quote:

Originally posted by USCO160:
I live in NJ and its just as bad, if not worse than NY. NJ gun laws will get worse this week when they are going to require you to pay to re-register your guns every 4 years but they dont say what will happen if you dont. Will they fine you out of control? If they do try to seize your guns for having an “expired registeration” that will lose 100% in the supreme court. It wont be a red flag violation and theyll just take them? I dont see that anywhere in the 2nd amend or 4th amend for that matter. Yet people compare guns to cars, which is worlds different. I guess people will have to register their voices soon in this state lol

I like how NJ banned hollow points for everyday carry despite them being objectively safer.

I think this twitter post sums up why the left wants to pass more gun laws.

This is the sister of an armed robber complaining the store clerk should not have had a gun to shoot her brother while he was committing armed robbery. I think what she meant to say was " Law abiding citizens should not have guns, only criminals like my brother should have guns. How else are we supposed to rob the law abiding citizens?"

https://twitter.com/hardhatbea.../1539127453762965505

Now you know why I fled Dayton!

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:


We have the right of free travel wherever in the U.S. we choose, other than someone else's private property. Did people have to register horses and buggies back before cars? Did you need a license to ride a horse or pull a wagon with a horse or oxen?

The only reason for registering vehicles is so they can be taxed.

Thanks to those that recommended I leave NY, that thought has been on my mind for years. I love upstate NY; I was born and raised here. I have a good job, love the hunting, fishing and water opportunities as well as the land here. It will be tough to leave because of this (but not impossible). Most importantly, my in-laws live close by and it is the intent of Barb and I to be here for them as long as they are alive (my parents are deceased). I love them dearly, but once they are gone we will be leaving.

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:
Actually denying a right, based on speech, will almost certainly get them in trouble

But it will take time, and someone to get arrested/convicted and then appeal, to get this in front of a mostly-sane group with the authority to make the connection and stay/overturn this nonsense.

And then the gun-grabbers will start with some other 'commonsense'.

The separation of powers is all well and good, but the executive and legislative sides can act a lot quicker than the judicial.

quote:

Originally posted by joel9507:
The separation of powers is all well and good, but the executive and legislative sides can act a lot quicker than the judicial.

Problem is, in colonial times the right to a speedy trial guaranteed by the 6th Amendment took days/weeks rather than years/decades.

There's no good reason these cases should take until we're old and gray. One might even think that it's by design.

More details below. I'm glad I made my escape from NY 36 years ago.

Gun applicants in NY will have to hand over social accounts

Published: Jul. 08, 2022, 9:22 a.m.

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — As missed warning signs pile up in investigations of mass killings, New York state is rolling out a novel strategy to screen applicants for gun permits. People seeking to carry concealed handguns will be required to hand over their social media accounts for a review of their “character and conduct.”

It’s an approach applauded by many Democrats and national gun control advocacy groups, but some experts have raised questions about how the law will be enforced and address free speech concerns.

Some of the local officials who will be tasked with reviewing the social media content also are asking whether they’ll have the resources and, in some cases, whether the law is even constitutional.

Sheriffs haven’t received additional money or staffing to handle a new application process, said Peter Kehoe, the executive director of the New York Sheriffs’ Association. The law, he asserted, infringes on Second Amendment rights, and while applicants must list their social media accounts, he doesn’t think local officials will necessarily look at them.

“I don’t think we would do that,” Kehoe said. “I think it would be a constitutional invasion of privacy...”

Complete article:

https://www.syracuse.com/news/...social-accounts.html

do they define what a social media account is, ie

Fakebook
Instagrahm
Twatter
Truth


Will they say all forums considered "social media" such as SF, GT, or any gun forum, car forum, porn, reddit, 4chan, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by Sigmund:
The law, he asserted, infringes on Second Amendment rights, and while applicants must list their social media accounts, he doesn’t think local officials will necessarily look at them.

“I don’t think we would do that,” Kehoe said.

Bullshit! While Executive Director Kehoe may in his heart believe that, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell .gov would forfeit any opportunity to invade one's privacy.

NY’s new law returns fire at Supreme Court: Guns are now banned almost everywhere

Updated: Jul. 20, 2022, 7:41 a.m.

Albany, NY — A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision overturned a more than 100-year-old law in New York state, opening the door to allow more people to carry handguns.

But the state moved quickly to adopt a new law that will do just the opposite: It will greatly restrict where people can have a handgun.

The new law will ban firearms on all private property unless the owner makes a point to allow them by putting up signs. It’s a flip of the switch from the current law, which allows legal concealed carry on most private property unless an owner posts signs forbidding guns.

The law also includes a list of 20 types of locations where guns are totally banned: churches, bars, restaurants with alcohol, public parks, government buildings, colleges and public gatherings, among other places...

Complete article:

https://www.syracuse.com/news/...most-everywhere.html

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha lol

New York State… The gift that keeps giving to us gun owners. Can’t wait for that one to make it to the scotus.

NEXT!

I've lost track of all the forums that I once participated in, but lost interest and lost the login / password info.

if they wanted me to go back, say, 3 years, I could not.

quote:

I like how NJ banned hollow points for everyday carry despite them being objectively safer.

Been that way for a decade or more.

quote:

public gatherings

Loved that one. Can they actually define that term? Doubt it.

What is a "bar"? Any place that sells alcohol? Or a percentage of the sales? They don't know or care. They want a protracted court case to result.

https://www.syracuse.com/state...n-over-gun-laws.html

Upstate NY historical war reenactments canceled amid confusion over gun laws

Updated: Sep. 19, 2022, 12:17 p.m.|Published: Sep. 19, 2022, 12:16 p.m.

By Geoff Herbert | gherbert@syracuse.com

Several historical war reenactments have been canceled in Upstate New York amid confusion over the state’s gun laws.

The Observer-Dispatch reports Living History Weekend, scheduled to take place last week in Herkimer County, was axed after local Sheriff Scott Scherrer said attorneys advised him that reenactors’ muskets could violate a new gun control law that took effect Sept. 1. Among other things, the law prohibits carrying weapons in “sensitive locations” such as public parks, museums, and sports fields, where many reenactments of American battles often take place.

“It would be illegal, according to the letter of the governor’s law,” Scherrer told the Utica newspaper.

However, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said such events would not be illegal.

“These laws allow historical re-enactments to occur, and there should be no concern otherwise,” Hochul told the New York Post in a statement. “We will work with legislators and local law enforcement to ensure these events can proceed as they have for centuries. In the meantime, individuals who have lawfully participated in reenactments should continue to do so.”

The law has been confusing for gun owners, affecting everything from gun shows to applications for firearm permits.

Rochester lawyer Sheldon Boyce Jr., who specializes in Second Amendment law, told the Post that he hasn’t seen any specifications in the new law’s language for historical events, which revisit the American Revolution, Civil War and other U.S. conflicts. Real ammunition is not used in reenactments but the muskets fall under the same law, leading some reenactors to worry they could be arrested for participating.

“Two weeks ago, we started getting issues from units out of state and in the state who were afraid if they came and brought weapons with them — muskets — that they’d be charged with a felony,” a reenactment organizer told WRGB.

Other historical reenactments that have been canceled reportedly included the Rogers Island Military Camp reenactment event at Fort Edward in Washington County and a Civil War reenactment event in Allegany County, but a reenactment of the Battle of Plattsburgh went on as scheduled earlier this month when local police said they wouldn’t charge anyone involved.

Organizers say they hope to get better clarification soon, especially since 2025 will mark 250 years since the beginning of the Revolutionary War.

“We hope to resume this in the near future. Hopefully, the gun laws, the interpretation gets corrected,” Rogers Island Development Alliance President Edward Carpenter told WRGB. “It’s coming up on the 250th anniversary of the American Revolution, so we need to get this straight so all these events can take place.”

quote:

Originally posted by Sigmund:
https://www.syracuse.com/state...n-over-gun-laws.html

Upstate NY historical war reenactments canceled amid confusion over gun laws

So, legislation which on its face prohibits the exercise of a fundamental right is interfering with the ability to re-enact battles fought in a war for independence brought about in reaction to- wait for it-- abuses of fundamental rights?

I'm guessing that nobody in New York sees the irony in this.

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:
2. Can you tell them you don't have or use social media, or not tell them at all? How would they find out what, if any, social media you participate in?

I don’t know the details and probably shouldn’t say much about it other than a SWAT friend of mine says there’s no such thing as hiding your social media anything from law enforcement if they want to have a look. Private, PM’s, passwords. Doesn’t matter. You wouldn’t even know or be involved in any way.

If that is true, then why does the law require applicants to hand over their logins and passwords? If law enforcement already has the ability, then why can’t they just have a look without being given the logins and passwords? Are they trying to dance around the 4A by having people surrender their creds as a sort of consent to search, even though it’s a requirement of application? Seems rather suspect, I’d say.

Most likely the state of NY doesn’t have unlimited access to everything online, and is just throwing every obstacle they can into the stew of discouragement towards gun rights.

quote:

Originally posted by DennisM:

So, legislation which on its face prohibits the exercise of a fundamental right is interfering with the ability to re-enact battles fought in a war for independence brought about in reaction to- wait for it-- abuses of fundamental rights?

I'm guessing that nobody in New York sees the irony in this.

I gotta say, that's some damn good irony right there.

There's hope. Maybe.

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

Syracuse federal judge called NY gun law illegal. Latest case may give him chance to strike it down

Updated: Sep. 23, 2022, 4:11 p.m.|Published: Sep. 23, 2022, 6:00 a.m.

By Douglass Dowty | ddowty@syracuse.com

Syracuse, N.Y. – A federal judge in Syracuse, who has already declared that he believes New York’s latest gun control law is unconstitutional, may now get the chance to overturn it.

U.S. District Judge Glenn Suddaby last month rejected a lawsuit seeking to overturn the state law, saying he didn’t have the power to strike down the state’s latest gun-control measure because, among other things, it hadn’t gone into effect yet.

But he did make it clear that the state’s law – including a “good moral character” requirement, a mandate to disclose social-media accounts and an expansive list of banned locations – was problematic.

“What law-abiding, responsible citizens of New York State are left with is a statute that is...plagued by a ‘profound Second Amendment problem,’” Suddaby wrote in his Aug. 31 decision.

On Thursday, Suddaby got another request to strike down the law from the same gun group that spearheaded the earlier case. The plaintiffs argue that the judge now has the power to rule the law violates the Second Amendment.

They are seeking a preliminary injunction to temporarily halt the new state law. From various court motions, it appears the judge may be prepared to move quickly on that request.

The latest lawsuit adds some additional details about specific individuals challenging the new law, including:

An Onondaga County man who intends to keep carrying his licensed handgun while fishing in state parks, a place now off-limits for guns under the law.

An Albany County man who intends to continue carrying his licensed handgun to movie theaters, in restaurants that serve alcohol, and other places now banned under the law.

An Oswego County pastor who intends to keep carrying his handgun in his church, another banned location under the new law.

A Greene County firefighter who intends to continue carrying his gun to emergency calls, likely placing him in locations in which guns are now banned.

A Schenectady County man who feels the law unconstitutionally restricts his right to bear arms, but has decided to not take any actions in violation of the law.


The latest court challenge comes weeks after New York’s sweeping gun-control law took effect, tightening licensing requirements, requiring the disclosure of social-media accounts and banning guns almost everywhere, including a default ban on all private property.

The state’s new law came in response to a U.S. Supreme Court decision in June that struck a century-old state law requiring an individual to provide a specific reason why he or she needed a gun. That violated the Second Amendment, which gives every law-abiding citizen the right to possess a gun for protection, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote.

But that decision only impacted one part of the application process for obtaining a gun. States can still restrict guns using certain objective standards: a criminal background check, character references and a ban in sensitive places, like schools, for example, the Supreme Court confirmed.

The state legislature’s response was to craft the most restrictive gun-control law in the country – albeit removing the need to provide a specific reason for wanting a gun. That left gun-owners arguing that the state has overstepped its bounds.

The new law’s implementation Sept. 1 set off a flurry of lawsuits involving aggrieved gun owners from New York City to Buffalo.

t remains unclear which of the challenges will be decided first, leaving the fate of the law in the hands of at least four different federal judges who each have different cases before them.

But Suddaby, a longtime Syracuse-area lawyer and judge, may end up being the one who decides first. After all, he’s already tipped his hand, calling the law “unconstitutional” in his opinion last month.

Suddaby’s prior decision has no influence on what other judges might think. But he certainly could flush that out into a decision, so long as the problems with the earlier lawsuit have been corrected this time around.

Those problems included the fact that the law hadn’t gone into effect so nobody had been harmed yet. But he spent about 20 pages of that decision explaining why he felt the law was unconstitutional.

In addition to the lawsuit before Suddaby there are several others:

A July 11 lawsuit filed by a Brooklyn civil rights lawyer challenged the requirement for gun applicants to turn over social-media accounts as violation of First Amendment rights.

Another July 11 lawsuit, filed by Western New York politician Carl Paladino, challenged the presumptive gun ban on private property. (That lawsuit has stalled, without any action in months.)

An Aug. 31 lawsuit, filed by two Albany-area residents and a gun group, sought to overturn both the licensing and property-ban restrictions. The plaintiffs are the same as the lawsuit that eventually led to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision striking down the state’s prior licensing requirement.

A Sept. 13 lawsuit, filed by two Western New York residents and a different gun group, also seeks to overturn both the licensing and property-ban restrictions.


With so many challenges, it remains to be seen how – and when – a judge either strikes down or gives blessing to the law.

Judges in each case will likely be asked to make a quick judgment on the case – either ordering the law be suspended or leaving it in place – as each of the challenges moves forward. It’ll be a race to see which lawsuit can clear all the legal hurdles needed to get a judge’s opinion first.

Even if the law is struck down by a judge, that won’t be the final word. Expect an appeal from the losing party as soon as a judge rules.

Eventually, the case will land before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which hears cases from anywhere in New York State, and regardless of what happens there, the U.S. Supreme Court will have a chance to review the law – even if that’s years down the road.

Sigmund - I just read that article earlier today. The lawsuits will take time. I have read that Judge Suddaby will rule on the latest case before him on 29 Sept.