Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Sensedog t1_irboczp wrote

NY resident here. We've been expecting this. And to be honest, the decision is welcome.

The CCIA law was created by the state as a temper tantrum when the Supreme Court didn't rule their way in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen.

82

[deleted] t1_irbsajo wrote

[removed]

26

Rebelgecko t1_irdj90a wrote

NY's MO is to appeal all the way to SCOTUS then repeal the law before SCOTUS can finish their ruling

18

IkLms t1_irgcvqw wrote

That's been the MO for a plenty of other States or cities as well. California, Washington D.C. and Chicago have done similar things for decades. Fight it up right until they can't appeal anymore (enforcing it the entire time) and then drop it before a binding ruling can be made, only to enact a new law accomplishing basically the exact same thing but which is written just differently enough from the last so it's not immediately tossed again and then rinse and repeat.

2

cremaster_shake t1_irbyuoq wrote

Right, Thomas said his mission in life is to piss off liberals, so you can't expect much thought from him beyond rationalizing that.

−21

strugglz t1_irby7gl wrote

Thomas will do whatever his bosses tell him to do. If anyone thinks otherwise they have never paid attention to him.

−22

Icy_Telephone964 t1_irbwy8m wrote

Gun free zones are pointless this is done out of spite because NY lawmakers especially their governor are all big babies

35

[deleted] t1_irbgfju wrote

[removed]

27

IateYOURmommasTACO t1_irbgvwd wrote

First amendment?

9

SomeDEGuy t1_irc53gp wrote

Having the government review your speech to make sure it meets their standards before granting a license would be the first amendment issue.

It required applicants to turn over social media accounts for review when applying.

48

IkLms t1_irgd5lm wrote

The "Good Moral Character" clause is also highly suspect as well because you damn well know that'll be used to deny people of religions that the decision maker doesn't like, and for people who are of minority groups and likely those people who criticize the Government or police as well.

2

OGSquidFucker t1_irbi2ts wrote

Yes. Guns come first. Everything else is second.

−42

richalex2010 t1_irdup98 wrote

No, first amendment was right, freedom of speech - this law required police to review people's social media prior to issuing an application, meaning that there's a significant chilling effect on speech if you know that cops are going to be combing through your posts trying to find a reason to deny your second amendment right (also note that the reason to deny was at their discretion, there was no objective standard for "problematic" posts).

19

strugglz t1_irbybyh wrote

Effectively that's true, but it's also pathetic of a nation that claims to be the best.

−38

phoen61 t1_irdcsh2 wrote

I live in Rochester NY and people carrying illegal handguns even using or threatening to use them are regularly let back out without bail to commit more crime, there's been over sixty people shot and killed so far this year and over two hundred shootings by those carrying and using illegal handguns. Very rarely does a gun permit carrying person shoot and kill someone or threaten others. I've always voted blue but now I'm thinking about voting red.

17

joemoorcarz t1_ircs7qy wrote

Read Artical 1 of the constitution. Federal law is the supreme law of the land. So all amendments are automatically incorporated and apply to the states. Also read tenth amendment states are not allowed to touch anything already covered by the Fed. Federal law has laws on both free speech and firearms. So the states need to keep their winning hands off them.

5

Nicholas-Steel t1_irdi7zv wrote

> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

People like to ignore the words "well regulated" when fighting those trying to make permits necessary.

−20

Bedbouncer t1_irf6sey wrote

>People like to ignore the words "well regulated" when fighting those trying to make permits necessary.

People like to ignore the words "the right of the people" when it comes to trying to make those permits unavailable.

Pointing at a single phrase and saying "it's so clear what it means" and ignoring subsequent SCOTUS rulings is like pointing at the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and saying "See, North Korea is a democracy, it's right in the name!"

9

Nicholas-Steel t1_irh9v0y wrote

Right, and that wouldn't be infringed for those forming a well regulated militia.

1

Bedbouncer t1_irizj08 wrote

Your interpretation, while once considered valid, is no longer the law of the land.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

I've never believed that the collective right theory was correct, based on other writings at the time and the way it was incorporated into many state constitutions at the time.

Also note that a collective right approach would allow the civilian members of a militia to own machine guns and shoulder-fired rockets without restriction, as there would be no counter-argument to arming a militia with the same weapons available to the average full-time national soldier. I don't think many gun control advocates would be pleased with the results of a true collective rights interpretation.

I feel the problem with the NY law is no so much that it violates the 2nd Amendment (because some restrictions are legal), but that it violates the 14th Amendment by applying the 2nd in an unequal manner among state residents. Imagine if NY had a "press license" and you couldn't publish without that license and to get the license you had to prove that you were a citizen of good standing, that you'd never published anything controversial in the past, and that you had a "special need" to publish information to the public, and all of those restrictions could be bypassed if you were rich and connected with the people who issued the licenses.

1

NemWan t1_irbh56b wrote

Use of the Second Amendment against a state law is not actually a Second Amendment case but a Fourteenth Amendment case that depends on SCOTUS in 2010 ruling that the Second Amendment is part of what Equal Protection and Due Process means. None of the Bill of Rights originally applied to the states, they've been gradually applied since Reconstruction by evolving interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

−22

codan84 t1_ircdy12 wrote

Incorporation of the second amendment has already been ruled on and settled in McDonald v Chicago. That is not the question in the current case.

15

codan84 t1_ircrovf wrote

Does the second amendment enumerate an individual right to keep and bear arms? If it does then I do not see how the original intent was to protect States. The right is conferred to the People, not the States. Nowhere else in the constitution would the phrase the People refer to States. Could you please explain how you arrive at the conclusion that it is about states rights?

Yes. There are limits to governmental powers at all levels. Just because a State claims interests does not mean they can make whatever laws they wish. They too have to follow the law.

I’m not a huge fan of the H and T myself but the opinion in Dobbs wasn’t arbitrary. It was quite detailed and well layer out and even if disagreeing with it arbitrarily hardly seems to fit.

So there is an individual right? Sure there is a balance in some way but that does not allow for anything. Could the state bring back stop and frisk only with check points and stoping and frisking everyone? The argument could be made that such laws would serve the interests of the state and infringing upon the 4th amendment rights is an acceptable cost. Would that be okay too as it would likely do more to prevent crime including shootings than overly restrictive concealed carry licensing laws would.

With free speech we don’t have much if any prior restraints. There is no license needed to preach of the corner or print political flyers. There is no loss of free speech rights after one has served a sentence for a felony or some misdemeanors.

I personally do not believe there should be any exceptions as an ideal at least. If speech or gun control is wanted then the answer is to amend the constitution. Allowing for more governmental power at any level than what is specifically enumerated is wrong in my view and is a greater danger in the long run then most other issues. What checks and balances are there on governmental powers if they can choose any and all they want? However I also know that’s not practical or probable as like with everything there are opposing interests and views and some compromise has to happen.

−1

Rebelgecko t1_irdjkir wrote

>Does the second amendment enumerate an individual right to keep and bear arms?

Yes

>The right is conferred to the People, not the States. Nowhere else in the constitution would the phrase the People refer to States. Could you please explain how you arrive at the conclusion that it is about states rights?

The first amendment's Freedom of Speech clause is also about the rights of the people, and it's similarly been incorporated against the states for like a hundred years.

Just like almost all of the rest of the Bill of Rights, the courts have determined that if the constitution protects individual from having a right infringed on by the federal government, it also protects indiviuals from having that right violated by they state they're in.

13

NemWan t1_ircicq7 wrote

Well settled law doesn't seem to mean what it used to does it?

−13

codan84 t1_ircj4cs wrote

If you say so. I was simply pointing out that the court has ruled on the question of incorporation already and the case that is at issue in this tread is about a separate question.

Why do you believe incorporation is at question in this particular case? Is NY putting forward an argument that they are not bound by the second amendment of the federal constitution? Is that or similar arguments being presented by any of the parties involved? Do you believe such arguments should be made?

9

NemWan t1_ircovpe wrote

I'd question incorporation of the Second Amendment at every opportunity, because the intent of the Second Amendment at its drafting was to preserve states' rights from a federal power grab, not to squash them. It's a radical difference and it matters.

The ability of a state legislature to balance state and individual interests is seemingly replaced by a federal judge's more arbitrary opinion of where the lines should be drawn. For instance, what's the constitutional basis of this:

>Suddaby’s ruling upheld the state’s right to exclude guns from certain “sensitive locations,” but only in instances where there were “historical analogues” for such rules, meaning guns have been banned from such places in the past.

Seems as arbitrary as Alito's opinion of "history and traditions" in Dobbs. Since we have a much greater percentage of American history of the 2A not being formally incorporated, one could argue there's a very, very big "historical analogue" for state and local gun control authority.

It's one thing to establish there is an individual right to bear arms, and other to assert that how that individual right is balanced against competing public rights and interests is to be beyond state and local discretion.

With free speech, for example, we have legal precedents that what is illegal obscenity, not protected by the First Amendment, is to be determined in part by contemporary community standards, not by one uniform standard. It's a flawed and abused precedent I wouldn't normally defend with much enthusiasm, but then I also see words and images as less physically threatening than arms.

The First and Second Amendments seem to have no exceptions in their plain text, but they do have exceptions in practice. Who gets the power to decide the exceptions? Are we to have a community standards approach to speech but not guns? Sure, this inconsistency would be eliminated by abolishing obscenity law for more absolute freedom of speech, but that would miss the point: historically, we have believed in people being able to vote for their values at a state and local level — up to a point. Having accumulated generations of incorporation doctrine, we're using a federal power originally meant to ensure liberty for freed slaves and their descendants to equate the right to bear arms with other rights such as freedom of speech. I don't think the question of whether that is a true equivalency is resolved.

−11

NemWan t1_irbmsk6 wrote

In response to a deleted but fair question, no, I am not "against the incorporation of rights". It should be obvious that how parts of the Bill of Rights apply to states, or if they apply at all, is not an all-or-nothing, automatic fact, or it wouldn't have taken over 140 years of decisions to piece together.

−1

cremaster_shake t1_irbyqwp wrote

It's all so stupid. The Constitution has nothing to do with most of this, and the courts and (mostly) legislature know it perfectly well. Neither originalism nor textualism justifies any of this crap.

Massachusetts was being MUCH more logical when they ruled that the Constitution doesn't say "guns," so "arms" doesn't just mean guns. But the gun fetishism is just a weird perversion. I couldn't walk into Walmart carrying a battery-powered circular saw without getting stopped, but for some reason an AR should be fine.

It has nothing to do with American ideals and everything to do with the lowest lazy politics. I can't respect a judge that's transparently disingenuous about it. If you want to just blame the Supreme Court, say it plainly, or it's on you.

I'm not even anti-gun, not by any stretch. But the people most rabid and down-votey about this are always the people you wouldn't want to see driving, much less holding a gun.

−42

fbtcu1998 t1_irc2bh2 wrote

>Massachusetts was being MUCH more logical when they ruled that the Constitution doesn't say "guns," so "arms" doesn't just mean guns

Mass outlawed stun guns. A lady was arrested for having one for protection from an ex.
It went to SCOTUS. Mass courts argued they weren't covered because they were not in common use when the constitution was written. But SCOTUS already ruled in Heller that it covers all Bearable arms and not just those in common use at the time of the constitution. So her conviction was tossed, and Mass had to change the laws, stun guns are now legal in Mass. You may think it was logical, but Mas didn't view it as arms vs guns, they viewed it as arms used during the time the constitution was written. it was a very narrow view and SCOTUS overruled them.

Edit: oops terrible typo, stun guns are NOW legal

29

TheSavageDonut t1_irbmqno wrote

As we've seen repeatedly recently, a mass murderer posts hatred online, posts plans to shoot some place up online, purchases guns, and follows through on said online postings.

How does a society stop such a mass murderer? Our current laws do nothing, and apparently any attempt to remedy this situation gets tossed out by a conservative judge.

How does reasonable gun legislation ever get passed in this country?

It wasn't like New York was demanding to seize and melt down firearms.

Trump even said at one point "we've got to get the guns" when asked how to stop mass murder events in the U.S.

−54

fbtcu1998 t1_irbrj5e wrote

This issue with the law is it creates a purely subjective measure in reviewing social media accounts before allowing someone to exercise a right. Sure, it would be nice if was just used to stop mass shooters. But one could just as easily decide you're not of "good moral character" because you are a Mets fan and not a Yankees fan, you're a Democrat instead of Republican, you disagree with a mayor's policy, you talk about smoking weed, you claim you once had an abortion, you prefer chocolate to vanilla, whatever that person finds immoral. Subjective criteria to exercise a right is never a good idea.

The states can set whatever reasonable objective criteria they want...training requirement, BG check, etc. Once that objective criteria is met, they issue the permit.
What they can't do is let one person, in their own judgement, decide who is worthy despite the objective criteria being met.

25

Sparroew t1_iriywhi wrote

Well, that is one issue with the law. There was a separate issue in that New York allowed concealed carry and then made practically the entire state a gun-free zone, rendering that permit a very expensive and useless piece of paper.

1

TheSavageDonut t1_irbs520 wrote

>Sure, it would be nice if was just used to stop mass shooters.

It's meant to do just that.

>But one could just as easily decide you're not of "good moral character" because you are a Mets fan and not a Yankees fan, you're a Democrat instead of Republican, you disagree with a mayor's policy, you talk about smoking weed, you claim you once had an abortion, you prefer chocolate to vanilla, whatever that person finds immoral. Subjective criteria to exercise a right is never a good idea.

This is just fear disguised as innocent concern.

We already have the Patriot Act to "catch" the actual serious stuff and not Mets fans.

−37

fbtcu1998 t1_irbunwe wrote

>It's meant to do just that

They aren't trying to stop mass shootings, they're trying to keep guns out of everyone's hands, not just potential mass shooters.

>This is just fear disguised as innocent concern

I wouldn't say fear, more like history repeating itself. MLK was denied a permit to carry a firearm because he wasn't of "good moral character". Of course it was because of who he was and what he was saying, but they disguised it by claiming morality. It was a bad idea then, its a bad idea now. The only difference in the two is who they want to deny, but its still the government deciding who can exercise a right.

27

richalex2010 t1_irdv72x wrote

> This is just fear disguised as innocent concern.

This is literally what "good moral standing" clauses in almost every state's carry permit schemes was meant to do. It's a way of getting around the 14th amendment's equal protection clause without explicitly saying "black people can't have guns" - they'd just rule on a "case by case" basis and determine that almost no black person had "good moral standing" instead. How these rules are actually applied has evolved, but it boils down to the same idea - people the cops don't like don't get guns, doesn't matter if it's a reasonable concern over public safety or because they don't like an applicant's accent.

Police oversight is already basically nonexistent when they choke someone to death, what makes you think there's sufficient oversight to avoid misconduct in the permit issuing process?

12

Ares1935 t1_irdb60o wrote

Maybe we should spend more time exploring the motives for murder.

Lest these individuals turn to cars, ieds, knives, or poison as other ways to release their aggressions.

4

TheSavageDonut t1_irfhi3i wrote

So, you're answer is maybe we should do nothing and put our heads in the sand?

−1

Ares1935 t1_irfia55 wrote

I literally said what I thought we should do... and it was not nothing.

Take the guns or don't take the guns, killings will still happen, with illegal guns, or some other way. Maybe it's fewer killings, but im sure it won't be zero.

So we will be right back here asking why. Reducing crime has always been about understanding motive.

3

jay_killuminati t1_irbvj57 wrote

> How does reasonable gun legislation ever get passed in this country?

It never will be. Getting randomly murdered while grocery shopping or while going to school is now the price we pay to live in America.

−23

barrinmw t1_irby39o wrote

Dead children in schools are to be expected. Their right to live is superseded by our right to kill them.

−25