Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

104
The video is the guys opinion, I don't necessarily agree with him.

After the oral arguments the justices in conference declared their votes and if Roberts was in the majority, he assigned the writing of the opinion or kept it himself. If Roberts was in the minority, then the senior justice likely Thomas assigned the opinion or kept it himself. We don't know if this is a landmark case until we read the opinion. SCOTUS doesn't have to release the opinion until the end of June and they might still be circulating a draft that hasn't been finalized. They probably also weighed when to issue it, so as not to become a campaign issue but with urban Democrats and Bloomie groups it will also be a campaign issue.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

RE: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

107
NY Post Editorial Board:
Pray the Supreme Court doesn’t leave NY defenseless to control flood of weapons on streets
The last thing New York needs is for every Tom, Dick and Harriet on the street to be carrying.

Moreover, the argument for reasonable restrictions on the Second Amendment is hardly new. Indeed, many conservative legal experts support New York’s law, noting that government regulations on guns go back centuries and that the Founders meant for that tradition to continue when they drafted the Second Amendment; never did they intend to provide every American with an unchecked right to carry firearms whenever and wherever they liked.

The Supremes can — must — let New York protect itself, whether by simply upholding New York’s law, or, if they find it unconstitutionally broad (as seems likely based on their questioning during the case), ordering modest tweaks. One possibility: Grant the state the right to limit public spaces where guns are allowed.
Image

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

109
Strange that the editorial is in the NY Post, Trump's favorite Rupert Murdoch owned newspaper. The current law protects the millionaires and billionaires who can afford armed security, plus they have the political pull to get their own concealed carry licenses. I hope NYSRPA vs Bruen changes it.

In 1928 the population of NYC was roughly 7 million and in 2021 the population was roughly 8 million. In 1928 there were 404 murders and in 2021 there were 488 murders. NYC's gun laws haven't reduced their murder rate.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

110
highdesert wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 4:08 pm Strange that the editorial is in the NY Post, Trump's favorite Rupert Murdoch owned newspaper. The current law protects the millionaires and billionaires who can afford armed security, plus they have the political pull to get their own concealed carry licenses. I hope NYSRPA vs Bruen changes it.

In 1928 the population of NYC was roughly 7 million and in 2021 the population was roughly 8 million. In 1928 there were 404 murders and in 2021 there were 488 murders. NYC's gun laws haven't reduced their murder rate.
The NY Post consistently has been in favor of restricting both keep and bear for the unwashed.

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

112
Per the Democratic governor of New York, her administration will be using the murders in Buffalo to bolster support for additional prohibitions pertaining to firearms in anticipation of the NYSRPA v. Bruen decision.

Video, Audio, Photo & Rush Transcript: Governor Hochul Addresses Shooting in Buffalo
On Tuesday in Albany, we had already planned to be announcing a comprehensive gun package to address further loopholes that exist in our laws. We are doing everything we can to ensure that our laws are tight, they're ironclad, to ensure that our law enforcement have the resources they need.”
Yeah, I'm angry. I've seen violence from guns on the Brooklyn subway, and now in the streets of Buffalo, it has to stop. It has to stop. On Tuesday in Albany, we had already planned to be announcing a comprehensive gun package to address further loopholes that exist in our laws. We are doing everything we can to ensure that our laws are tight, they're ironclad, to ensure that our law enforcement have the resources they need. That is why I started a gun interdiction task force last January. Nine states, as well as NYPD, have teamed up with us to make sure that we can identify when guns are coming across the border from places like Pennsylvania guns shows and ended up in small communities outside Binghamton or in Broome County. We don't know that that is the source of the modifications made to a gun, but we’re going to find out and we're going to continue addressing this every single way we can.

As an aside, we're also going to be preparing our state for what could be a Supreme Court decision that allows people to carry concealed weapons. We're ready. This is New York, we're here to protect our people. Thank you.

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

116
Crow wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 10:21 am
featureless wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 9:03 am I read somewhere that the AR used in the massacre was NY compliant when purshased. I guess NY will need to ban tools to prevent the potential of modification. Really, where does that approach end?
Banning Fox News would be way better.
Crow
Yes, but NY recognizes the 1st amendment. Only the 2nd amendment should be shit on regularly. :)

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

117
featureless wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 9:03 am I read somewhere that the AR used in the massacre was NY compliant when purshased. I guess NY will need to ban tools to prevent the potential of modification. Really, where does that approach end?
How about a closer look at anybody, with a documented violent past and documented potentially violent future, before they can buy ANY gun...
The grocery store shooter in Boulder was in the same boat..and legally bought the gun he used to kill 10 people. Same for the Aurora tattoo parlor murderer...

Same for........

But, 'what about the right to keep and bear arms'? Will be the next question...Doesn't stricter back ground checks, including mental health checks, erode the RKBA? Yes, but killing people deprives people of their right to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'...

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

118
F4FEver wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 8:07 am
But, 'what about the right to keep and bear arms'? Will be the next question...Doesn't stricter back ground checks, including mental health checks, erode the RKBA? Yes, but killing people deprives people of their right to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'...
Root causes, brother. Why are people violent? How do we break the cycle? Focusing on the tool misses the mark simply because you'd have to ban all tools. A motivated individual could do the same thing with a pair of scissors. Or a can of gasoline.

One of the huge issues with mental health checks is it automatically excludes current gun owners (and there's millions of us) from access to mental health services because they'll then be "on the list." Is that what we want? All those armed up Qtards afraid to get help for the voices in their heads? How about you or I go through a rough patch due to job loss, death of a loved one, divorce, etc? Will you risk losing the 2A right to seek help? Obviously, there are mental health cases that should be precluded. Those laws are already on the books.

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

119
I'm a big believer in mental health services being available as cheaply as possible, but psychology and psychiatry are not exact sciences. You can't run blood tests to diagnose all mental health problems with the exception of bi-polar, thyroid and of course drugs. Removing 2A rights must be based on valid clinical diagnoses and not political views.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

121
featureless wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 9:25 am
F4FEver wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 8:07 am
But, 'what about the right to keep and bear arms'? Will be the next question...Doesn't stricter back ground checks, including mental health checks, erode the RKBA? Yes, but killing people deprives people of their right to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'...
Root causes, brother. Why are people violent? How do we break the cycle? Focusing on the tool misses the mark simply because you'd have to ban all tools. A motivated individual could do the same thing with a pair of scissors. Or a can of gasoline.

One of the huge issues with mental health checks is it automatically excludes current gun owners (and there's millions of us) from access to mental health services because they'll then be "on the list." Is that what we want? All those armed up Qtards afraid to get help for the voices in their heads? How about you or I go through a rough patch due to job loss, death of a loved one, divorce, etc? Will you risk losing the 2A right to seek help? Obviously, there are mental health cases that should be precluded. Those laws are already on the books.
I'm not focusing on the tool but the gun buyer. People mix those all the time..'tool' restrictions, I agree, do little to nothing. Taking a closer look at the people buying guns is my point.

It would be a 'red flag', not outright disqualification, but a 'red flag' for somebody to take a closer look. It would be nice if the American Medical Association wasn't so dead set against mental health patient information being more available.

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

123
featureless wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 10:03 am Gotcha on tools.

Mental health information availability is a slippery slope. Lots of people and employers have issues with those who've sought mental health care.
It would require all medical records for every person living would be open and accessible to the state. That is a huge leap in surveillance for a very small part of the issue. It leaves out those people who are not medically ill and intend to harm others for a variety of other issues including political motives.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

124
In The New Yorker, Amy Davidson Sorkin relates a possible NYSRPA v. Bruen ruling to the mass shooting in Buffalo, which follows the Democratic/media/firearm prohibitionist party line on the case.
A Consequential Gun Ruling After the Buffalo Massacre
What seems tragically mundane, though, in American terms, is that Gendron, who is eighteen, is reportedly the owner of at least three guns: a Savage Axis XP hunting rifle, which he received as a Christmas gift when he was sixteen, the legal age to own one in New York; a Mossberg 500 shotgun, which he bought, legally, in December; and a Bushmaster XM-15 semi-automatic rifle—the apparent murder weapon—which was also legal when he bought it, in January, for less than a thousand dollars, and which he then easily modified to allow for a larger capacity magazine than is permitted in the state. An alarm that Gendron’s high school raised last year, when he said that his post-graduation goals included “murder/suicide,” was not in itself enough, under the state’s “red flag” law, to forestall the purchases.

Gendron’s arsenal accounted for a handful of the estimated four hundred million guns owned privately in the United States. Four days after the shooting, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives issued a report showing that licensed gun manufacturers produced more than eleven million new weapons in 2020—almost triple the number produced in 2000. The report also documented an increase in the number of “ghost guns”—weapons assembled from parts by illicit dealers or by people at home, and bearing no serial numbers. Law enforcement seized more than nineteen thousand such guns last year, suggesting that a far larger number is unaccounted for. (Last week, Illinois became the eleventh state to pass a law restricting ghost guns.) In 2020, some forty-five thousand Americans died of gun-related wounds, more than half of them suicides. When it comes to guns, no corner of the country is untouched.

The New York State Rifle decision, which is expected by the end of June, could make the rules even looser. It has the potential to be the most significant—and, depending on how broadly it is written, most disastrous—gun-law decision in a decade. The ruling should arrive around the same time as the one in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the case that is expected to overturn Roe v. Wade. Both cases are the product of decades of advocacy on the right. New York State Rifle is a long-awaited successor to District of Columbia v. Heller, the landmark 2008 decision that enshrined gun ownership as an individual right under the Second Amendment, rather than as the primarily militia- or community-based right that courts had long understood it to be. Under the New York law—six other states have similar statutes—people who want a license to carry a concealed pistol in public for self-defense must have jobs that make them targets (judges, bank messengers) or show “proper cause,” meaning a need specific to them (for example, a person subject to a particular threat) rather than a general fear of crime. The plaintiffs argued that it is illegitimate under Heller to ask people to explain why they should be granted a license. More broadly, their view is that not just owning a gun but carrying it in public places is a right that should be limited only in extraordinary circumstances.

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

125
Pretty sure I can quote more than one paragraph since Giffords is reciting state law but I won't.
However there's answers in here that apply to this discussion. But just going for some therapy is NOT going to be reported to anyone unless; see link
Mental Health Reporting in Arizona - Giffords.org https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-la ... n-arizona/
No federal law, however, requires states to report the identities of these individuals when they become ineligible to possess firearms to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (“NICS”) database, which the FBI uses to perform background checks prior to firearm transfers. As a result, state record reporting laws are critical to ensuring the accuracy and effectiveness of the background check system.
In 2014, Arizona enacted a law requiring courts to transmit information to the Supreme Court of Arizona, which must transmit it to the Department of Public Safety (DPS), which must transmit it to NICS, whenever the court:
Pence makes no sense

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot] and 0 guests

cron