, no,' Alito told New York state’s solicitor general Barbara Underwood. 'They can’t be armed.'

The statement from the jurist perturbed gun control advocates, [heh, heh, glad to see them perturbed] who saw the remark as a sign that Alito and his right-leaning contemporaries on the court were plotting to rescind the law…”

-https://mol.im/a/10810887

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
Eric Adams has warned New Yorkers that they should be 'very afraid' of what will happen in their city if the Supreme Court strikes down a long-held state law requiring gun owners to have a license in order to carry a firearm.

Blind asshole

Eric Adams at the 2022 Met Gala. Yeah, we're supposed to take this jackass seriously when he talks about guns and the crime in his city.

It would be excellent to see this go our way. If it does, will this be another of those narrow decisions that only applies to New York?

However narrow, striking down the current situation is a step ahead.

The result could be "will issue" IE no turning down NY citizens unless a "normal" ban exists, ie felons, etc. And as Alito said, it's the felons exercising the 2A causing the problem, not the responsible law abiding ones. This is exactly how our enemies structure the situation to get control over the people.

On the other hand, who really voted them in?

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:
It would be excellent to see this go our way. If it does, will this be another of those narrow decisions that only applies to New York?

The SCOTUS ruling would be directly relevant only to the NY law. But it would inevitably influence carry law cases nationwide.

Here’s a site with good background info. Scroll down to the “Background” section:
https://ballotpedia.org/New_Yo...iation_Inc._v._Bruen

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Eric Adams at the 2022 Met Gala.

His hair is perfect. I'd like to meet his tailor.
*Owoooooo*

Interesting. There's a scar on the back of his head.
I think that's where they took out his brain.

The governor is a major problem in NY. Bail reform is keeping criminals on the streets. Adams is to scared to go against her.

He sure does want to be a celebrity.

quote:

Interesting. There's a scar on the back of his head.
I think that's where they took out his brain.

That is a lobotomy scar. However, these are usually found on the upper front or front side of the cranium. Guess they felt that entering from the rear would not cause any significant damage.

.

Have they announced when the decision will be released?

And AFAIK, the subject isn't getting rid of the need to have a permit. The issue is whether a person has to have a specific need, beyond general self defense, to qualify for a permit. Right now, someone has to have some sort of elevated threat level (think Jewelers as a specific category), to qualify for a carry permit.

If the SCOTUS overrules the state, this would essentially created a "shall issue" standard nationally. This won't effect places that already have shall issue, but in restrictive states, this is a big deal.

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:
It would be excellent to see this go our way. If it does, will this be another of those narrow decisions that only applies to New York?

The US Supreme Court- it would apply the same principals to law anywhere in the USA.

Many states already allow permitless carry so it wouldn't change much in those states.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
Have they announced when the decision will be released?

And AFAIK, the subject isn't getting rid of the need to have a permit. The issue is whether a person has to have a specific need, beyond general self defense, to qualify for a permit. Right now, someone has to have some sort of elevated threat level (think Jewelers as a specific category), to qualify for a carry permit.

If the SCOTUS overrules the state, this would essentially created a "shall issue" standard nationally. This won't effect places that already have shall issue, but in restrictive states, this is a big deal.

The SCOTUS doesn't have a schedule where they say, "The ABC v. XYZ decision will be released on XXX date." The typically release on Tuesday and Wednesdays and also on the 3rd Monday of each month until all the cases submitted for decision have been decided. This schedule continues until the court's current session is over.

This will be a very narrow decision and it will not create a national standard on issuing licenses. Instead, I think the favorable ruling will hold in this specific case that NY essentially deprived the Petitioner of the exercise of his 2nd A rights by not allowing him to take his gun through NYC and into the country without a permit. The court will say the government has the right to control their own policing policies but when they they defacto shut down the right to exercise a right by making rules so strict, the law is unconstitutional.

The problem with the law is that NY grants you the right to purchase the pistol but then precludes you from taking it anywhere except leaving it at home. Their ruling will recite that the right to self defense is unassailable but they aren't going to rewrite the NY law.

Just my .02 and worth the price you paid for it.

I think you're read on the case is wrong. The petitioners asked for a license to carry a gun outside of specified areas for the specific purpose of general self defense, and were denied. That's what they're challenging. One way or the other that's what the SCOTUS will have to address.

https://ballotpedia.org/New_Yo...ion%20Inc.-,v.,court's%20October%202021%2D2022%20term.&text=The%20case%3A%20Robert%20Nash%20and,the%20purpose%20of%20self%2Ddefense.

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
Have they announced when the decision will be released?

And AFAIK, the subject isn't getting rid of the need to have a permit. The issue is whether a person has to have a specific need, beyond general self defense, to qualify for a permit. Right now, someone has to have some sort of elevated threat level (think Jewelers as a specific category), to qualify for a carry permit.

If the SCOTUS overrules the state, this would essentially created a "shall issue" standard nationally. This won't effect places that already have shall issue, but in restrictive states, this is a big deal.

The SCOTUS doesn't have a schedule where they say, "The ABC v. XYZ decision will be released on XXX date." The typically release on Tuesday and Wednesdays and also on the 3rd Monday of each month until all the cases submitted for decision have been decided. This schedule continues until the court's current session is over.

This will be a very narrow decision and it will not create a national standard on issuing licenses. Instead, I think the favorable ruling will hold in this specific case that NY essentially deprived the Petitioner of the exercise of his 2nd A rights by not allowing him to take his gun through NYC and into the country without a permit. The court will say the government has the right to control their own policing policies but when they they defacto shut down the right to exercise a right by making rules so strict, the law is unconstitutional.

The problem with the law is that NY grants you the right to purchase the pistol but then precludes you from taking it anywhere except leaving it at home. Their ruling will recite that the right to self defense is unassailable but they aren't going to rewrite the NY law.

Just my .02 and worth the price you paid for it.

quote:

Originally posted by Captain Morgan:
Interesting. There's a scar on the back of his head.
I think that's where they took out his brain.

No, that's where they went into remove it but found someone had beat them to the punch.

Now understanding that there are, I believe, a fair contingent of folks who want nothing more then control, I always question those who legitimately want to mitigate violence when they speak of the more folks will have guns blah blah.

The reality is the only additional folks with guns will be those law abiding enough to wait until it is expressly legal to do so. The contingent of folks who are still “morally abiding” yet carry in spite of the law are doing so anyway without issue. That only leaves those with nefarious plans left and they are already armed up and could care less about any laws (moral or legal). So at the end of the day let’s say NY has to become shall issue (there will still be plenty of restrictions) the ONLY add is a group of staunchly law abiding folks (likely legally and morally) so………WHATS THE BIG DEAL?????

I know rhetorical question for the folks here.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
I think you're read on the case is wrong. The petitioners asked for a license to carry a gun outside of specified areas for the specific purpose of general self defense, and were denied. That's what they're challenging. One way or the other that's what the SCOTUS will have to address.

https://ballotpedia.org/New_Yo...ion%20Inc.-,v.,court's%20October%202021%2D2022%20term.&text=The%20case%3A%20Robert%20Nash%20and,the%20purpose%20of%20self%2Ddefense.

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
Have they announced when the decision will be released?

And AFAIK, the subject isn't getting rid of the need to have a permit. The issue is whether a person has to have a specific need, beyond general self defense, to qualify for a permit. Right now, someone has to have some sort of elevated threat level (think Jewelers as a specific category), to qualify for a carry permit.

If the SCOTUS overrules the state, this would essentially created a "shall issue" standard nationally. This won't effect places that already have shall issue, but in restrictive states, this is a big deal.

The SCOTUS doesn't have a schedule where they say, "The ABC v. XYZ decision will be released on XXX date." The typically release on Tuesday and Wednesdays and also on the 3rd Monday of each month until all the cases submitted for decision have been decided. This schedule continues until the court's current session is over.

This will be a very narrow decision and it will not create a national standard on issuing licenses. Instead, I think the favorable ruling will hold in this specific case that NY essentially deprived the Petitioner of the exercise of his 2nd A rights by not allowing him to take his gun through NYC and into the country without a permit. The court will say the government has the right to control their own policing policies but when they they defacto shut down the right to exercise a right by making rules so strict, the law is unconstitutional.

The problem with the law is that NY grants you the right to purchase the pistol but then precludes you from taking it anywhere except leaving it at home. Their ruling will recite that the right to self defense is unassailable but they aren't going to rewrite the NY law.

Just my .02 and worth the price you paid for it.

I must have confused this case with another one rolling around in my head.

quote:

“Eric Adams has warned New Yorkers that they should be 'very afraid' of what will happen in their city if the Supreme Court strikes down a long-held state law requiring gun owners to have a license in order to carry a firearm.

You have to wonder how and why there are so many that continue to support the liberal agenda?
Every large city seems as it is run by a minority generally black and all full onboard Democrat.
I never understood why support for a race is so strong that common sense is ignored.
You know many believe in the same conservative principles that most Republicans do yet they always cut off their nose to spite their face.
[/rant_over]

Please God let the verdict be in our favor. It’s so hard living in NewYorkistan!!

I have full carry but it took me almost 20 years to get it. I started out with a premise permit, then after getting lettsers from the bank that I made cash deposits was able to get a business carry. Basically I could carry any time conducting business. As a a business owner I can say that I am "always" working. Every once in a while the Sheriff grants full carry to those who have demonstrated long term, responsible gun ownership. It doesn't hurt that over 20 years I have gotten to know everyone in the pistol licensing office well. But 20 years? Jeez, it is ridiculous that it is this difficult to attain. I would love for a favorable SCOTUS decision if for no other reason to see the anti's lose their minds and probably their lunch.

To understand NY carry laws, you first have to recognize NYS is comprised of NYC and rest of state. My friends and I have unrestricted carry permits for Upstate NY. Our permits clearly state they aren’t valid in NYC unLess approved by the Police Commissioner of NYC.