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

3
New York City Mayor Eric Adams, a Democrat, denounced the decision as one not rooted in reality and vowed to work with law enforcement partners to figure out ways to soften the blow.

"We will work together to mitigate the risks this decision will create once it is implemented, as we cannot allow New York to become the Wild West," Adams, a former New York Police Department captain, said in a statement.

He said his office will conduct a review of the state's approach to defining "sensitive locations," where carrying a gun could be banned, as well as its application process, "to ensure that only those who are fully qualified can obtain a carry license."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... -rcna35011

People in NYC and NYS who want the benefits of this decision will have to fight it out in court, elected officials will make it as difficult as possible for them to get licensed and carry throughout the state.

10 years from now I expect people will look back and ask what all the fuss was about, people will have adjusted without a rise in crime. Politicians in "shall issue" states have trusted their residents to follow the law, politicians in "may issue" states don't trust their residents but they do trust millionaires and billionaires enough to give them carry licenses.
"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

4
highdesert wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 8:10 pm
New York City Mayor Eric Adams, a Democrat, denounced the decision as one not rooted in reality and vowed to work with law enforcement partners to figure out ways to soften the blow.

"We will work together to mitigate the risks this decision will create once it is implemented, as we cannot allow New York to become the Wild West," Adams, a former New York Police Department captain, said in a statement.

He said his office will conduct a review of the state's approach to defining "sensitive locations," where carrying a gun could be banned, as well as its application process, "to ensure that only those who are fully qualified can obtain a carry license."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... -rcna35011

People in NYC and NYS who want the benefits of this decision will have to fight it out in court, elected officials will make it as difficult as possible for them to get licensed and carry throughout the state.

10 years from now I expect people will look back and ask what all the fuss was about, people will have adjusted without a rise in crime. Politicians in "shall issue" states have trusted their residents to follow the law, politicians in "may issue" states don't trust their residents but they do trust millionaires and billionaires enough to give them carry licenses.
Disagree. 10 years from now Democrats are going to claim the rise in crime involving firearms we have been experiencing already were caused by this decision. Linearity of time is not an obstacle for them. Based on what I've heard from them today, either they think this decision is related to the Buffalo mass shooting or they just want their followers to believe it. There is no end to the stupidity and utter refusal to even read the decision.

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

5
DispositionMatrix wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 8:41 pm
highdesert wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 8:10 pm
New York City Mayor Eric Adams, a Democrat, denounced the decision as one not rooted in reality and vowed to work with law enforcement partners to figure out ways to soften the blow.

"We will work together to mitigate the risks this decision will create once it is implemented, as we cannot allow New York to become the Wild West," Adams, a former New York Police Department captain, said in a statement.

He said his office will conduct a review of the state's approach to defining "sensitive locations," where carrying a gun could be banned, as well as its application process, "to ensure that only those who are fully qualified can obtain a carry license."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... -rcna35011

People in NYC and NYS who want the benefits of this decision will have to fight it out in court, elected officials will make it as difficult as possible for them to get licensed and carry throughout the state.

10 years from now I expect people will look back and ask what all the fuss was about, people will have adjusted without a rise in crime. Politicians in "shall issue" states have trusted their residents to follow the law, politicians in "may issue" states don't trust their residents but they do trust millionaires and billionaires enough to give them carry licenses.
Disagree. 10 years from now Democrats are going to claim the rise in crime involving firearms we have been experiencing already were caused by this decision. Linearity of time is not an obstacle for them. Based on what I've heard from them today, either they think this decision is related to the Buffalo mass shooting or they just want their followers to believe it. There is no end to the stupidity and utter refusal to even read the decision.
Democrats will always find a reason to criticize the Bruen decision, like they did with the Heller and the McDonald decisions. Democrats blame all violence on guns and Republicans blame it on the breakdown of the "nuclear family", there are always complainers.
"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

6
As a former New Yorker I would anticipate:

* Legislation to define a broad list of prohibited places. Net minus for NY gun owners, as the State has fairly few of these (essentially just schools and Government buildings) currently. It’s a PITA to get a carry license in most of the State but once you have it you can go almost anywhere. Most “pro” States I’ve lived in are far more restrictive in this regard.

* “No guns” signs on private property will appear all over the State (currently very rare) and legislation will give them force of law. Currently they’re no different than the “shirt and shoes required” sign, you’re guilty of trespassing if they ask you to leave and you refuse, which never happens because it’s CONCEALED carry (and few businesses think to post such signs in the first place)

* Kiss your lifetime pistol license goodbye. Renewals will now be mandatory and likely prohibitively expensive.

* Training requirements will be imposed. This may represent no change (my home county had one) or a major change depending on where you currently live.

* It will be shall issue on paper but allow grounds for denial, as some de-facto shall issue States currently do, but certain jurisdictions (cough, NYC, cough) will interpret it very liberally and deny over speeding tickets or similar petty offenses.

Note that none of the above is forbidden by even a generous reading of the SCOTUS ruling. This is a win for folks in NYS jurisdictions that refused to issue unrestricted licenses but a probable downgrade for those who lived in counties that already issued them.

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

9
"In reaction" to NYSRPA v. Bruen, New York "extraordinary session" to be convened to add live-fire training requirement and list of "sensitive areas" where carry can be banned. They also will discuss adding an in-person interview requirement and a default ban on carry at private businesses unless those businesses opt in to allow carry.
NY lawmakers nearing agreement to amend concealed-carry law

sbɐɯ ʎʇıɔɐdɐɔ pɹɐpuɐʇs ɟo ןןnɟ ǝɟɐs
ɯɯ6 bdd ɹǝɥʇןɐʍ
13ʞ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ 1ɐ4ɯ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- ɯoɔos0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ ʇuǝɯǝɔɹoɟuǝ ʍɐן sʇןoɔ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- 0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
(béɟ) 59-pɯɐ

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

10
If the CRPA is to be believed, the California AG's office released personal information on CCW holders in the state before taking the 2022 Firearms Dashboard Portal down this morning.
Attorney General Bonta Releases New Firearms Data to Increase Transparency and Information Sharing
https://archive.ph/LbKEu

My guess is the media won't be foaming at the mouth to report this happened but might get around to it.

California firearm owner data to be made available to "Firearm Violence" researchers at UC Davis

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

12
Massive Trove of Gun Owners’ Private Information Leaked by California Attorney General
https://thereload.com/new-california-ag ... formation/

Fuckery. Thanks, assholes, for leaking my personal information and what I have registered with the state. Only government can be trusted with guns(data).

The only good part is that it allegedly also released the names of all the judges, cops and legislature members. Boy, the donor class is going to be fucking pissed!

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

13
featureless wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 5:40 pm Massive Trove of Gun Owners’ Private Information Leaked by California Attorney General
https://thereload.com/new-california-ag ... formation/

Fuckery. Thanks, assholes, for leaking my personal information and what I have registered with the state. Only government can be trusted with guns(data).

The only good part is that it allegedly also released the names of all the judges, cops and legislature members. Boy, the donor class is going to be fucking pissed!
Criminals will pay good money for the gun owners data, burgle houses and build their arsenals. Law enforcement will protect the judges and the reserve cops, but the rest of us are on our own.
"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

14

highdesert wrote:
featureless wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 5:40 pm Massive Trove of Gun Owners’ Private Information Leaked by California Attorney General
https://thereload.com/new-california-ag ... formation/

Fuckery. Thanks, assholes, for leaking my personal information and what I have registered with the state. Only government can be trusted with guns(data).

The only good part is that it allegedly also released the names of all the judges, cops and legislature members. Boy, the donor class is going to be fucking pissed!
Criminals will pay good money for the gun owners data, burgle houses and build their arsenals. Law enforcement will protect the judges and the reserve cops, but the rest of us are on our own.
The California civilian disarmament lobby will include any associated rise in firearm thefts in statistics they can use to advocate for their cause. There will be no downside to this release of data for the Democratic party in the state.
sbɐɯ ʎʇıɔɐdɐɔ pɹɐpuɐʇs ɟo ןןnɟ ǝɟɐs
ɯɯ6 bdd ɹǝɥʇןɐʍ
13ʞ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ 1ɐ4ɯ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- ɯoɔos0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ ʇuǝɯǝɔɹoɟuǝ ʍɐן sʇןoɔ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- 0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
(béɟ) 59-pɯɐ

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

15
L.A. Times:
Data breach exposes private info of all California concealed-carry permit holders
Calling it a "data breach" is a good way to suggest an intrusion occurred on the system. In reality those who manage the database simply made the information available.
sbɐɯ ʎʇıɔɐdɐɔ pɹɐpuɐʇs ɟo ןןnɟ ǝɟɐs
ɯɯ6 bdd ɹǝɥʇןɐʍ
13ʞ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ 1ɐ4ɯ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- ɯoɔos0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ ʇuǝɯǝɔɹoɟuǝ ʍɐן sʇןoɔ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- 0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
(béɟ) 59-pɯɐ

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

16
DispositionMatrix wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 5:25 am L.A. Times:
Data breach exposes private info of all California concealed-carry permit holders
Calling it a "data breach" is a good way to suggest an intrusion occurred on the system. In reality those who manage the database simply made the information available.
Yeah, the use of the word "breach" is absolute bullshit. It was a feature, not a bug exploit. Lying, ass-covering fuckers, every one of them. Do they ever pause and think "gosh, we're doing to gun owners exactly what red states are doing to women." Nah. It's a good thing no women have ever had need of a gun.

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

17
featureless wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:08 am
DispositionMatrix wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 5:25 am L.A. Times:
Data breach exposes private info of all California concealed-carry permit holders
Calling it a "data breach" is a good way to suggest an intrusion occurred on the system. In reality those who manage the database simply made the information available.
Yeah, the use of the word "breach" is absolute bullshit. It was a feature, not a bug exploit. Lying, ass-covering fuckers, every one of them. Do they ever pause and think "gosh, we're doing to gun owners exactly what red states are doing to women." Nah. It's a good thing no women have ever had need of a gun.

Women don't need guns, they can get restraining orders and the cops will protect them. :sarcasm:

The LA Times used to be a better newspaper, it's slowly degenerating to tabloid level.
"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

18
At this point, I'm hoping SCOTUS will grant cert to Young and just find constitutional carry and no sensitive places. California is so busy fucking with sensitive places and good moral character, you'll only be allowed to legally carry from your house to your car if you're the right kind of rich and white. The proposed sensitive places rules I'm seeing are so strict, nobody can comply with them. Judges wouldn't be able to legally carry to a night out for dinner. That means, people like judges, politicians and LEO won't comply. Will the state charge them? Of course not. So the system will be used and abused to just further fuck law abiding people. Fuck 'em. Bring down the hammer, SCOTUS. If CA can't manage to comply with NYSRPA, kill shall issue permitting and go with constitutional carry. It's a shame, I support training and background checks, but CA just can't be trusted to not fuck it up. Additionally, I'm outraged at CA leaking all of my firearms data connected with my name and address. So you fucking dox me and then restrict sensitive places to make carry useless? Fuck you people.

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

19
featureless wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:56 am At this point, I'm hoping SCOTUS will grant cert to Young and just find constitutional carry and no sensitive places. California is so busy fucking with sensitive places and good moral character, you'll only be allowed to legally carry from your house to your car if you're the right kind of rich and white.
If you are the right kind of rich white folk then you don't have to carry from the house to the car. You have a half dozen goons that do that for you.
To be vintage it must be older than me!
Stories coming to you from Deep South Texas!
The next gun I buy will be the next to last gun I ever buy. PROMISE!

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

20
New York Concealed Carry Improvement Act bill:
https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/defau ... T-BILL.pdf

Page 5:
Section ii requires 4 references to establish "good moral character."
Section iv requires the applicant to submit a list of social media accounts from the past 3 years.
Section v allows the officer to require "other information" deemed "reasonably necessary."

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

23
I want to be able to drive across the country while openly carrying any gun I want loaded next to me as it should be without every f'ing city, county or state f'ing with me!
Constitutional carry everywhere!
Why?
Because its the constitution of the UNITED STATES. Not the constitution of the cities or counties to edit at will.
My Name is Ernesto Inigo Juan Montoya and I approve this message.

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

24
As far as the current behavior of New York and California to the NYSRPA ruling, they are acting no different than Trump losing the election. A tirade of throwing your dinner at the wall in a juvenile fit and seeing what sticks. Neither Trump nor the Dems in New York or California seem to give a shit about the constitution or the people they will endanger along the way. I really wish I could help them see that. Further, they are behaving precisely the way the red curtain states do toward access to abortion--lets do everything we can to fuck over (fill in the blank group) because we don't believe what they believe. Rights are not based on belief. Really, they should be fucking ashamed of their behavior.

Who is online

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

cron