Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

56
featureless wrote: Thu Oct 06, 2022 2:27 pm NY's CCW law was partially restrained today!
Good catch!
A federal judge has temporarily blocked the enforcement of parts of a New York gun law that was enacted in the wake of a Supreme Court decision earlier this summer striking down certain protections. Among the provisions of the New York law that the state cannot enforce is one that defines Times Square as a “gun-free zone.” The law is aimed at placing restrictions on carrying a concealed handgun outside the home. Judge Glenn T. Suddaby of the US District Court for the Northern District of New York said the state has “further reduced a first-class constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense” into a mere “request.” He said that several provisions of the law had no historical justification, a controversial requirement put forward by the high court last spring.

Back then, Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for a 6-3 court, said that a state had to justify a regulation by demonstrating that the law is “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Regarding Times Square, Suddaby cited the Supreme Court decision and said that it “might be argued” that historical statutes banning the carrying of guns in “fairs or markets” are analogous to the current law. But, he said, he had only found two such laws. “Two statutes do not make a tradition,” he wrote.

Critics correctly predicted that the Supreme Court decision – the widest expansion of gun rights in a decade – would trigger new challenges to gun regulations across the country. The temporary restraining order will become effective in three business days. In a statement, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, said her office is working with the state attorney general to discuss an appeal. “While this decision leaves aspects of the law in place, it is deeply disappointing that the judge wants to limit my ability to keep New Yorkers safe and to prevent more senseless gun violence,” Hochul said.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/06/politics ... index.html

The AG will appeal it to the 2nd Circuit which just happens to be located in New York City.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

57
At issue, in my opinion, is the consequences of having exercised free speech. If a person posts online in public that they want to do violence to an office holder or other person, they don't want to have to suffer the consequences of having said that. For example, what if that post got them denied for a permit or even a gun? Does the First Amendment protect us from the consequences of our actions? No. It allows us freely to take those actions. Is it appropriate to comb public posts to decide whether to allow a person to exercise the 2A even after having said they would do bad things with that gun? To suffer for idiocy is sad, but nature is metal.

What about that?

CDFingers
Image
Image
Nothing's for certain--it could always go wrong.
Come in when it's raining; go on out when it's gone.

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

58
It presents some interesting questions and it will probably end up at SCOTUS, the 2nd Circuit seems to be as predictable as the 9th Circuit when it comes to firearms cases. Getting a license is normally a ministerial function like a drivers license, a marriage license, a medical license, a nursing license... The applicant meets or doesn't meet standard requirements, if checking social media is the new standard for all licenses, then I'm sure there will be challenges to it.

When you travel to another country, they will check your mobile phone and generally social media before you arrive. They have a right to protect their population against terrorists or organized criminals.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

60
CDFingers wrote: Fri Oct 07, 2022 8:12 am At issue, in my opinion, is the consequences of having exercised free speech. If a person posts online in public that they want to do violence to an office holder or other person, they don't want to have to suffer the consequences of having said that. For example, what if that post got them denied for a permit or even a gun? Does the First Amendment protect us from the consequences of our actions? No. It allows us freely to take those actions. Is it appropriate to comb public posts to decide whether to allow a person to exercise the 2A even after having said they would do bad things with that gun? To suffer for idiocy is sad, but nature is metal.

What about that?

CDFingers
And do you suppose the review will be limited to threats of violence? We already have investigations of at least two sheriffs in California using discretion to only issue as political favors or donor rewards. I'm sure a review of social media would be used largely to deny those of opposing views or "incorrect" views. That is the problem with it. It's a subjective review of speech to grant/deny access to a different right. Further, if what was said is criminal, aren't we supposed to get a trial and determination of guilt before losing rights? Seems like that is also part of the package.

I'm sure each and every one of us has typed out something here that, when taken out of context or read by someone looking for a probable cause, would get us denied. Are any of us a threat? Nope. We're discussing the world, blowing off steam and carrying on like friends do.

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

61
Sure, there is always a problem of abuse and corruption. I think that is separate from the issue of social media posts. I believe a team similar to the ones used to determine red flag laws might go a long ways to limit abuse: a team of community, law enforcement, social services, and political appointees might do the trick.

When we look at the social media presence of some of these mass shooters, we can see after the fact that those were red flags. I think it will be tough to oppose some kind of commission in each area about this. Laws can be very specific and very limited if they're written correctly. How can we deny the need? The challenge is in the execution to preserve rights while protecting the public as far as we can. Illegal guns will always exist. This goes to legal guns and legal gun owners doing what is proper and required. Messy job.

CDFingers
Image
Image
Nothing's for certain--it could always go wrong.
Come in when it's raining; go on out when it's gone.

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

62
I agree with featureless, it's a slippery slope examining social media in this subjective political world. Around 69% percent of US adults use Facebook and about 23% use Twitter according to Pew, more people use Youtube and Instagram. Many of us don't use social media, are we excluded from a license?

Among the anti-gun lobby and many legislators, the assumption is that guns are evil and that evilness extends to those who buy them or seek carry licenses. Physicians (MD & DO) have access to lethal drugs, same with nurses and many others in the health care field. The medical profession is much better at burying their mistakes than gun owners. There is an assumption about physicians because of their "Hippocratic Oath" that they only do good, that assumption doesn't exist with other licensees. One physician in the UK is estimated to have killed roughly 460 people between 1971 and 1998, Harold Shipman. He was only caught because he forged a will, otherwise he'd still be killing people. Are there other Harold Shipman's that haven't been caught?
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

64
CDFingers wrote: Fri Oct 07, 2022 9:58 am Sure, there is always a problem of abuse and corruption. I think that is separate from the issue of social media posts. I believe a team similar to the ones used to determine red flag laws might go a long ways to limit abuse: a team of community, law enforcement, social services, and political appointees might do the trick.

When we look at the social media presence of some of these mass shooters, we can see after the fact that those were red flags. I think it will be tough to oppose some kind of commission in each area about this. Laws can be very specific and very limited if they're written correctly. How can we deny the need? The challenge is in the execution to preserve rights while protecting the public as far as we can. Illegal guns will always exist. This goes to legal guns and legal gun owners doing what is proper and required. Messy job.

CDFingers
So the thought police then, eh? :)

We treat everyone who wishes to carry a gun as a latent criminal who must prove their innocence to treat the very rare mass shooting event disease? That ain't a right, brother.

Don't take that to mean we shouldn't be on the look out for mass shooting indicators. Do take it to mean our rights should not be predicated on it. Any of our rights. Due process is still a thing.

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

65
highdesert wrote: Fri Oct 07, 2022 10:57 am I agree with featureless, it's a slippery slope examining social media in this subjective political world. Around 69% percent of US adults use Facebook and about 23% use Twitter according to Pew, more people use Youtube and Instagram. Many of us don't use social media, are we excluded from a license?

Among the anti-gun lobby and many legislators, the assumption is that guns are evil and that evilness extends to those who buy them or seek carry licenses. Physicians (MD & DO) have access to lethal drugs, same with nurses and many others in the health care field. The medical profession is much better at burying their mistakes than gun owners. There is an assumption about physicians because of their "Hippocratic Oath" that they only do good, that assumption doesn't exist with other licensees. One physician in the UK is estimated to have killed roughly 460 people between 1971 and 1998, Harold Shipman. He was only caught because he forged a will, otherwise he'd still be killing people. Are there other Harold Shipman's that haven't been caught?
Only around 200,000 deaths from malpractice per year. Rookie numbers compared to those deadly guns.

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

66
featureless wrote: Fri Oct 07, 2022 1:00 pm So the thought police then, eh? :)

We treat everyone who wishes to carry a gun as a latent criminal who must prove their innocence to treat the very rare mass shooting event disease? That ain't a right, brother.

Don't take that to mean we shouldn't be on the look out for mass shooting indicators. Do take it to mean our rights should not be predicated on it. Any of our rights. Due process is still a thing.
More like the speech police. Folks can think all they want about kicking puppies, but if they say they want to kick a puppy when they're at the shelter, they don't get a puppy. If they demonstrate mal intent in a public space that's stored forever and is searchable, well, that was dumb. Dumb has consequences. I'm not so sure that dumb is something I value in a gun owner. However, being dumb is constitutional. Democracy is a messy business.

CDFingers
Image
Image
Nothing's for certain--it could always go wrong.
Come in when it's raining; go on out when it's gone.

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

67
CDFingers wrote: Fri Oct 07, 2022 1:17 pm
featureless wrote: Fri Oct 07, 2022 1:00 pm So the thought police then, eh? :)

We treat everyone who wishes to carry a gun as a latent criminal who must prove their innocence to treat the very rare mass shooting event disease? That ain't a right, brother.

Don't take that to mean we shouldn't be on the look out for mass shooting indicators. Do take it to mean our rights should not be predicated on it. Any of our rights. Due process is still a thing.
More like the speech police. Folks can think all they want about kicking puppies, but if they say they want to kick a puppy when they're at the shelter, they don't get a puppy. If they demonstrate mal intent in a public space that's stored forever and is searchable, well, that was dumb. Dumb has consequences. I'm not so sure that dumb is something I value in a gun owner. However, being dumb is constitutional. Democracy is a messy business.

CDFingers
Lots of people here have wished death or worse on the orange asshole. Got a red sheriff? Application denied for wishing death on the messiah.

Many people here have stated their views of home defense or discussed self defense scenarios on the street. Got a snowflake gun hatting sheriff? Application denied, guy's way to violent for even thinking about it, much less posting about it.

I understand what you're getting at. I also understand that sort of subjective approval is ripe as a shit covered dill pickle* for abuse. It fails constitutional muster on several grounds

*New favorite term.

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

69
I don't see voters as the driving force for gun control, it's the Democratic Party and the news media that keep hammering away at it. It's a political wedge issue, just like abortion is for Democrats, just like immigration and crime are wedge issues for Republicans. Except the other issues aren't rights protected by a constitutional amendment, they're based on statute law and court decisions.

States can put anything in their state constitutions, like Newsom and Democrats have a constitutional amendment on the November 8th ballot to protect abortion. I'll vote for it but it's all political, Democrats want to be seen as the great protector of abortion to rally voters to vote for them. State constitutions and state statutes can be invalidated by federal courts, though I doubt they'll do it with abortion.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

72
BKinzey wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 4:41 am Yeah.... Nope.

So here on the LGC somebody is in a political discussion and uses the words "aim" and "target" in reference to an individual politician. Now somebody else uses the same words about the same politician in the same manner but they are on a home & garden forum. Who do you think more likely will "Hav sum 'splainin' to do?"
It is true that this topic is a tough nut to crack.

What would be an appropriate mechanism that would prevent a mass shooting if the person talks about it on social media or in an LTTE or even at the supermarket? Should there be such a mechanism?

CDFingers
Image
Image
Nothing's for certain--it could always go wrong.
Come in when it's raining; go on out when it's gone.

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

73
CDFingers wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 9:01 am
BKinzey wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 4:41 am Yeah.... Nope.

So here on the LGC somebody is in a political discussion and uses the words "aim" and "target" in reference to an individual politician. Now somebody else uses the same words about the same politician in the same manner but they are on a home & garden forum. Who do you think more likely will "Hav sum 'splainin' to do?"
It is true that this topic is a tough nut to crack.

What would be an appropriate mechanism that would prevent a mass shooting if the person talks about it on social media or in an LTTE or even at the supermarket? Should there be such a mechanism?

CDFingers
You already brought up red flag laws. Isn't that their purpose?

I'm of the opinion that we've got plenty of laws. Make the existing ones work before adding layers and layers more. I mean red flag laws are specifically to prevent what the social media policy is intended to accomplish, no?

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

74
featureless wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 11:29 am
CDFingers wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 9:01 am
BKinzey wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 4:41 am Yeah.... Nope.

So here on the LGC somebody is in a political discussion and uses the words "aim" and "target" in reference to an individual politician. Now somebody else uses the same words about the same politician in the same manner but they are on a home & garden forum. Who do you think more likely will "Hav sum 'splainin' to do?"
It is true that this topic is a tough nut to crack.

What would be an appropriate mechanism that would prevent a mass shooting if the person talks about it on social media or in an LTTE or even at the supermarket? Should there be such a mechanism?

CDFingers
You already brought up red flag laws. Isn't that their purpose?

I'm of the opinion that we've got plenty of laws. Make the existing ones work before adding layers and layers more. I mean red flag laws are specifically to prevent what the social media policy is intended to accomplish, no?
Agree. Hard to get behind new laws until we see a good effort put on using the existing ones.
Image
Image

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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron