The greatest irony is, NY state pistol license holders are by and large THE MOST law abiding people in our state. Because we know ANYTHING we do will get out license pulled. More than a few times in the last.. almost 35 years now, I've had to walk away from situations or near physical altercations. Times where that may even have been the WRONG thing to do, when my actions would have been right and justifiable both morally and in the eyes of the law, but I knew what drama it would invite into my life so I walked away, for better or worse.

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

I would love to see legislation that required all politicians, government employees, etc. be subject to the same rules as "the man on the street." Not only for 2nd Amendment issues, but for every rule and law on the books.

quote:

Originally posted by cas:

quote:

Federal, State and local government property

So... any road in the state?

I don’t know how things are elsewhere, but here in UT, roads are not actually state property. They are the property of the adjoining owner, but those owners have essentially given a right-of-way to the public. This is why, when a road gets abandoned or rerouted, the local property owner gets the property back for their personal use.

I’ve seen old roads like this all the time while driving across the country. The road will be rerouted to the other side of a hill or something, and you’ll see the old roadway parked full of farm equipment, RVs, boats, etc by the adjacent property owner. You cannot buy an abandoned road from the state since it isn’t public property.

IDK about large roads like interstates. That’s a lot of land they’re using, so you’d think the state would own it. Maybe an attorney who practices such things would know.

So in New York since this emergency legislation came about, Permit holders are actually in worse shape than they were prior to the SCOTUS decision and people who want permits are in better shape than they were in.

If you substitute the 1st A for the 2nd A it's pretty easy to see how absurd these laws are. They are essentially making burdensome and oppressive to exercise your 2nd A rights which is the harm Justice Thomas addressed in citing government being the grantor and arbitor of your self defense rights.

quote:

Originally posted by Flash-LB:
So in New York since this emergency legislation came about, Permit holders are actually in worse shape than they were prior to the SCOTUS decision and people who want permits are in better shape than they were in.

I suppose, if you count simply having the permit being in better shape if you didn't have it before. But really, what's the point when carrying anywhere could easily cause you to fall afoul of the law?

These lawmakers here are so egregious and so blatantly vindictive that I, with all sincerity, believe that all of them should be imprisoned.

quote:

Originally posted by Flash-LB:
So in New York since this emergency legislation came about, Permit holders are actually in worse shape than they were prior to the SCOTUS decision and people who want permits are in better shape than they were in.

Yes. And for most of NY pistol permit holders, far, far, far and away worse off.

Back when I lived in NY the fact that carry permits were rather limited in most jurisdictions means permit holders did for the most part fly under the radar with there being very few places going armed was prohibited, unlike states that enacted carry laws more recently.

Sad reality if you are a gun owner and live in NY time to move.

Interesting. So do we stop pushing for more firearms-related freedom because local or state governments might indulge in even more wild excesses of virtue-signaling spite? After all, this is nothing but a tactical decision by the gun banners.

Or do we deny them the opportunity to use our own as hostages against us nation-wide by continuing to push back?

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
So do we stop pushing for more firearms-related freedom because ...?

I believe that what has been posted here is more description of what’s happening rather than saying we should stop, but there are no doubt people who do wish things had been left as they were. That is a human characteristic that can be said of virtually any change. There are plenty of gun owners who wish that AR-15 rifles and “ghost” gun receivers didn’t exist to act as lightning rods to attract so much antigun activity. What most of us forget, though, is that if there isn’t one convenient target to attack, the anti crowd will find another and find reasons (or invent them) as justification for their efforts. That is something I’ve witnessed more times than I care to remember over the decades I’ve been paying attention to the issue.

It’s too bad that one step forward (apparently) for some of us results in two steps back for others, but it’s not new and should serve as a reminder that the battle never ends. Sitting in smug satisfaction secure in the knowledge, “That will never fly here,” is comforting, but the enemy will always try to find a way to advance its agenda.

The anti's want a total gun ban like in Japan or China. They are succeeding in countries like UK, Australia, and now Canada, where there is no "right" to guns.

This is the goal and they will continue to keep trying to restrict anything they can. They will continue to lie and distort reality to justify it.

I would like to see the carry permit laws apply to all the private security used by celebrities. Only sworn LE would be able to carry anywhere. They would change their tune pretty quickly if they cannot have the "protection" they think they are entitled to, but normal people are not.

Government officials are always going to have armed protection, can't really do anything about that.

20 years ago it was "AK47" this and that. Because AK's were cheap, and SKS's that looked like AK's were even cheaper. Now that AK's are a lot more expensive and AR's are a lot cheaper, it's all "AR" this and that. In the 70's it was "Saturday Night Specials". In the 80's people were lied to by the media to think machine guns were common in crime - the Miami Vice effect - so we got the '86 new MG ban.

The new lie is "ghost guns". The regulation was 80% so companies made perfectly legal 80% receivers. If it was 75%, then companies would make 75% receivers. All the harassment of Polymer 80 is not based in law and is malicious. They complied with the law. If they have to sell the jig and drill bits separately, then they can do that. I haven't seen what the new % is to define when a piece of plastic or aluminum or steel becomes a gun.

NOW is the time to challenge NFA, '86 MG ban, and '89 import ban with THIS court. The Miller case held that NFA was legal to regulate SBS's because it did not restrict firearms suitable for militia use and SBS's were not in common military use at the time. SBS's and SBR's are in common use in LE/Mil and the standard issue M4 is an SBR. It is absurd that the citizen militia cannot have the standard issue military and national guard rifle.

https://www.syracuse.com/crime...nconstitutional.html

Federal judge allows NY gun law to go into effect Thursday, but warns it may be unconstitutional

Updated: Aug. 31, 2022, 9:58 p.m.|Published: Aug. 31, 2022, 9:18 p.m.

By Douglass Dowty | ddowty@syracuse.com
Syracuse, N.Y. — A ruling by a federal judge in Syracuse tonight will allow New York’s sweeping gun control law to go into effect Thursday as planned.

But, the judge warned, several parts of the law were likely unconstitutional and could be challenged again in the future. The new state law was a response to a U.S. Supreme Court decision in June that struck down a century-old New York law that required a specific reason for someone to obtain a concealed-carry handgun license.

That U.S. Supreme Court ruling opened the door to more people obtaining concealed-carry licenses. But the state responded with the strictest gun-control measures in the country.

Several of those new restrictions drew rebukes from the judge in his decision Wednesday.

The state’s existing “good moral character” requirement, as well as new laws requiring disclosure of social-media accounts and the creation of an extensive list of gun-free zones, all appeared to violate a law-abiding citizen’s constitutional right carry a gun, the judge wrote.

But Chief U.S. District Judge Glenn Suddaby ruled that he had no power to overturn the state legislature’s expansive gun control measures because of technicalities in the lawsuit pending in his courtroom.

His decision came in a case championed by gun-owner groups, who had hoped the judge would agree that this case was ripe to challenge the law’s constitutionality. But Suddaby ruled that wasn’t the case.

In essence, the plaintiff named as the aggrieved gun-owner -- a Schenectady man who wished to carry his gun for protection virtually everywhere -- hadn’t actually been subject to any prosecution yet because the law hadn’t gone into effect, Suddaby wrote. The gun groups hadn’t shown they were actually harmed by the law, either, the judge wrote.

And the defendant, the state police superintendent, wasn’t actually the one in charge of carrying out many of the law’s provisions, Suddaby added.

That’s an immediate victory for the state Attorney General’s Office, which quickly announced that the law had been successfully defended in court. AG Letitia James vowed to continue defending the law’s constitutionality in the future.

But Suddaby’s 78-page decision signaled that the state may have a tough road ahead. While acknowledging that his opinion on the law’s constitutionality did not matter right now, Suddaby strongly signaled that several licensing requirements will face scrutiny in the future.

In regards to the state’s requirement of “good moral character,” Suddaby opined that such “vague, subjective” criteria should not be allowed and that objective criteria like background checks, fingerprinting, a mental health check and training were more effective.

In regards to the disclosure of social media accounts, Suddaby opined that such a requirement could endanger a law-abiding citizen’s First Amendment right to free speech. He also questioned whether such a disclosure could also violate someone’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination -- after all, what if someone disclosed information that turned out to be criminal?

In no situation should a citizen be required to surrender one constitutional right in order to assert another, Suddaby wrote. Therefore, someone should not risk losing First or Fifth Amendment protections in order to enjoy their Second Amendment rights, he said.

Lastly, the judge found fault with the state’s extensive list of gun-free zones and the part of the law that banned guns on private property without permission. The list of banned locations was so extensive as to be “almost limitless,” Suddaby wrote. And the presumptive ban on private property was not consistent with the nation’s history of firearm regulation, he ruled.

Nevertheless, after 24 pages of describing why he believed the law was unconstitutional, Suddaby concluded his decision by noting that he didn’t think he could do anything about it right now.

“It is this consideration, the Court finds, that would tip the scales in favor of granting Plaintiffs’ motion, if they had standing” to challenge the law, Suddaby concluded.

Suddaby is a former Onondaga County prosecutor who later became a federal prosecutor in Syracuse. President George W. Bush nominated him to become a federal judge in 2007. He became chief judge of the Northern District of New York in 2015.

This is a real article, it's not from the Babylon Bee.

https://www.ithacajournal.com/...-effect/69650731007/

Toy guns under new restrictions as NY law goes into effect. What to know

Asher Stockler
New York State Team
5:15AM Nov 17, 2022

KEY POINTS

Toy guns must be brightly colored or translucent under NY law that went into effect this week.

This builds on existing New York City laws.

Since 1994, there have been at least 63 shootings from actual firearms in New York related to the use of a toy gun.

====================================================================================
New restrictions regulating the appearance of toy guns in New York went into effect Monday, expanding the use of bright color schemes to distinguish these toys from actual firearms.

Under the new law, which was signed in August, the exterior of a toy weapon will have to be completely covered with a bright color, such as orange, red, yellow or white. Toy weapons may also comply with the new requirements if they are made of completely transparent materials.

These changes replace old state standards that only required toy guns to have an orange stripe and an exterior color different from a traditional weapon.

Federal law separately regulates the appearance of toy guns, requiring that they contain the characteristic blaze orange plug inserted into the barrel.

Since 1994, there have been at least 63 shootings from actual firearms in New York related to the use of a toy gun, according to the attorney general's office. From these incidents, at least eight people have died.

"Restricting these realistic-looking devices will ensure misleading and potentially dangerous devices are off our streets, keeping kids, law enforcement and all New Yorkers safe," Gov. Kathy Hochul said when the bill was signed.

Weren't these rules already in effect in NY?

The changes conform to rules that have already been in place in New York City for years.

In 2015, then-Attorney General Eric Schneiderman announced a settlement with major retailers over allegations that they had sold realistic-looking weapons to consumers in the city and across the state through their online stores.

State law allows realistic-looking guns to be sold for use in theatrical, film or television productions, or if they are being held temporarily for sale out of state.

How have toy guns been involved in real shooting incidents?

According to the Giffords Law Center, the legal arm of the eponymous gun-control advocacy group, 146 people holding fake guns were shot by police nationwide between 2015 and 2018.

Most recently, an off-duty corrections officer was charged in July with killing Raymond Chaluisant, an 18-year-old Bronx man, after Chaluisant reportedly shot at him with a toy gun containing gel-based pellets.

According to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, conspicuous and colorful markings are designed to help police distinguish between actual threats and harmless products in the short amount of time these decisions are made on the ground.

"Toy gun markings provide a visible indication of it being a toy versus a real firearm," the commission said in a statement. "This is critical not only for decisions that need to be made instantaneously by law enforcement personnel, but also for other scenarios, including identifying where a child has inappropriately obtained a real firearm. This is particularly important given the realistic-nature of many of today's toys."

The commission has long pushed for retailers to rein in their production of realistic-looking weapons. In 1994, then-Chair Ann Brown issued a "challenge" to manufacturers to "stop producing any guns that look like or could be modified to look like real guns."

Do toy gun markings work to distinguish from real firearms?

However, the utility of the conspicuous marking system has been called into question. A 1989 study commissioned by the National Institute of Justice, a division of the U.S. Department of Justice, found under simulated conditions that officers confronted with the blaze orange plug fired at those suspects at nearly the same rate as suspects brandishing real weapons.

Other marking systems, such as those encouraged by the new New York state law, were found to be more effective. Fake pistols colored entirely in white, translucent green or a combination of orange and purple were substantially more effective in dissuading officers from discharging their firearms.



Asher Stockler is a reporter for The Journal News and the USA Today Network New York. You can find him on Twitter at @quasiasher or send him an email at astockler@lohud.com. Reach him securely: asher.stockler@protonmail.com.

And we'll be back around full circle. Want to do harm with your real gun and have the element of surprise? Paint it orange.

Then they'll pass laws against that too. (Certain counties, Nassau county for one already did and were challenged in court over it and eventually lost)

what the heck is this...

So now it's a right, but with whatever restrictions some body of legislators choose?

confusing as heck.

https://www.foxnews.com/politi...n-law-still-enforced

SCOTUS shoots down appeal of NY concealed carry restriction ruling, allowing gun law to still be enforced

Restrictions can continue to be enforced as litigation moves forward

The Supreme Court announced Wednesday that it would not entertain an injunction from New York gun store owners who were challenging the state's new restrictions on the concealed carrying of firearms.

In a one-sentence order, the court said it would not put enforcement of the law on hold, following its ruling last week that the restrictions can remain in place while litigation over the law moves forward.

"The application for writ of injunction presented to Justice Sotomayor and by her referred to the Court is denied," the court said in its order. None of the justices dissented.

New York's law, the Concealed Carry Improvement Act, makes it a felony to possess a gun in "sensitive areas" like stadiums, houses of worship, museums, parks and public transit. It also requires people to undergo certain training in order to have a license.

The prohibition against possessing a concealed firearm in a park is part of criticism leveled by Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., against N.Y. Gov. Kathy Hochul.

"Kathy Hochul’s gun grabbing agenda that classifies lawful gun owners in the Adirondack Park as felons is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I am committed to bringing this all the way to the Supreme Court on behalf of the #2A rights of New Yorkers," Stefanik tweeted Wednesday.

Stefanik and fellow New York Republican Reps. Claudia Tenney and Nick Langworthy reintroduced a House resolution along with Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., calling New York's current law unconstitutional.

"All States should pass legislation supporting Second Amendment rights instead of trying to restrict or undermine Americans’ constitutional rights," the resolution says.

During oral arguments over the state's previous law in November 2021, the justices appeared to accept the state’s argument for continued individualized discretion to enforce "sensitive place" weapon restrictions. Such a concept, however, was not an issue in that case. When the court ruled last week that it would not temporarily block the new law, conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito noted in a statement that the current case involves issues that have not been explored before.

"The New York law at issue in this application presents novel and serious questions under both the First and the Second Amendments," the statement said.

They are allowing the end around of the first ruling to stay in place since it's a different argument from the original case that hasn't been litigated before. I think, if I'm reading that correctly.

Word is that it would be very unusual for the SC to step in and that they want the 2nd to have a chance to fix it and get it right. They told the plaintiff to file again if the circuit court drags it's feet.

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:
They are allowing the end around of the first ruling to stay in place since it's a different argument from the original case that hasn't been litigated before. I think, if I'm reading that correctly.

Pretty much. In order to get an injunction you have to show “a substantial likelihood of success on the merits” (meaning there’s a really good chance you will win). Since this case will cover new ground it’s almost impossible to say who will win this early on. Not the outcome I’d prefer, but it’s legally correct so it’s the right one.

SCOTUS has divided into Circuit Assignments. Unfortunately, NY got dud:

For the Second Circuit - Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice (Connecticut, New York, Vermont)

---

Ego is the anesthesia that deadens the pain of stupidity

DISCLAIMER: These are the author's own personal views and do not represent the views of the author's employer.