Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS
51Letter allegedly sent to a concealed carry applicant in Nassau County:
Good catch!
https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/06/politics ... index.htmlA 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.
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.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
So the thought police then, eh?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
Only around 200,000 deaths from malpractice per year. Rookie numbers compared to those deadly guns.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?
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.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.
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.CDFingers wrote: Fri Oct 07, 2022 1:17 pmMore 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.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.
CDFingers
It is true that this topic is a tough nut to crack.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?"
You already brought up red flag laws. Isn't that their purpose?CDFingers wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 9:01 amIt is true that this topic is a tough nut to crack.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?"
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
Agree. Hard to get behind new laws until we see a good effort put on using the existing ones.featureless wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 11:29 amYou already brought up red flag laws. Isn't that their purpose?CDFingers wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 9:01 amIt is true that this topic is a tough nut to crack.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?"
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
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?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests