My FELLOW a NewYohkistan prisoners we have been enslaved. NYS Hochul anti gun Revenge.
The New York state Senate approved sweeping legislation Friday afternoon that would ban concealed weapons from so-called “sensitive locations” like Times Square, public transit and other venues — while requiring gun permit applicants to give the state information about their social media accounts as well as character references.

We shouldn’t be happy about the backlash in some states against the Supreme Court ruling, and I don’t know why anyone would be surprised by it. Something to keep in mind, though, is that if they’re going to restrict our rights in one way if they can’t do it in another, the more outrageously restrictive they do it, the better it may be for us in the long run.

Our lawyer members may correct me or tell us the case that I am thinking of (assuming my memory is correct), but when I was being taught about the civil rights efforts of the 1950s and ’60s, I recall that what some jurisdictions did to try to keep groups from demonstrating was to require permits for parades or gatherings. Although I don’t recall the specifics, getting a permit was made so difficult that it was in effect impossible. When the requirements were challenged in court, the ruling(s) basically said, “Yeah, a right that is subject to so many restrictions that it cannot be reasonably exercised is no right at all,” and that led to a judicial ban on the permit requirement.

If I were an attorney arguing against the ridiculously stringent provisions of the laws being proposed, I would challenge them on the same basis: Don’t tell me, SCOTUS, that I have a right to carry a gun for self-protection, and then allow its opponents to impose so many requirements and restrictions on the process that they amount to de facto prohibitions and make the situation no different from what it was before.
Only time will tell if the restrictions can be challenged and what the result will be, but I wouldn’t despair completely just yet.

quote:

Originally posted by Karpteach:
My FELLOW a NewYohkistan prisoners we have been enslaved. NYS Hochul anti gun Revenge.
The New York state Senate approved sweeping legislation Friday afternoon that would ban concealed weapons from so-called “sensitive locations” like Times Square, public transit and other venues — while requiring gun permit applicants to give the state information about their social media accounts as well as character references.

Reading through this latest round of New York's retribution legislation, I am sick to my stomach. Pistol permit renewal goes from 5 to every 3 years. Background checks for ammunition purchases. Every time one renews their pistol permit they need to appear before a county court judge. It goes on and on....

(THIS IS AN ANALYSIS OF THE NEW NYS GUN LAW BY THE LEGAL STAFF OF THE STATE SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION)
Sheriffs and Undersheriffs,
The legislature has been called back to Albany for an extraordinary session in order to pass legislation that will reform the pistol permitting process in New York, in the wake of the Bruen decision.
Here are the changes contemplated by the bill:
The "good moral character" eligibility requirement for all pistol permits (concealed or otherwise) will be defined in greater detail in the law. Going forward it shall mean " shall mean having the essential character, temperament and judgement necessary to be entrusted with a weapon and to use it only in a manner that does not endanger oneself or others."
New requirements will need to be met specifically for concealed-carry permit applicants. An applicant for such a permit:
Cannot have been convicted of Assault 3rd, misdemeanor DWI, or menacing within 5 years prior to application
The applicant must meet in person with the licensing officer (i.e., the county court judge) for an interview
The applicant must submit to the licensing officer the names and contact information of the applicant's spouse, domestic partner and any other adults residing in the applicant's home, as well as indicate whether or not there are children living at the applicant's home, even part-time.
The names and contact information of 4 references who can speak to the applicant's good moral character, and who can also attest that the applicant has not made any statements or taken any action that would lead them to believe that the applicant would harm themselves or others.
Certification of completion of the new training requirement (more on this below)
A list of former and current social media accounts from the past 3 years, though the legislation does not require that the applicant provide access to these accounts.
Prior to the issuance of a concealed carry permit, an applicant must complete an "in-person live firearms safety course." Such course must be:
Conducted by a duly authorized instructor. This is currently defined in PL section 265.00 as a duly commissioned officer of the US Navy, Army, Marine Corp, or Coast Guard, or a qualified adult citizen who has been issued a certificate in small arms practice by any one of those branches or by DCJS.
At least 16 hours long
Covering those topics required by DCJS, which include things like general firearm safety, safe storage requirements, conflict de-escalations, best practices when encountering law enforcement, a minmum of 2 hours of live-fire range training, etc. PL section 265.20 would be amended to grant an exemption from prosecution for possessing a pistol without a license for the purposes of such training.
Current concealed carry pistol permit holders would need to complete this training course prior to their next recertification. It must only be completed once, not upon every subsequent renewal.
Concealed carry pistol permits will have to be recertified every 3 years, as opposed to the standard 5 years. Licenses that were issued over 3 years prior to the effective date of this legislation would have to be recertified within 1 year.
Licensing officers will be granted the discretion to revoke or suspend any license if the possessor engaged in acts that would have been grounds for denial of the granting of the license in the first place. Additionally, a licensing officer must revoke a license if it becomes know that the applicant made a materially false statement on his or her application. Denials, suspensions, and revocations of licenses can be appealed. These appeals would go to an "appeals board" that will be created by DCJS. DCJS in cooperation with the State Police, will be responsible for promulgating rules and regulations with regard to the operation of the board
The legislation also creates the crime of possession of a firearm, rifle or shotgun in a "sensitive location". This would be a class E felony. Police officers, peace officers, active-duty military personnel, and persons engaged in lawful hunting activity would be exempted. Sensitive places are defined as:
Federal, State and local government property
Any place that provides healthcare, mental health care, or addiction treatment services
Any place of worship or religious observations
Public parks, public playgrounds, zoos and libraries
Any place, or the location of any program, licensed, regulated, or operated by DOH, OASAS, OCFS, OMH or OPWDD.
Nurseries, preschools and summer camps
Homeless shelters, youth homes, family shelters, DV shelters, etc.
Schools of all education levels
Public transportation
Any establishment that serves alcohol
Entertainment venues such as stadiums, concert halls, racetracks, museums amusement parks, conference centers, etc.
Polling places
Any public sidewalk or property that restricted from general public access for a special event that has been issued a permit for the same
Any gathering of individuals to collectively express their constitutional rights to protest or assemble
Times Square
This legislation seems to reconstitute the ammunition sales database. "There shall be a statewide license and record database specific for ammunition sales which shall be created and maintained by the division of state police the cost of which shall not be borne by any municipality no later than thirty days upon designating the division of state police as the point of contact to perform both firearm and ammunition back- ground checks under federal and state law. "
The legislation would require that firearms dealers record all ammunition sales in the database. The records maintained in this database would not be subject to FOIL.
Firearm owners would have new safe storage requirements when leaving weapons in their vehicles. Guns left in a vehicle would first have to have the ammunition removed, and then the gun would have to be locked in a "safe storage depository" somewhere out of sight from outside the vehicle.
Furthermore, the home safe storage requirements would attach when an individual cohabitates with an individual under the age of 18, up from 16. Finally
DCJS will be tasked with conducting NICS checks for every firearm and ammunition purchase made in New York State:
“Upon receiving a request from a licensed dealer pursuant to section eight hundred ninety-six or eight hundred ninety-eight of the general business law, the division shall initiate a background check by (i) contacting the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) or its successor to initiate a national instant criminal background check, and (ii) consulting the statewide firearms license and records database established pursuant to subdivision three of this section, in order to determine if the purchaser is a person described in sections 400.00 and 400.03 of the penal law, or is prohibited by state or federal law from possessing, receiving, owning, or purchasing a firearm or ammunition.”
The effective date of all these provisions is somewhat convoluted. It will take a little bit of analysis to figure out what goes into effect when, but the general summary provided by the bill states:
This bill shall take effect September 1, 2022, provided to allow DCJS
additional time for implementation, some sections will go into effect
April 1, 2023.
We will have further follow-up for you once we have had more time to analyze the bill. It is expected that it will pass the legislature this evening, and will be signed shortly after.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or concerns. The full text of the legislation is below.
Alex Wilson
Associate Counsel
New York State Sheriffs' Association

I'm sure that when this goes into effect they will have crime stamped out in a New York Minute.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
We shouldn’t be happy about the backlash in some states against the Supreme Court ruling, and I don’t know why anyone would be surprised by it. Something to keep in mind, though, is that if they’re going to restrict our rights in one way if they can’t do it in another, the more outrageously restrictive they do it, the better it may be for us in the long run.

This, potentially, the more NY attacks the 2A rights of NY citizens it may at some point be reprimanded by SCOTUS with a decision that NY can't put up any restrictions on gun ownership or carry, ie effectively Constitutional carry.

quote:

Our lawyer members may correct me or tell us the case that I am thinking of (assuming my memory is correct), but when I was being taught about the civil rights efforts of the 1950s and ’60s, I recall that what some jurisdictions did to try to keep groups from demonstrating was to require permits for parades or gatherings. Although I don’t recall the specifics, getting a permit was made so difficult that it was in effect impossible. When the requirements were challenged in court, the ruling(s) basically said, “Yeah, a right that is subject to so many restrictions that it cannot be reasonably exercised is no right at all,” and that led to a judicial ban on the permit requirement.

Found this, perhaps one of these what you were thinking about?

According to the US Supreme Court, it is unconstitutional to :

1) Charge a fee for the exercising of a right (Harper v Virginia Board of Elections 1966);

2) Require a precondition on the exercising of a right (Guinn v US 1915, Lane v Wilson 1939);

3) Require a license (government permission) to exercise a right (Murdock v PA 1943, Lovell v City of Griffin 1939, Freedman v MD 1965, Near v MN 1931,);

4) Delay the exercising of a right (Org. for a Better Austin v Keefe 1971);

5) Register (record in a government database) the exercising of a right (Thomas v Collins 1945, Lamont v Postmaster General 1965, Haynes v US 1968).

quote:

Federal, State and local government property

So... any road in the state?

quote:

Originally posted by cas:

quote:

Federal, State and local government property

So... any road in the state?

YUP! We are doomed.
I doubt that ANY NY judge would give an injunction to stop these communist dictators.

quote:

Originally posted by chbibc:
(THIS IS AN ANALYSIS OF THE NEW NYS GUN LAW BY THE LEGAL STAFF OF THE STATE SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION)
....

Wow. Seriously. Holy shit, these people are deranged.

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
Found this, perhaps one of these what you were thinking about?

I don’t really know. Only Harper seems to be from the right time and possibly place, but it wouldn’t have been an election issue. I got the impression it was a case arising from further into the “deep” South, but I’m probably “profiling.” Not being an attorney I wouldn’t have been required to remember the citation, assuming it was even mentioned in the discussion. As I recall it was mentioned during a class at the Army intelligence school when the relatively new concept of restraints on governmental power was being taught, and probably by a somewhat left-leaning (for the time) lawyer who decided accepting a commission in JAG was a better deal than being drafted.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by chbibc:
(THIS IS AN ANALYSIS OF THE NEW NYS GUN LAW BY THE LEGAL STAFF OF THE STATE SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION)
....

Wow. Seriously. Holy shit, these people are deranged.

This is all very confusing. Did we somehow win the battle but lose the war? It would take years for any court to turn this around again.

They've gone full retard. But with the change in the standard of analysis, I would think this would be fodder for a new lawsuit. And if the district courts follow the SCOTUS directives, they could shut this down pretty quickly. It shouldn't take a full trip back up to the Supremes.

quote:

Originally posted by chbibc:

quote:

Originally posted by Karpteach:
My FELLOW a NewYohkistan prisoners we have been enslaved. NYS Hochul anti gun Revenge.
The New York state Senate approved sweeping legislation Friday afternoon that would ban concealed weapons from so-called “sensitive locations” like Times Square, public transit and other venues — while requiring gun permit applicants to give the state information about their social media accounts as well as character references.

Reading through this latest round of New York's retribution legislation, I am sick to my stomach. Pistol permit renewal goes from 5 to every 3 years. Background checks for ammunition purchases. Every time one renews their pistol permit they need to appear before a county court judge. It goes on and on....

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BBMW,

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
Found this, perhaps one of these what you were thinking about?

According to the US Supreme Court, it is unconstitutional to :

1) Charge a fee for the exercising of a right (Harper v Virginia Board of Elections 1966);

2) Require a precondition on the exercising of a right (Guinn v US 1915, Lane v Wilson 1939);

3) Require a license (government permission) to exercise a right (Murdock v PA 1943, Lovell v City of Griffin 1939, Freedman v MD 1965, Near v MN 1931,);

4) Delay the exercising of a right (Org. for a Better Austin v Keefe 1971);

5) Register (record in a government database) the exercising of a right (Thomas v Collins 1945, Lamont v Postmaster General 1965, Haynes v US 1968).

Wow, every one of those has been and many are still being violated.

flashguy

There will be a new lawsuit, NY court will uphold the law, Federal appeals will set aside the new law citing SCOTUS and tell NY to stop screwing around. NY will appeal to SCOTUS, and they will let the appeals decision stand without hearing the case. Then they will whittle it down a bit, rinse, repeat.

This is how it works.

All of this is "undue burden" on a right and the NY politicians know this and don't care, or are too stupid to understand it.

Would be nice if SCOTUS ruled that only government buildings can have carry bans, and for all private property it is up to the owner. Mass transit carry bans pretty much make carry impossible for a lot of people, so that is major over reach. Would be even better if SCOTUS ruled that only premises that have security checkpoints to keep guns out can ban carry inside. If you're going to tell a law abiding citizen they cannot carry, you damn well better make sure no one is carrying illegally.

However, there should be penalties for deliberately passing unconstitutional laws. Wouldn't it be nice if they could be held in contempt of the Supreme Court and jailed?

The rise in violence in NYC has nothing to do with people who possess or carry guns legally. Maybe it just needs to get bad enough until enough people demand the right to self defense.

It would seem obvious that the NY legislature is attempting to delay faithful implementation of Bruen, until the current partisan balance of SCOTUS is reversed.

Pardon me for stating the obvious.

quote:

Originally posted by chbibc:
(THIS IS AN ANALYSIS OF THE NEW NYS GUN LAW BY THE LEGAL STAFF OF THE STATE SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION)

This is more than an effort to make exercising the right as close to impossible as they can get away with. This is a deliberate challenge to just about every sentence in every Supreme Court decision from Heller to the present with a couple of curve balls thrown in just to bog the courts down.
- What could be more arbitrary than the "character" requirement?
- Where in the hell is someone who just moved into New York going to find four character witnesses? Or do Constitutional rights somehow depend on time of residency and social skills?
- Scattered "no go" zones that may or may not be clearly marked (or immediately recognizable, like a government satellite office in rented space or pop-up healthcare space)
- "Rules and regulations" for appeals that are arbitrarily set by unelected officials and will inevitably be litigated
- Why the prohibition on using public transportation? Are gun owners now legally required to own and operate cars?

I watched a press conference where our unelected Governor was asked if she had numbers or data points to show that it was licensed conceal carry holders that were perpetrating these crimes. She flatly stated that she didn't need numbers or data points to support her new laws.

As to the 4 character references we need to get a permit - that's always been a thing in NY and it's even harder than it appears. The references have to be in you town meaning if you move from one town to the next and want to apply for a permit you need to make four friends before you can even apply.

Until a year ago I was a kitchen table FFL. My ATF license renewals were easy, fill out the form and mail in a check, usually within 60 days I had my new license. To have a NY dealer license, necessary to deal in and transfer handguns, I had to go through the same process a new conceal carry permit holder goes through every three years. Application, fingerprinting, four references, and a 4-6 month wait.

In an interview on Fox business this morning, a liberal twit said after the overturning of Roe v Wade “Americans woke up feeling less free.”

Imagine how NY gunowners feel.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:

quote:

Originally posted by chbibc:
(THIS IS AN ANALYSIS OF THE NEW NYS GUN LAW BY THE LEGAL STAFF OF THE STATE SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION)

This is more than an effort to make exercising the right as close to impossible as they can get away with. This is a deliberate challenge to just about every sentence in every Supreme Court decision from Heller to the present with a couple of curve balls thrown in just to bog the courts down.
- What could be more arbitrary than the "character" requirement?
- Where in the hell is someone who just moved into New York going to find four character witnesses? Or do Constitutional rights somehow depend on time of residency and social skills?
- Scattered "no go" zones that may or may not be clearly marked (or immediately recognizable, like a government satellite office in rented space or pop-up healthcare space)
- "Rules and regulations" for appeals that are arbitrarily set by unelected officials and will inevitably be litigated
- Why the prohibition on using public transportation? Are gun owners now legally required to own and operate cars?

The good news is that all of these regulations will have criminals so confused and unable to buy guns and ammo that they will immediately stop doing crime. Oh wait, nevermind they are criminals.

For God's sake you want to lower crime and murder? Just punish people for having illegally acquired/possessed guns, using them during a crime, and murder.

Why do they insist on punishing those that follow the rules and be lenient with career criminals?

So calls shrieks for “bodily autonomy” and “privacy” are only a thing for those wishing to kill an unborn child, but not for the law abiding citizens just trying to live until tomorrow and then do it again?

I can only imagine the pressure put on any business posting that firearms are allowed. Next would be those businesses being sued for anything happening with a gun in their establishment since, you know, “they allowed it”.


My gun, my choice!

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:

Why do they insist on punishing those that follow the rules and be lenient with career criminals?

[jeopardy]”What is Power and Control?” [/jeopardy]